I use nicotine gum, and I am not a former or current tobacco user. My mother is a nurse oncologist, and not a day of my childhood went by where I didn't hear a horror story about someone dying a horrifically painful death due to cancer from using tobacco. I cannot and will not defend smokers. But someone like me who uses nicotine gum as a caffeine alternative - what's wrong with that? If I were an employer, I would go balls out and cover your health insurance based upon a sliding scale of every measurable metric under the sun: Body Fat %, cholesterol levels, resting heart rate, residual levels of ALL controlled substances, etc...but I would never fire or refuse to hire someone because of it.
"YOU ARE A TERRIBLE PERSON, I HOPE YOU DIE OF MOUTH AIDS, and you aren't very smart either. To Think Jesus gave his life for idiots like you. Just Why, why not sleep more or do more interesting things? WHY WHY WHY?"-zzr
Here's my $.05. (Inflation is a bitch, huh?) My wife works at a local hospital. They encouraged all the employees to quit smoking for the past couple years, provided classes and what-not for it. There was announced a cut off date of when you could no longer smoke anywhere on hospital grounds, even in your own car. Sure, some diehards will actually drive off the grounds to smoke, but it's made a lot of people quit smoking, too. The reason for it is not just the savings in health insurance costs, it's also for the benefit of the patients: If you are a non-smoking patient in a hospital, stuck in a bed, not feeling well, do you want the person taking care of you to reek of cigarettes? No. If you are a smoking patient in a hospital, stuck in a bed, not feeling well, do you want the person taking care of you to reek of cigarettes so that all you can think about is how bad you want one, too? No. I'm originally from SoCal where it seems hardly anyone smokes, and out here in New England, holy shit: It seems like half the population smokes like chimneys. I've been an inpatient after my knee surgeries, and I hated it when the person coming in to draw blood or hang a new bag of saline stunk up my room. Hospitals are supposed to be (please notice I said "supposed to be", not "are") clean, healthy environments. Yes, there are a LOT of people at my wife's hospital that are morbidly obese and not even close to healthy, but there are also lots of smokers (and surprise, surprise, for the most part, those circles greatly overlap). You can't bias against fat, but if there is an unhealthy lifestyle choice that goes against the whole purpose of the place, sure, don't hire the person.
Does anyone in modern society pick up smoking unaware of its risks? I feel like it's something that anyone today (myself included) does in spite of the risks, not in ignorance of them. No one picks up their first cigarette thinking, "Well here begins a path of good life decisions!"
I work for a healthcare organization that owns and operates over 300 healthcare facilities and employs over 75,000 people. Many of our hospitals/facilities specialize in caring for patients with chronic pulmonary or respiratory issues. This year, every campus in our system has been mandated to become 100% tobacco-free. If you want to smoke a cigarette, you must leave the campus entirely - that includes employees, patients, and family members. It was mentioned in several other posts, but the cost of providing healthcare benefits is substantially more expensive for smokers over the long run. While we do not prohibit smokers from working at our company, we DO enforce a penalty to any employee that smokes who chooses to participate in our benefit plan that does not enroll in a company-sponsored smoking cessation plan. The broader concern for us as a company is the image. How can we dutifully provide and promote a pulmonary product/service in an environment where our nurses, doctors, and employees disregard the effects of smoking/tobacco? I imagine this is part of Baylor's M.O. as well, and can guarantee you that these types of enforcements are going to become more and more popular in years to come. (I was a smoker for years, and still have the occasional cig, so don't get the impression that I am on some major anti-tobacco campaign here)
If companies really wanted to save money on insurance costs they'd cut the health insurance from anyone over 45.
If companies really wanted to save money on insurance costs they'd just kill all their current and former employees at 55.
I didn't cite any statistics at all. I just made an observation. No, I pointed out smoking because that's the topic of this thread. Start another thread about driving too fast or vegetarians if you think it's worth it. You made a conscious decision at an earlier age to start smoking. The dangers of smoking were well-known when you started. It's not as if nobody ever told you it was bad for you. You made a poor decision even though you knew 100% that smoking was harmful. You have tried to quit 3 times before. You lack the self-control necessary to do something for your own benefit. You're proving my points here son. Struck a nerve, huh? I did state in my first post that some people would be offended. I actually don't give a damn who smokes or doesn't, as long as it's not one of my kids. There are plenty of dumb people who don't smoke, and if you'll read my post again you'll see that I stated they did it for the money. Are you defending smoking as a beneficial habit? You seemed to imply that you actually agree that it's bad for you. You also misspelled "Elisabeth."
I am going to go out on a limb and say the "smokers aren't as bright" comment is what's irking them. I mean if you produced some statistics that showed that poor uneducated people are the biggest consumers of cigarettes you might have a case. Calling people dumb for knowingly making bad decisions isn't going to do it.
Because you're making a fucking stupid comparison, and it's hard to even know how to discuss something like that. If someone tells me that gravity doesn't make us stick to the ground, and it's actually a thousand tiny angels holding onto our feet, I'm not going to formulate a complex and well-reasoned argument. I'm going to make fun of them. You've equated everyone who shares this single poor decision with universally being people who make poor decisions in every aspect of their life, because all of those people are of lesser intelligence. Thus, I hold you to be a moron, and dumb pictures are all you deserve. I am not a smoker, and actually abhor smoking, but I am not so dim as to believe that all smokers must be poor decision makers or of below average intelligence. Some of them, sure, but there are plenty of non-smokers who fit that mold as well. Frankly, I don't think it's a bad decision by the company. They are going to save money doing this - it's been well documented (as posted earlier) that smokers cost money in productivity, and that's not even including whatever massive discount they're going to get from their insurance provider.
I'm a tobacco user (dip not smoking). I think that the company has the right to hire whomever they please, based on whatever criteria. Some people have made the leap from smoking to voluntary childlessness (which I am an advocate for). I just think it would be interesting to see the reaction if someone would not hire those with children for the same reason as the smoking (healthcare costs) I would wager that the reaction would much more outrage than with the smoking. What if someone passed a bill that would cut medicaid for those who smoked? Or who are obese? Or who use illegal drugs? Or have a more than average amount of children? Or practice unsafe sex? Here's an article that concluded that those below the poverty line are more likely to smoke, and less likely to quit. <a class="postlink" href="http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/6/1/14.abstract" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/6/1/14.abstract</a> I'm not suggesting that this happen nor am I making a statement against government funded health care. I'm just wondering what the reaction would be if the steps were taken.
Yes, the picture was stupid. But I figured, since you are going to make irrational statements based on personal anecdotal evidence of people that YOU think are stupid, I will show you the respect that I think you deserve. I have some anecdotal evidence of my own. This is my uncle.http://www.grc.nia.nih.gov/branches/lpc/costa.htm This is what he is known for. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revised_NEO_Personality_Inventory The CV isn't completely up to date. But I think you will get the point. His name was listed as a contributing author in every single psychology textbook I ever had. He was also a smoker for many years. He knew it was bad for him, yet he did it anyway. I don't know anyone that would call him stupid, except for you. People have many reasons for doing things, probably beyond your understanding. Not everyone can deal with stress the same way someone else does. My cousin Nina, his daughter, was diagnosed with MS at a young age and as you can imagine, provided a great deal of stress on her and the family. My aunt Karol, his wife, had breast cancer a couple decades ago, which has recently come back. Maybe you have never experienced stressful times. You sound like you don't. Some people exercise and some people eat. Some people smoke. The point is, don't pretend to know anything about anyone. Or flippantly call them stupid.
Incidentally, it's fairly well documented that kids who scored highly on IQ tests are more likely than average to try drugs later in life. I think Scientific American had a recent podcast on it but it's not the first time that has been seen/documented. It could be easily argued that trying drugs falls into a similar category with smoking - no health benefits, multiple risks. Yet the study shows a clear correlation between the smarter people and an increased likelihood to try drugs.
You know that feeling you get when you walk into Wal-Mart and think "I'm surrounded by worthless morons?" Smart people live with that feeling all the time. They'd inject turpentine if they thought it'd get that feeling to go away for an hour.
That further strengthens my belief that being dumb is like being high all the time. I mean, how else can you explain why they laugh at shows like Three and a Half Men?
Conversation I had with one of my buddies a little while back: Buddy: Frank, you're drinking way too fast man. Frank: I need to dumb myself down to your level so I don't get bored with the conversation. Buddy: I'm not even drinking. Frank: That's why I only brought a twelve pack. Luckily he just assumed I was joking.