Why are "smokers" getting a bad rap?
By w1z111
@w1z111 (985)
United States
March 7, 2007 3:53pm CST
It seems like the government hype and tobacco industry exposures and the resulting media floods have put "smokers" into a class all by themselves; and it doesn't look like a very pretty place to be.
Seems like smokers are being unfairly discriminated against for choices they are completely entitled to make.
Granted, we now understand a little more about "second-hand-smoke" (though who knows how bad it really is!?), so I guess smokers need to respect that. But, other than that, smokers are losing their 'right-to-choose' slow but sure.
Should this be?
-Should companies be allowed to refuse to hire someone who smokes?
-Should smokers have recourse for compensation from the tobacco industry?
What are your thoughts?
10 people like this
12 responses
@naty1941 (2336)
• United States
7 Mar 07
I used to smoke and I didn't mind going outside to smoke on my break. It gave me a chance to develop some smoker friends that did not work in my department. So overall it was a socializing experience for me. I don't believe that a company can be allowed to refuse to hire someone who smokes.
2 people like this
@w1z111 (985)
• United States
7 Mar 07
Thanks for the feedback. Sounds like my own story. I also once smoked, and handled it much the same way, as companies are now 'forced' to separate smokers from non-smokers. Our company actually 'banned' smoking anywhere on the property (though it was not well enforced).
Re: companies refusing to hire smokers...I have not seen any real 'proof' of this, but I've heard of it happening, and also heard that the courts have supported it.
Thx again!
2 people like this
@fatragu (677)
• United States
8 Mar 07
I agree with you. I don't think that a place should be able to not hire or fire someone just because they smoke. There is a place in Omaha, NE that when you are in your interview you are asked if you smoke and then you have to sign a statement saying that as long as you work for them you won't smoke because the have deal with their insurance agency and are able to offer such low prices because there are no smokers on the policy. They also tell you that if they see you outside your house smoking then they will fire you because you signed a paper saying you wouldn't smoke anymore. Personally I think it is crap.
@ukchriss (2097)
•
7 Mar 07
As a Smoker you have the right, to do as you please, smoke all day every day, get cancer and die from it, if that's what you want.
But you DO NOT have the right to mess up everyone else's air and give them cancer or any other smoking related disease.
@w1z111 (985)
• United States
8 Mar 07
I think I have to agree with you here.
However, I'm also very interested in "equality of jurisprudence"...i.e., by the same principle you've laid out, I believe any and all products that contain known toxins ("giving people cancer", etc.) should be treated with equal fervor for protecting the innocents who are on the receiving end....but that is not happening. We all know by now that our water, air, foods, cosmetics, EMF's, radio waves, etc.,etc.,etc. are 'poisoning' us, yet little or nothing is done to eliminate or better control exposures.
"Why should I have to be 'exposed' to all these that I have not "chosen" to be exposed to? Same argument as the smoking dilemma. There probably isn't a good answer though.
Thanks for your post.
2 people like this
@lingli_78 (12822)
• Australia
8 Mar 07
i'm sorry but i might be one of the people who do not like smokers... i just can't stand the smell of it and it can make me cough very badly if i smell the smoke... but that doesn't mean that i discriminate them... i still be friend with them... it's just that when they smoke, i stay away from them...
1 person likes this
@Thoroughrob (11742)
• United States
8 Mar 07
I do agree with you. It is ok they want us separated. We do have a couple factories here, Scott's Fertilizer is one, that gave everyone a date that they had to quit smoking by. If they did not they would no longer have a job. They have no right telling what you can do after you get off work. It is not illegal and that is going too far.
1 person likes this
@Italianprincess1976 (263)
• United States
8 Mar 07
I would love to know why people seem to think it's okay to bash someone for something that is a choice they made, but is something that is so hard to quit. And people comparing smoking to being overweight. I am both. Yes I made the choice to start smoking, but I've been in the battle to quit for almost as long as I've been smoking. When I stop smoking my weight goes up. I know smoking is not good for you, just as being overweight is not good for you. I don't understand why nonsmokers think they have the right to belittle people based on an addiction. Why don't we bash people with substance abuse issues while we are at it. There were alot of good points raised in this discussion, and I respect other people's points of view. What I can't stand is people that think it's okay to put someone down for choices they make in their own lives.
@w1z111 (985)
• United States
8 Mar 07
Good points!
Thanks for the input/feedback.
I, too, once smoked, so I fully comprehend your situation. I only stopped 6 months ago when I was hospitalized for several days. I realized I could not do it in the hospital, so I sorta 'bit the bullet'. It was not as hard as I thought it might be, though there are times still when I think I'd like it again...I only hope I can hold out!
I agree some of our society seems to show blatant disrespect for people who choose to smoke, and I agree that should not be so, unless the smokers are 'blowing smoke in their faces'!
I also feel employers should not be able to discriminate against smokers, but that appears to be happening too.
Many say they don't like to have to pay higher healthcare premiums they feel are due to smokers' choices. That principle doesn't really hold much water, as one could make the same argument for so many other things too.
Anyway...thx again for the response.
@ondrea (20)
• United States
8 Mar 07
I'm an ex-smoker as well. I think it's a little extreme to ban smoking on the property all together! It's also not a smart tactic because its only going to cause a longer "break" time for the employee to walk off the property because thats exactly what I would have done put in that situation. The only reason I can think of that a company would not want to hire a smoker is because they take ALOT more "breaks" then a non-smokers.
@w1z111 (985)
• United States
9 Mar 07
Absolutely right!
That's what happens. Little by little, corporations are sending the message that says "if you smoke, we don't want you". Already, companies are 'getting away with' refusing to hire smokers in the US. Also, the WHO (World Health Organization) has announced it will no longer hire smokers to work for them.
I do thank you for the post.
@w1z111 (985)
• United States
8 Mar 07
Thanks for the feedback!
I also smoked, though I've stopped at the present time (for almost 6 months now).
I do miss some things related to smoking, of course. But I must say I feel quite a bit better about myself (even though I haven't yet noticed too much physical benefits...working on that tho!).
I just never liked it that smokers seem to have become sort of '2nd rate citizens' in the eyes of some folks, including many of our policy makers unfortunately.
Good luck & hang in there.
@misty2000 (7)
•
8 Mar 07
Here in New Zealand it's only been a year or so since companies, businesses, restaurants, etc. had to provide separate smoking areas for customers. Even at workplaces smokers are segregated. All for the better, I say.
It's been the non-smokers who have been discriminated against for years. How many times have you (the non-smoker) been in company and a smoker has "lit up" and blown smoke in your face inconsiderately? Or, you've gone out for a nice relaxing meal and you end up taking in passive smoke from the next table? Complaints usually fell on deaf ears as I recall.
One of the problems at my workplace is that smokers frequently nip outside for a smoke. This is very unproductive - you don't see the non-smokers frequently nipping outside to waste time. Although you can't refuse to hire someone who smokes, I would prefer working with someone more reliable on the job. A solution, though, would be to ban smoking on site.
These are just a few of my thoughts on the matter.
Bob
@w1z111 (985)
• United States
10 Mar 07
I agree that non-smokers have been 'disrespected' by many smokers in the past. And, I agree smokers need to respect the concerns of non-smokers. And, I even agree that smoking in general is not a 'healthy' choice, nor even a 'pretty' choice.
Perhaps NZ is a few steps behind USA in the drive toward a 'smoke-free-society'...but it is coming.
Good luck and thanks for the posts.
@kurtbiewald (2625)
• United States
8 Mar 07
I think some places should be labeled as smoking and others non smoking.
I really do believe in people's right to make their own choices. Second hand smoke DOES mess with other people though.
Also, keep in mind 1/3 of people who smoke die from it.
@w1z111 (985)
• United States
9 Mar 07
Agreed!
I think people who smoke need to respect ALL others around them when they decide to light up, but I also think our courts are going a bit overboard with how they're treating it and letting it become such an allegedly 'ugly-and-unwanted' personal choice.
Thanks for the post.