I have to be careful here. I’m not condoning or encouraging people to smoke, but I continue to be frustrated by the legal discrimination, and intentional entrapment regarding the use of a legal American product: cigarettes.
Yes, the residuals can be unpleasant for the non-smoker in close proximity, but as I’ve always said, if cigarettes kill people, then (like asbestos) the federal government should do the moral thing and ban the product. But that will never happen because the very politicians who craft local, state, and federal legislation to hassle smokers, rely on the taxes they attach to the sales of the product as revenue.
Now what would you call a person who makes money off an activity that is known to be immoral and harmful to others? “Pimp” comes to mind, right off.
Smoking not only can make one a social pariah, but can get you canned.
According to the Associated Press,
A Whirlpool Corp. factory in Evansville, Ind., has suspended 39 workers who signed insurance paperwork claiming they don’t use tobacco and then were seen smoking or chewing tobacco on company property. Now, some could be fired for lying, company spokeswoman Debby Castrale said.
As annual health care premiums rise more than 10 percent a year, many companies are trying to rein in costs by encouraging healthy living.
Granted, the employees shouldn’t have lied regarding their smoker’s status. Then again, there is a chance they’d be denied health coverage should they have told the truth. Considering we all do risky things on a daily basis, is this fair?
If smoking is such a health hazard that Whirlpool felt the need to inquire about the personal habits of their employees, then maybe they should ask them questions like do they drink and drive? Many do. We know it’s not a good thing to do, and unlike tobacco, a drunk behind the wheel can kill the innocent occupants of another vehicle instantly.
I’ll be willing to bet that question is not on the Whirlpool insurance paperwork.
Does Whirlpool ask its employees to answer truthfully, under penalty of termination, if they use power tools? Fingers and limbs are lopped off every day in this country, and someone else has to pay for their emergency care and possible rehabilitation. Does Whirlpool ask its employees if they eat blowfish? Should there be dietary requirements for obtaining health insurance, and should we deny people who eat tangy, gooey, barbecued spareribs?
It’s trendy to pick on smokers. Watching them standing out in the elements gives non-smokers people they can point their judgmental fingers at. But the question remains: if cigarettes kill the smoker (and those around them), why hasn’t the government banned them.
By the way…
The world’s leading health organization has withheld from publication a study which shows that not only might there be no link between passive smoking and lung cancer but that it could have even a protective effect.
– The Telegraph, March 8, 1998
Just had to throw that in for the Secondhand Smoke Nazis.
Insurance companies have the ability to deny potential customers on the basis of their prior histories. That can’t happen that often, as they’d lose a whole lot of monthly premiums. However picking on smokers, for some, is a blood sport.
Even though every person who smokes doesn’t get related illnesses, smokers are an easy target. So again, I dare our compassionate politicians to do the right thing. Don’t be pansies like fiscally irresponsible state legislatures and raise cigarette taxes in order to alter behavior (and raise revenue).
It’s an election year. Ban cigarettes for the evil, deadly product it is. If they don’t have the guts to do so, then they, corporations like Whirlpool, and insurance companies should get up off the backs of those who pay a disproportionate amount of taxes to pay for their habits.
I’m done. The smoking lamp is lit.
The smoking lamp is lit.
*twitch* one of the sweetest phrases from the Navy….and I don’t even smoke.
It got the folks who were naturally jerks out of the office for ten.
Smokers can get health insurance; it just costs more. As well it should. To say that smokers, on average, don’t cost the health care system more than non-smokers, is naive at best. And if a company finds that their employees are lying in order to receive lower rates, they have every right to fire them, just as much as if they lie on other portions of paperwork.
Smoking is different that working with power tools or eating blowfish. Unlike those two examples, smoking is a long-term thing, often with long-term, chronic effects. Getting treated for a hand injury or food poisoning is a lot different than living with cancer, heart disease, or other types of ailments that usually lead to death in a long, drawn-out manner.
It certainly would be some kind of nice utopia if cigarettes were banned and no one ever broke that law, especially otherwise law-abiding moms and dads … but the way it is today, people have a choice. They can smoke and pay through the nose for it, or they can not smoke. No one’s forcing anyone to smoke, and these days, people are familiar enough with the consequences that if you choose to do it anyway, too bad for you. The inforamtion is there, and I suppose not many people feel too sorry for those who receive that information and then choose to smoke anyway.
I once worked for a company that gave employees a free ride on their bi-weekly $10 paycheck deduction if they didn’t smoke. There was no additional savings for covered dependents that did or did not smoke. The $10 was insignificant to the total cost of providing health care insurance and was a small reward to non-smokers. It probably costs far more in lost productivity for the many hours salaried employees spend outside getting their fix unless they are also networking for the benefit of the company with the other smokers also on “break” or catching up on e-mail with their blackberries, etc.
Actual insurance actually costs less for pension funds and more for non smokers, based on a recent study. The reason, smokers live shorter lives so will claim less pension, but non smokers tend to catch debilitating diseases later in life, and cost more also on health care. Not the sort of facts of course the anti smoking lobby want you to hear.
life long never smoker