Smokers Need Not Apply

Smokers Need Not Apply

boston.cbslocal.com

NEWBURYPORT (CBS) — If you smoke, don’t bother applying for a job at Anna Jaques Hospital in Newburyport.

The hospital is requiring job applicants to take nicotine tests. If they test positive, they’ll be rejected. If they quit smoking, they can try again six months later.

“How far do we want our private employers to intrude in our private lives?” asks employee rights attorney Philip Gordon. “What happens if, during that blood test, they find out something else about me?”

(visit the link for the full news article)

I don't know about anyone else but to me, federal anti-discrimination laws should apply to this hospital for this practice.

Taking a nicotine test for applicants goes beyond invasion of privacy. Smoking cigarettes is a personal decision. I know there'll be people where to argue my point, if they have any interest in this, but in a society where there's a push to legalize marijuana and in some instances, coc aine, this hospital is violating the rights of Americans who may chew or dip.

Smokers abide with the banning of cigarette smoking in public places. They abide with the rules imposed on them at their jobs. Can we really abide with the testing of nicotine, a drug that is legal, for the qualification of a job?

I can understand no smoking in public places or even on the job, but when a person gets home or they're driving in their personal vehicle and decides to partake in something that is legal this is the final straw.

boston.cbslocal.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

Originally posted by Intelearthling
Taking a nicotine test for applicants goes beyond invasion of privacy.

It's an employers market, they can discriminate away and you just gotta lump it.

- Little note, keep an eye out for discrimination, we still have rights, sort of.

I completely agree, this is utter discrimination. Furthermore, how would they know who tests positive for nicotine actually smokes? They don't know that Joe might actually use smokeless tobacco, or that maybe Jane uses electronic cigarettes.
This is a horrible, horrible policy. What's next, testing daily for alcohol use?

reply to post by Intelearthling


There is a small company here in Georgia, called Harry's Farmer Market (about 4 or 5 large grocery store sized business fronts) that has had this policy since the early nineties. I applied there, as a younger man, and was told that if I smoked I would have to take a smoking cessation course, at my own expense, and provide proof I had done so, just to be hired... AND if I were seen smoking ANYWHERE, at ANY TIME, I would be terminated instantly.

Needless to say, I told Harry to shove his job and went to work elsewhere.

But, even then, when I tried to pursue a complaint about this policy to various government agencies, I was told, over and over again, that private businesses have the prerogative to do this as long as they don't violate the specific categories covered under civil rights laws.

It's a bunch of fascist BS if you ask me, but such is the world.

~Heff

reply to post by Now_Then


I propose additional testing for employment. We cannot afford to hire employees who will cost us in insurance premiums.

Besides nicotine we must also test body weight, cholesterol, blood pressure, HIV, Blood sugar, genetic history of disease, and not hire anyone over 30 without a special waver of health coverage. Also, no motorcycle riding or doing any activity which could be considered "risky" or face termination.


This is the conclusion when you start limiting employment based on legal activities and justification due to health care costs.

This is a step too far.

I'm not a smoker ( I used to occasionally smoke in previous years ), but as far I'm aware, smoking nicotine is still legal.

Nicotine isn't a major mind-altering substance, so there isn't really any problem with someone turning up for work ''under the influence'' of nicotine.

By all means, operate a business with a strict no-smoking policy in the workplace, but discriminating against people for smoking in their off-time seems like a complete breach of someone's personal freedom.


I'm not a fan of the ''slippery slope'' argument, but this does certainly raise a few alarm bells for other potential legal discrimination that could be taken against someone's personal habits.

What about an employer who prohibits coffee or tea drinkers from working for them ( probably about 80% of the population ) ? Or maybe not allowing people who use paracetamol or anti-depressants to work for them ?

Smoking cigarettes is far from a personal decision. The tobacco that we smoke (I unfortunately am a smoker) is far removed from its unmodified counterpart. It has been genetically modified to be more addictive. Its now being laced with sugar - to make it more addictive. I personally have accomplished lots of great things in my life. Things I never believed I could do. But I can not quit smoking to save my life. It's the hardest thing I've ever tried and failed to do. I am extremely protective of my civil liberties, and I don't believe prohibition of any drug\substance will ever work (violates the law of supply and demand) but I can honestly say I am not sad to see this. I wish my boss would tell us we all had to quit smoking cigarettes. USMC boot camp is the only time in Ive quit smoking since I started and that was only for 3 months. The military was starting to crack down on it though right before I got out in 07. Cigarettes are just one more tool of control TPTB use against us. The tobacco industry is HUGE. They definitely hold sway over US politics. It's not a personal choice when its a chemical addiction-APPROVED BY THE FDA!!! Its madness!! I Can't Quit. My choice is to quit and I cannot. Maybe thats one choice I'll let someone else make for me.

reply to post by infolurker


I hope you're being sarcastic about this. Besides HIV positve discrimination, although contracted by risky behavior, is a civil rights violation.

I know plenty of ex-smokers that use the new electronic "nicotine delivery system", as they call it, and this policy would eliminate them as candidates for employment.

While the inhalation of cigarette smoke is the major contributor in lung and heart disease, nicotine has shown to increase blood flow to vital areas in the brain which deals with problem solving and creativity. I saw this on a "20/20" type show several years ago.

Here's some interesting reading. www.scienceagogo.com..." target="_blank" class="postlink">Nicotine Helps Improve Memory And Helps Brain Repair Itself

Then again, given the facts about the benefits of nicotine and brain function, along with the governments push to "dumb down" the population, there may be a push to make this chemical illegal altogether.

The problem is, insurance companies are going to LOVE this stuff, if they think they can then get a workforce that is basically prescreened - to be healthy enough to work - and on top of THAT get a pool of people to ensure that doesn't smoke.

I don't like it. They maybe can do whatever they do, but I don't like it, and I don't like them FOR IT.

I've known a lot of smokers that were tremendous workers.

reply to post by ZeroReady
too few realize the sugar component.

tuoche',someone who is actually awake.......

reply to post by Intelearthling


Steroids have been shown to increase muscle growth and athletic performance too.

Insurance CORPORATIONS are a really HUGE part of the problem with this here economy that is causing us so much JOY here and now.

Everybody would love to profit from nothing,yes?.

Go figure..........?.

I don't smoke cigarettes but I know I get my fair share of second hand smoke from my buddies. Could that be enough to make one test positive for nicotine, would that be a valid excuse for failing the test? Kind of an absurd excuse not to hire someone.

You are requesting employment with them right....

So you need to meet or exceed their standards. If you do not meet those standards then why should they hire you? Why would any money making company take on a money drain? You as a smoker are a money drain to them in terms of insurance. I would not hire you.

The employer has just as much right to hire you as he he/she does to not hire you depending on your knowledge, but if you are a risk to the company (regardless of the risk) then why would any company hire you? You must be able to prove that the risk of hiring you over some one else will over come the risk of not hiring some one else(i.e a non-smoker).

If you owned a company would you hire a person that cost you more than that person was worth? I.E if he /she made 25.00 dollars per hour would you hire him or her if it cost you 35.00 dollars per hour to employ him or her?

This is just more fascist control.
The insurance corporations dictating what is allowed behavior.
Corporations dictating= fscism
The idea that insurance companies should be allowed this kind of seeping power will lead to a lot of other legislation supporting similar things.
The govt insurance corp of BC writes the traffic laws now...they make the laws so they can make more profits with less risk to themselves.
The car seat laws for kids, .05 % alchohol levels...for drunk driving...speeding laws allow confiscation of the vehicle for 20 km over the speed limit etc etc...
Anyone can get going 20 over on BC hills.....the freeway does that as a rule....
If the cops wanted to they could pretty much just flag the whole damn rush hour over on the freeway and confiscate the lot!

reply to post by mileysubet


African Americans have the highest cancer rates of any ethnicity in the U.S. would you not hire an African American because of possible insurance liability?

I'll answer, no because that is discrimination, it's illegal and you would be sued into the ground.


I know being a certain race is not a choice while smoking is, but it's irrelevant by definition.

It is discrimination.

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
Nicotine isn't a major mind-altering substance, so there isn't really any problem with someone turning up for work ''under the influence'' of nicotine.

The problem is that nicotine likely interferes with other chemicals in food and water, so they don't have the desired effect on individuals.

There is obviously a reason why those at the top are trying everything to manipulate people into giving up smoking, and it's not because they care about you. Given they want to reduce the world's population it's obvious something is going on here.

I can confirm second hand that being a smoker is detrimental to your career.

A friend of mine has been told point blank that her smoking has given her a poor image within the company she works for.

While it is fine for employees to leave and have coffee together at multiple times during the work day, taking two breaks with two other smokers gives the impression of laziness. You can use company time to go to the gym, but take legislatively guarenteed break time and it comes with big brother attachment.

White collar slaves, pretty much the pinacle of our current society. Keep costs down, keep the slaves healthy but pay them less, so they can work longer healthier years for less money. I can't understand that people either can't see this or see it and shrugs.

Let the alcoholics drink at work too!! Whooo!


But really. The heroin addicts too.