It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by gimme_some_truth
What I do in my own time, is my own business... As long as it is legal, I don't think they should have the right to do this....I wonder, does this count as discrimination? it sure seems like it. Not hiring some one because of a legal activity they participate in? Come on.... how is that even legal?
It actually involves both legal and ethical issues.
Originally posted by juniperberry
Originally posted by gimme_some_truth
What I do in my own time, is my own business... As long as it is legal, I don't think they should have the right to do this....I wonder, does this count as discrimination? it sure seems like it. Not hiring some one because of a legal activity they participate in? Come on.... how is that even legal?
I suspect that it doesn't have anything to do with what is legal, but about what is ethical. Two entirely different creatures.
Originally posted by haarvik
reply to post by Arbitrageur
That's not what I am saying at all. What I am saying is I think the foods we eat play a more prominent role in these diseases that what smoking on it's own does. There are too many people who smoke with no adverse effects from it than people who have diseases that are supposedly connected with smoking and do not smoke.
A fact: Prior to 1930 the USA had only 3,000 deaths annually attributed to CHD. Most of the people in that era smoked, and smoked without filters. By 1950, that number increased to nearly 500,000. The difference? Processed food was introduced to the population during the 1930's. Nutrition is the key to health, not smoking, drinking, etc.
That's false. It would be true if smokers didn't statistically incur higher medical costs than non-smokers, but they do. If your employer provides life insurance like mine, smoking affects the cost of that also.
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
My smoking hurts no one but myself.
Originally posted by navy_vet_stg3
That's false. It would be true if smokers didn't statistically incur higher medical costs than non-smokers, but they do. If your employer provides life insurance like mine, smoking affects the cost of that also.
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
My smoking hurts no one but myself.
You didn't tag that quote correctly, you're missing an open quote tag which makes it look like I said something I didn't say. Please recheck the source and edit to fix, or message me if you don't know how to fix it (hopefully there's still time to edit).
Originally posted by navy_vet_stg3
That's false. It would be true if smokers didn't statistically incur higher medical costs than non-smokers, but they do. If your employer provides life insurance like mine, smoking affects the cost of that also.
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
My smoking hurts no one but myself.
askjan.org...
Originally posted by gnosticquasar
I'm thinking that addictions are classified as some kind of disability these days, so I'm thinking that somebody could make a case for discrimination.
They discuss addiction to illegal drugs, but not addiction to legal drugs like nicotine.
persons addicted to drugs, but who are no longer using drugs illegally and are receiving treatment for drug addiction or who have been rehabilitated successfully, are protected by the ADA from discrimination on the basis of past drug addiction (EEOC, 1992).
That's right. But that's legal.
Also, it's a legal substance that doesn't really dangerously impair one's job performance like alcohol does, so this is a pretty clear case of invasion of privacy.