Is cigarette smoking a Civil Right?

[snopes]

quote:Originally posted by Goodpasture

There is a good chance that if health care does not become universal, in companies that offer health insurance, a cost reduction analysis will show that people who are obese, that smoke, or who practice unhealthy or dangerous "off campus" activities will be terminated. After all, if health care is to be profitable, we can't have people actually using it. What is going to be fun is if we take this to absurdity. I can see it now "Jim, you live in Owasso and the statistics show that the commute is excessive and may create stress related problems so you are going to have to move to Broken Arrow."

Great point Goodpasture.

[Trams]

There is simply no fundamental right to smoke ... particularly in the workplace.  

Many smokers take egregiously long smoke-breaks, detracting substantially from their work output.  They huddle at the base of various buildings, in "designated" smoking areas, seeking solace in their cancer sticks, in their addictions.  Non-smokers must dare to pass through their wall of smoke.  

So, no, no wrongful termination claim should be allowed.  The same outcome would hold for an employee who takes a 30 minute, mid-day "eating" break ... or a 30 minute "socializing" break.  Persons may be addicted to food, or to socializing, but that doesn't detract from the negative effect on performance, nor on the employer's right to terminate.    

I'm just not sure how such a claim be reasonably justified.

[Steve]

quote:Originally posted by snopes

quote:Originally posted by Goodpasture

There is a good chance that if health care does not become universal, in companies that offer health insurance, a cost reduction analysis will show that people who are obese, that smoke, or who practice unhealthy or dangerous "off campus" activities will be terminated. After all, if health care is to be profitable, we can't have people actually using it. What is going to be fun is if we take this to absurdity. I can see it now "Jim, you live in Owasso and the statistics show that the commute is excessive and may create stress related problems so you are going to have to move to Broken Arrow."

Great point Goodpasture.

I second that.  Let's close down McDonald's, BK, KFC, because they make people fat and contribute to rising health care.  Lets reinstitute alcohol prohibition to cut down on liver failure, drunk driving deaths, etc.  All workers that don't conform to standard height/weight tables should be fired and all benefits terminated immediately.  Where does it end?

[Steve]

quote:Originally posted by Trams

There is simply no fundamental right to smoke ... particularly in the workplace.  

Many smokers take egregiously long smoke-breaks, detracting substantially from their work output.  They huddle at the base of various buildings, in "designated" smoking areas, seeking solace in their cancer sticks, in their addictions.  Non-smokers must dare to pass through their wall of smoke.  

That is complete BS.  "Non-smokers must dare to pass through their wall of smoke," what complete crap.  I have never encountered any office building entrance in the country where there was any exterior "wall of smoke."  The time most smokers use for smoke breaks is equally matched or more by the time most non-smokers sit around "chewing the fat."
As long as tobacco remains a legal substance in this country (and I believe it always will be because the consequences of prohibition are too great), smokers have as much right to smoke as you do not to.  Each employee should be judged on his job performance and goal acomplishments, regardless if he is a smoker or not.

[Trams]

quote:Originally posted by Steve

quote:Originally posted by Trams

There is simply no fundamental right to smoke ... particularly in the workplace.  

Many smokers take egregiously long smoke-breaks, . . . .  

That is complete BS.  "Non-smokers must dare to pass through their wall of smoke," what complete crap.  I have never encountered any office building entrance in the country where there was any exterior "wall of smoke."  The time most smokers use for smoke breaks is equally matched or more by the time most non-smokers sit around "chewing the fat."
As long as tobacco remains a legal substance in this country (and I believe it always will be because the consequences of prohibition are too great), smokers have as much right to smoke as you do not to.  Each employee should be judged on his job performance and goal acomplishments, regardless if he is a smoker or not.

You appear to agree with my original point.  

I've never questioned employees' "right to smoke" -- I have merely questioned whether an employer can legitimately impose a consequence to the exercise of that right.  The original question was whether an employee should have a right to sue an employer for termination related to smoking.  If the smoking (or the "chewing of the fat" or "the eating" or "take your pick") negatively affects the employee's work performance, then the employee will be judged on the basis of their work performance (as you advocate).  The employee will not "judged" for exercising their right to smoke, but rather, for exercising their right in a manner than conflicts with their job responsibilities.

I should also say that you should take a trip around downtown at approx. 10a or 10:30a or 2p or 2:30p -- you will find a variety of gatherings that have the cigarette in common.  You'll find various walls too.

[guido911]

TRAMS and STEVE. So what is the solution? Should the employment at will doctrine held in most states be modified to protect smokers from being terminated for smoking? If so, then what? Creating that exception would most certainly result in all sorts of exceptions that would literally destroy the doctrine.    
Or is smoking a constitutionally protected civil right, a violation of which would permit a smoker to bring a federal civil rights lawsuit?

GOODPASTURE: Spot on. This really is a  slippery slope situation and your point illustrates that perfectly (although obesity will unquestionably be argued to be a "disability" for purposes of the Americans with Disabilities Act--remember the debate/furor over airlines making obese passengers purchase two seat tickets). Here's another thought, though. If an employee is smoking "off campus" and can be fired, can an employer request the information before the employee is even hired? In other words, could being obese or a smoker be a legitimate reason for not hiring or otherwise be a disqualifier for employment?

[Goodpasture]

When I ran a construction company, obesity was certainly a reason to not hire someone. I dare not put a overweight man on a roof.

What is going to be mos interesting is when our current employment testing is going to become proactive rather than reactive. As medical testing becomes more sophisticated and accurate, are we going to exclude high cancer risk or high diabetes risk employees? We already exclude from employment position people who engage in certain behavior, such as smoking weed, smoking tobacco isn't that far off, eating the wrong foods or drinking the wrong beverages cannot be that far down the line. (Again, I picture HR telling someone: "Sorry, but you had too many Big Macs last week and our insurance department has shown that people that eat Big Macs have a 7% greater risk for heart attacks so we won't be able to cover you on our group plan.")

[guido911]

quote:Originally posted by Goodpasture

When I ran a construction company, obesity was certainly a reason to not hire someone. I dare not put a overweight man on a roof.

What is going to be mos interesting is when our current employment testing is going to become proactive rather than reactive. As medical testing becomes more sophisticated and accurate, are we going to exclude high cancer risk or high diabetes risk employees? We already exclude from employment position people who engage in certain behavior, such as smoking weed, smoking tobacco isn't that far off, eating the wrong foods or drinking the wrong beverages cannot be that far down the line. (Again, I picture HR telling someone: "Sorry, but you had too many Big Macs last week and our insurance department has shown that people that eat Big Macs have a 7% greater risk for heart attacks so we won't be able to cover you on our group plan.")

Another good point. In the future I envision employers and insurance companies using DNA testing to weed out potential employees/insureds based on a predisposition of medical illness or condition. Thus, it will not only be what an employee personally does or medically has now, but what they might do or develop in the future. Kinda scary stuff...

[Trams]

quote:Originally posted by guido911

TRAMS and STEVE. So what is the solution? Should the employment at will doctrine held in most states be modified to protect smokers from being terminated for smoking? If so, then what? Creating that exception would most certainly result in all sorts of exceptions that would literally destroy the doctrine.    
Or is smoking a constitutionally protected civil right, a violation of which would permit a smoker to bring a federal civil rights lawsuit?

The easy answer here is no ... there is no constitutionally protected civil right to smoke ... and hence no need for a federal civil rights lawsuit.  And it is simply not reasonable to modify the employment at will doctrine in order to encompass terminations where smoking is a factor.  I understand the frustrations with slippery slope arguments ... but this slippery slope is more real than imagined.  I mean, seriously, there is no end in sight.  What truly makes smoking so unique?  It is a behavior and not a status -- smoking is a result of a person's conduct.  Unlike race and gender (and probably other factors), smoking is a result of an employee's decision-making abilities (...unless we go down the "smoking is a disease" route ... and then we get into the disability argument, which leads to forced results).

I need to think a bit further on the DNA issue .... I can see problems there, seemingly related to invasions of personal dignity and privacy.  (Notably, the same concerns are not present with respect to smoking -- a sport that is unique in its ability to legitimately offend (harm?) persons other than the one doing the smoking.)

[Phireman]

I got so excited when I read this I dropped my cigarette burning a hole in my pants.

[okieinla]

The easy answer here is no ... there is no constitutionally protected civil right to smoke ... and hence no need for a federal civil rights lawsuit.  And it is simply not reasonable to modify the employment at will doctrine in order to encompass terminations where smoking is a factor.  I understand the frustrations with slippery slope arguments ... but this slippery slope is more real than imagined.  I mean, seriously, there is no end in sight.  What truly makes smoking so unique?  It is a behavior and not a status -- smoking is a result of a person's conduct.  Unlike race and gender (and probably other factors), smoking is a result of an employee's decision-making abilities (...unless we go down the "smoking is a disease" route ... and then we get into the disability argument, which leads to forced results).

I need to think a bit further on the DNA issue .... I can see problems there, seemingly related to invasions of personal dignity and privacy.  (Notably, the same concerns are not present with respect to smoking -- a sport that is unique in its ability to legitimately offend (harm?) persons other than the one doing the smoking.)
[/quote]

I can understand a company/employer having a non-smoking enviroment 'on campus', but If an employer can dictate what an employee does 'off campus', like smoking.. is that not an invasion of privacy of some sort?

[guido911]

It certainly is an invasion of privacy. However, companies can fire you for coming up positive on a drug test even though you did the drugs in the privacy of your home. Same goes for getting intoxicated at home and showing up to work drunk (and so on and so on...). I think TRAMS is right about the reality of the slippery slope. I just do not know how it can be stopped.

[okieinla]

quote:Originally posted by guido911

It certainly is an invasion of privacy. However, companies can fire you for coming up positive on a drug test even though you did the drugs in the privacy of your home. Same goes for getting intoxicated at home and showing up to work drunk (and so on and so on...). I think TRAMS is right about the reality of the slippery slope. I just do not know how it can be stopped.

I don't think that young man could win the case under a "civil rights" umbrella. Right to privacy & / or Lifestyle discrimination maybe.
I've read that several states already have laws in place that protect employees from "lifestyle discrimination".
In regards to the "wall of smoke" in public places & smelling of monkey a@s [xx(] : An enhanced no-smoking law in Santa Monica enforced a few weeks ago -
   Any building open to the public - Smoking is prohibited "within 20 feet of the entrance, exit or open window of any building open to the public.
   Outdoor Service Areas - Smoking is prohibited at any "outdoor service area" –  "a place where people use or wait for services..." including "bus stops, ATM lines, information kiosks       and theater lines."
   Outdoor dining areas - Smoking is prohibited in any "non-residential location where food or beverages are served by a business or routinely consumed by customers."
Citations for violation of the new provisions carry a $250 fine for the smoker.
I just served Jury Duty in Los Angeles & it was announced that smoking had to be 50 feet from the entrance of the courthouse.

Maybe a similar policy/ordinance could be enacted? It's just the beginning. Smoking bans are becoming more popular & stricter by the minute.

[carltonplace]

^ As smokers everywhere raise their yellowed middle finger in protest.

[Artiem]

Hello all, short-time lurker, first-time poster. Just saw an article that's somewhat on point, thought I'd provide the link. OSU is considering a total ban on tobacco on campus.

CLICK HERE FOR STORY

Guess I'm okay with that... it is a school after all. My pet peeve is the ban on hospital grounds. They should at least have a shack SOMEWHERE for the poor souls who not only smoke, but also have a lot of extra stress in their lives at the moment -- since they're at the hospital!