From the Liberal Bastion of Massachusetts

[Wiseman]

What is the problem here? The hospital has rules. Cigarettes have carcinogens that contribute to oncological maligancies. Most people who smoke get diagnosed with adenocarcinoma which is more aggressive as opposed to squamous lung carcinoma which occurs in non smokers due to possible genetic reasons. They probably want to prevent their employees, some of whom can be more susceptible to developing cancer, so they don't have to pay for their treatment.

[Paslode]

Originally Posted by Wiseman

They probably want to prevent their employees, some of whom can be more susceptible to developing cancer, so they don't have to pay for their treatment.

Speaking of cost savings, it would be interesting to know if the hospital takes in illegals and other non-citizens who don't pay for their treatment.

[Wiseman]

Paslode,

That is not the issue here though, the issue at hand is the hospital discriminating against potential employees who smoke. From a health standpoint they are correct, but legally I cannot say that they are right or wrong since I am not a lawyer.

[Paslode]

Originally Posted by Wiseman

Paslode,

That is not the issue here though, the issue at hand is the hospital discriminating against potential employees who smoke. From a health standpoint they are correct, but legally I cannot say that they are right or wrong since I am not a lawyer.

What or how does the hospital benefit by excluding smokers?

[Dusty]

Originally Posted by Paslode

What or how does the hospital benefit by excluding smokers?

By delighting the bedwetting marxist handwringers who make up damn near half our society now.

[Wiseman]

I mean that is their policy. I do not know what they gain or lose. That is for the courts to decide. However, they will point out that smoking can lead to the development of lung cancer in some individuals. I don't think there is any political motivations behind this and I doubt anyone is going to cite Marxist ideals to support their actions. They probably don't want to deal with employees who might get sick due to their lifestyle.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by Paslode

What or how does the hospital benefit by excluding smokers?

Absenteeism: On average, smokers are absent 50 percent more often than nonsmokers. As long ago as 1974, Dow Chemical Company found that cigarette smoking employees were missing 5.5 more work days per year than their nonsmoking peers. Costs for these absences include temporary replacements and lowered productivity and morale among employees who are on the job and must cope with the absences.

Productivity: One has only to visualize the smoking ritual to realize the time lost by smokers. Add to that inefficiency and errors caused by higher CO levels in smokers, eye irritation, and lower attentiveness. Research is documenting lower productivity in smoking employees and increases in productivity when smoking is limited or banned.

Insurance: Additional health-care cost per smoker in this country is slightly over $300 per year in 1983 dollars, and this estimate is conservative. Some insurers, recognizing the differential in mortality rates between smokers and nonsmokers, are offering up to 45 percent discounts on premiums for term-life coverage for nonsmokers with medical examinations.

Incremental health insurance costs incurred on behalf of nonsmokers who must breathe the smoke in the workplace involuntarily are not a part of the considerations above. They represent another area of potential savings when smoking is either banned or restricted in the workplace.

Economist Marvin M. Kristein, Ph.D., of the American Health Foundation, found that smokers can cost employers an extra $45 per year for accidental injury and related workers' compensation costs. Smokers have twice the accident rate of nonsmokers due in part to loss of attention, smoking hand occupied, eye irritation, and cough. Researchers have estimated fire accident costs due to smoking to be $10 per year per smoker. Dr. Weis says that health and fire insurance premiums can be 25 to 35 percent lower for smoke-free businesses, and morbidity and fire statistics suggest that premium discounts should be as high as 70 percent. Disability and early retirement payments can be cut by as much as 75 percent. Up to three-fourths of the early retirements are probably coming from smokers, who comprise only one third of the work force. The propensity for smokers to become disabled and retire early is almost six times greater than for nonsmokers.

Ventilation: The American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air Conditioning Engineers notes that "higher ventilation rates are specified for spaces where smoking is permitted because tobacco smoke is one of the most difficult contaminants to control at the source." Requirements for outdoor air are two to three times greater when smoking is a factor, and filters must be cleaned or changed much more frequently.

Maintenance Costs: Employers who have banned smoking report dramatic decreases in the maintenance costs of their businesses. Building maintenance services are enthusiastic about the change in the amount of cleaning required. Furniture and drapes last longer and have to be cleaned less often. Many chores done on a monthly basis can be scheduled semiannually or annually.

In the realm of today's economic environment, seems like another one of those 'bottom-line' issues to me.

And so it goes...

Richard

[kgoerz]

What's next sugar, salt and caffeine levels?

If it's a private business. They should be able to hire who they want. Unfortunately our Govt doesn't grant us that freedom.
Had to get my son's finger looked at the other month. So we get sent to like the largest orthopedic center in Wilmington. The waiting room was 75% extremely overweight people with knee braces. I just wondered how many of them were costing their employer money by being there.
When I start my own business. I will hire a non smoker over a smoker with equal quals.

[dadof18x'er]

Originally Posted by Dusty

Ironic, isn't it?

The government forbids the smoking of cigarrettes while simultaneously condoning the mouthing of penises.

any risks there?

http://www.biblebelievers.com/Cameron2.html

[Richard]

Originally Posted by dadof18x'er

any risks there?

Whether in public, private, or parochial schools, one of the issues we educators see with teens now is a perception that if they are practicing fellatio and anal sex, they are not really engaging in 'sex' and are retaining their virginity for marriage.

Combined with the alcohol binging trend and their biologically inherant tendency to engage in risky behaviors, a lot of those little princesses out there are kissing a lot of 'frogs' ( ) in that search for a prince.

Richard

[Paslode]

Originally Posted by Richard

Absenteeism:

In the realm of today's economic environment, seems like another one of those 'bottom-line' issues to me.

And so it goes...

Richard

Agreed and it is a bottom line burden they can likely enforce and get away with in today's political and cultural climate.....but many of the same arguments can be made to the burden of providing no out of pocket medical care/benefits for the uninsured, illegals and non-citizens......all of which Massachusetts does through their ground breaking health care system. Massachusetts has no issue insuring the uninsured, yet they do not want to employ smokers because they are a cost burden.

The Smoker Burden is being led out the front door to lower expenses while the uninsured is being subsidized through the backdoor....

The hospital system can spin the HUGE benefits of a smoking ban and people will eat it up......The evil smokers! It serves them right and I am sick of paying for their bad habit. Yet they don't mind you subsidizing the uninsured.

They both are a burden, they both jack up our costs, lower productivity, but only one pays taxes and premiums. So who is the bigger burden?

Smokers are like the Juden Rat in a manner of speaking....who's next? People who don't meet the standards of the BMI Chart? Owners of Firearms?


From this non-smokers perspective it seems a bit skewed.

[ZonieDiver]

is being subsidized through the backdoor....

Doesn't this belong in another thread?????

[Paslode]

Originally Posted by ZonieDiver

Doesn't this belong in another thread?????

At least one other

[Buffalobob]

For some significant portion of my life my job title was “Public Health Engineer”.

First off let us look at the claiming that smoking bans has something to do with liberal or conservative. The first two states who enacted smoking bans were Minnesota and Utah. I worked in Utah when the enforcement of their law began in he mid 70s and I was still smoking at that point in my life. Clearly Utah is not a liberal state.

Heath care can be broken into three components: preventative, curative and palliative.

Under preventative or public health medicine we find such things as prenatal care, vaccinations and diet and exercise and life habits.

Under curative care we find such things as diagnostics, surgery, and trauma.

Palliative care is basically for incurable diseases and mainly deals with reducing the symptoms or severity such as with emphysema, malaria, hypertension, and diabetes.

The below chart gives the chief areas that preventative or public health medicine deals with. A worker at a health care facility that practices preventative medicine that smokes is basically working at a reduced effectiveness when counseling a person about the need to quit smoking, such as would be the case for prenatal care counseling, or during a routine annual physical or heart disease. The facility is not getting their money’s worth and the customers are not getting their money’s worth when the counselor is a smoker.

Leading causes of preventable deaths in the United States in the year 2000.[16]
Cause Number of deaths resulting
Tobacco Smoking-------435,000 deaths or 18.1% of the total deaths
Overweight and Obesity------365,000 deaths or 15.2% of the total deaths.
Alcohol consumption------85,000 deaths or 3.5% of the total deaths.
Infectious diseases------75,000 deaths or 3.1% of the total deaths.
Toxicants-----55,000 deaths or 2.3% of the total deaths.
Traffic collisions----43,000 deaths or 1.8% of the total deaths.
Incidents involving firearms----29,000 deaths or 1.2% of the total deaths.
Sexually transmitted diseases----20,000 deaths or 0.8% of the total deaths.
Drug abuse---17,000 deaths or 0.7% of the total deaths.



Now then for curative medicine we can look at the top ten causes of death in the united states and once again as in the case of preventable deaths we find tobacco related diseases ranked 1, 2, 3 and 4. Somewhere in the process of treatment one or more staff will inquire concerning lifestyle habits such as smoking and counseling will begin at that point. If the person who is doing the counseling has a pack of cigarettes in their pocket then the effectiveness of the counseling is reduced. Once again we find the facility and patient not getting their money’s worth.

Number of deaths for leading causes of death
• Heart disease: 616,067
• Cancer: 562,875
• Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 135,952
• Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 127,924
• Accidents (unintentional injuries): 123,706
• Alzheimer's disease: 74,632
• Diabetes: 71,382
• Influenza and Pneumonia: 52,717
• Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 46,448
• Septicemia: 34,828

Palliative care is much like preventative care in that it frequently deals with life style changes such as sodium intake for hypertension or smoking for respiratory diseases. Once again we find a significant amount of communication required between the care giver and the patient. Nonverbal communication such as the counselor having a pipe stuck in their pocket also occurs. What message does that pipe convey to the patient.

“The focus on a patient's quality of life has increased greatly during the past twenty years. In the United States today, 55% of hospitals with more than 100 beds offer a palliative-care program, and nearly one-fifth of community hospitals have palliative-care programs.“

[AngelsSix]

I believe that every smoker has the right to smoke. I believe every person has the right to medical care. I don't believe that those things should trump other people's rights to NOT be exposed.
That said, when the smokers were asked to move to smoking areas, they would disappear for 30-40 minutes at a time. I got tired of going out to find my troops in the smoking area. There is a lack of productivity demonstrated by people who smoke. Because once they get to the smokepit, they apparently lose all track of time. Of course, not all smokers do this, but I guarantee there are plenty of others that have witnessed this.
Then there is the mess the smokers leave behind. Butts everywhere. Damn buttcan is a foot away and there are still cigarette butts on the ground. I am sick to death of seeing people throw cigarettes out of their car window. Especially in the summer. One more grass fire...I swear!
Another issue is the inevitable "rebel" smoker who refuses to go to the smoke pit and will stand in the freaking entranceway to smoke. Now the non-smokers are subject to the secondhand smoke when they enter and exit that area.
I personally find smoking to be a disgusting, unhealthy habit. Having been around it my whole life and seeing the effects in EMS, I can say that I feel sorry for the people that have spent millions of dollars on cigarettes in a lifetime, not to mention the inevitable cost that go along with that when they develop emphysema, asthma, cancer, etc.
I think that people who choose not to smoke have the right to ask smokers not to violate that right. As a boss, I would not hire anyone who is not in good physical health. If you are obese or smoke, you are at a higher risk for medical complications than non-smokers. If I am paying for your health care, you aren't smoking. I am sick to death of going to the VFW and seeing people with O2 strapped on them, handicapped plates on their car and a damn cigarette dangling from their lips. I think someone needs to save people from themselves. Or not.