John,

"'Super-Mac Smackdown' sandwich by stuffing a Quarter Pounder between two Big Macs"

That sounds downright tasty!

Guy's an asshole, but people have a right to be assholes, still, right?

Hob,

They do indeed, but I'm an advocate of fairness in assholism. Mind you, I'm not talking about any kind of 'affirmative action' or 'quotas', just fairness.

There's a difference, however, between cigarettes and your (admittedly tasty-sounding) Super Mac Smackdown, in that the latter has no negative health effects if consumed responsibly, whereas there is no such thing as the responsible consumption of cigarettes.

Obviously we're not talking about an employer going so far as to require olympian-quality health to work in the mail room. We're talking about singling out a particularly pernicious, completely unsafe, totally voluntary practice. We all have to eat, even if some us do so in an unhealthy manner. No one has to smoke.

devil's advocate: what if his employees had seriuous drug habits? They dont come to work high but they do use drugs at home. would he be within his rights to fire them?

the only nazis i hate worse than Illinois nazis are smoke nazis.

Boy, am I glad I don't work there.

I'd hate to hear what they say about my raging black tar heroin habit.

Cheers,
Dave at Garfield Ridge

Amish makes an excellent point, and one that I was (apparently unsuccessfully) trying to get at originally:

It appears that this company is not really screening people for problems that might drive up the cost of health care. It is indeed possible to eat a diet that puts your health (therefore healthcare costs for the company) at risk, you can drink too much, be sedentary, take drugs, but all Howard wants to know is whether or not they smoke.

I am NOT a health nut, I would not reccommend *anyone* smoke cigarettes, but I don't like crusaders who try to disguise their personal dislikes under the banner of helping others.

May I direct you all to a column I wrote on this very issue yesterday? It is to run in the Lansing State Journal this week.

johnthorpe.blogspot.com

Thanks!

Many life insurance policies will raise your rate if you engage in dangerous pastimes. Like rock climbing.

I wonder of this company would fire someone for rock climbing in their spare time?

Wow, fired? Wouldn't the usual remedy be to revoke their health care benefits? How about make them bear more of the costs of all of their future illnesses? Either way there's gonna be a lawsuit and the publicity will be bad no matter what. As an exsmoker, I have little sympathy for smokers who still insist on smoking even though they know it is affecting their health, and they all know it is affecting their health. A woman I used to smoke with now has emphasema, even though for years many of us exsmokers tried to get her to quit. Now, sick as she is she simply won't stop. And she is one of many driving up our health care costs.

Dave - I actually had a raging black tar heroin habit and I'm here to tell you - smoking is far worse for your health! As you well know if you really did do both!

What a great pity that we can't make tobacco products illegal as they truly are unsafe to use. The absurdity of putting warning labels on plastic bags so we don't put them over our heads and choke to death is excelled only by fact that tobacco products are still legal, but many of their users shall literally choke to death when they get emphasema and cancer.

John - excellent article!

Laura - rock on!

72 - I don't understand, are you in favor of people putting plastic bags over their heads and choking to death?

To anyone who needs a warning label to tell them not to put a platic bag over their head so they won't choke to death, yes!

Can't argue with you there.

Don't listen to the above frauds! Of course we need warning labels on plastic bags so we won't choke ourselves to death. No serious person who has examined all of the issues is suggesting that we remove the warning label to tell us not to put a platic bags over our heads we won't choke to death, yes we need warning labels!

We have the right to do as we damn well please ... and you have the privilege to help pay for our risky, bad behavior, hic! And ... if you don't like it your all Nazi's! Hic!

Enough, we get the idea already! As soon as the ACE's away you go mad! Are you on speed?

No, black tar heroin.

Yeah, let's make tobacco illegal. I'll be waiting with a nice large warehouse for the latest in blackmarket products.
Talk about gettin rich quick and easy. :)
Let's make extra marital sex illegal too. That way all that risk taking folks take all the time making our health cost rise and put burden on the back of those who don't imbibe.
Hm, wonder what kind of storage I'll need for that product.
Got anymore usage for nazi enforcing?

Cigarettes will be illegal eventually, they are an unsafe product and have been exempted from the law only because of their history and the huge revenue they pay to the greedy government. But they are still an unsafe product that kills thousands every single year. And the black market they'll spawn doesn't change this fact.

72Virgins,

What about alcohol? I would argue alcohol is the cause of more deaths (direct and indirect) then tobacco. Are you for bringing back prohibition?

As much as I like to beat up on smoke nazis (being a smoker, myself), I'm not too peeved about this one. It's a private company, and the guy did make the company's policy known ahead of time. Yeah, his tactics are a bit Orwellian, but if you smoke, don't work for the guy.

Way too many smokers to make it illegal, yet. If the trend holds, you could consider it in 2080.

But this is where it's headed folks. It's actually been moving this way for a couple of decades. Any at risk behavior is going to cost more (life insurance, health care benefits), the money has made the difference.

Too many speeding tickets. 30 lbs overweight. A hot temper. Bitter divorce. Drinking, gambling, sexing it up. Risk pools.

I am so tired of the nanny state. But business headed this way long before the state did.

Yes, this may be a private company rather than the oppressive State, but it's no less insidious.

A few weeks ago, Mark Steyn had a good editorial in the Western Standard (published in Calgary) on the recent imposition by the Ontario government of a mandatory bicycle helmet law for adults. Different details, but his main theme holds true here.

"Hardly any legislation is a no-brainer. There are always unintended consequences ... Such laws corrode the citizenry's self-reliance and assertiveness - the qualities that will determine which western nations will survive the civilizational struggle on which we're embarked. A land in which an adult cannot evaluate for himself the risks involved in cycling to a neighbour is not truly free. But soft power is an elusive enemy - a cotton candy cocoon of illusory security binding its subjects ever tighter. Whether or not we reduce any individual head injuries, we inflict a massive head injury on society as a whole through such laws."

And through the attitudes that give rise to them.

Cheers.

I'M NOT TRYING TO START A FIGHT HERE!!!

But can anybody point me to a study that shows the long-term negative health effects of light (say, 2 cigarettes a day) smoking. I had the great privilege of living with a doctor who was unable to direct me thusly.

Why should the causation that is true at much higher levels necessarily be true for low levels of consumption? My limited understanding of certain other substances is that there is some tipping point above which the long-term negative consequences are felt (like say, alcohol).

I'm NOT taking a firm position on this. I'm just asking.

Birkel,

What are you trying to do - start a fight?

he is definitly trying to start a fight!

"Why should the causation that is true at much higher levels necessarily be true for low levels of consumption?"

You cant come into a place like this and ask a question like that and not expect an ass beating.

Oh, Johnny (knees tremble, eyes bat) I'm just asking a simple li'l ol' question's all.

(swishes hair provactively)

Why would you read more into it than me looking for responsible, peer-reviewed evidence of the negative health effects of light smoking?

Hello, Amish. (read as if amish was newman in that Seinfeld-ian voice)

Now, when did questions become bad things?

Sorta like the character on "Drawn Together" "I'm on a never ending quest" for truth.

Use the google, Luke!

Just enter 'light smoking effects' to get 2.3 million web links.

I just had another evil thought here ....

If the four fired employees were to claim that their smoking habits were a physical addiction and thus a disability, they could invoke the Americans with Disabilities Act and be utterly fire-proof (no pun intended). In fact, their refusal to take the test could be chalked up to a psychological aversion to such tests. A two-fer!

No doubt the ACLU would rush to their aid. Right?

Right?

I've long expected something like this to happen. The more an entity takes part in your life the more they own you. I really don't want a three or four way relationship with a health care organization that also brings in the government and my employer. It only adds bureaucracy and cost while subtracting freedom.

My employer should only care that I show up and do my job correctly. My government should only care that I don't actively inflict harm on other citizens. Beyond that they should leave me the hell alone.

Why would you read more into it than me looking for responsible, peer-reviewed evidence of the negative health effects of light smoking?

Sure sounds like fightin' words to me! Get him, boys!!

Eric: if your employer and government weren't footing the bill for your healthcare and retirement, they probably wouldn't care what you did. I know I wouldn't.

Birkel: I don't know that there is necessarily a "tipping point." There is some evidence that genetics has as much to do with cancer as carcinogens. I still don't think it's wise to smoke, but it doesn't seem to effect everyone the same way.

All right Eric Pobirs.

I took your advice and Googled using your keyword search. Here are the "facts" offered by the first item in that list:

1) Smoking any amount exposes your body to harmful compounds. (Doesn't exactly answer my question.)

2) Damage to fetus. (I'm immune to this problem, me thinks.)

3) You'll develop a tolerance so there's no way you could only smoke a little. (Moves the goalposts, IYAM.)

And this is from the eighth article down on the first page of Google results:

Are bad effects of inhaling temporary?
Most are. But in smokers, effects of inhaling are repetitive and cumulative - a pack-a-day smoker inhales smoke about 73,000 times a year. If this continues year after year, the smoker's chances for contracting a smoking related disease are substantially increased.

Doesn't that suggest light smoking, while not safe, is not dramatically harmful? I expose my body to carcinogens whenever I consume anything and the effects are seemingly always cumulative.

And then it offers this:

Can a person smoke a small number of cigarettes without risk?
No. Every cigarette may cause some harm to the body. Even relatively light smoking may cause lung damage. However, most smokers seem to find it difficult to smoke only a few cigarettes...

Uh, "may cause" and "may cause" do not an argument make. This article also seems to move the goalposts. Why do medical professionals feel the need to follow that tactic? Could it be that there have been no studies confirming the effects of light smoking?

Look, I don't smoke. But I have smoked--never heavily. Especially during grad school. But I would like to see a study if it exists.

And Eric Pobirs, while Google is my friend, I don't take the number of hits to be determinative on the existence of a peer-reviewed study published in a reputable medical/scientific journal.

Birkel- stop smoking. Its bad for you. If you were 16 and you used that "moving the goal posts"argument on your dad when he caught you smoking he would smack you in the head. Dont make us smack you in the head.

Use chewing tobacco. It makes you look tough. Youve seen The Outlaw Josey Wales havent you? Did Josey smoke cigarettes like a little girl? Hell no. He had a wad of chaw in his cheeks the size of a midgets fist. Spittin on every man woman and stray dog that got in his way.

Besides everybody knows cigarettes are phallic symbols. They should just make them fleshtoned. No man would put one in his mouth and very few women would inhale.

My ribs can only take so much, amish. ROFLMAO

You'll kindly stop making me laugh so hard, dear sir.

If I get injured, I'll sue your ass.

BTW, didn't he spit on a scorpion and a couple o' dead guys? Damn, but Clint sure does know how'da spit!!

Oh, and some men would still smoke. But I think you pretty much got the women part...

Finally, I don't smoke. But thanks for caring. :^)

Carpetbagger: I couldn't help but overhear that your young friend is sick. I have just the thing here for him.
[holds up a bottle of patent medicine]
Josey Wales: Works on just about anything, eh?
Carpetbagger: Yes.
Josey Wales: [spits tobacco juice on the carpetbagger's coat] How does it do on stains?