Hiring Practices Discriminate Against Smokers At Baylor
    By Hank Campbell | September 25th 2011 02:00 PM | 9 comments | Print | E-mail | Track Comments


    "The FDA, which has gone out of its way to demonize smoking with trumped up data..." When you make nonsensical statements, like that one, in an article that you write, your whole article becomes nonsensical and invalid!

    What is nonsensical about it?   If you think "third hand smoke" is valid science, then you are educated by advertising.  In that context, actual non-agenda-based science might seem nonsensical and invalid but it is usually only people who want to believe anything about their pet cause who buy it.
    Baylor Health Care is a health care company. This policy makes sense.

    Only if they also discriminate against people who eat meat, drink alcohol, drive motorcycles and own a pool.  If it is not related to the job, you can't refuse to hire qualified people.  Insert black or female in that argument and you can see why. Being a health provider does not mean they get to use a different standard than the rest of the country.

    You can argue that there should be no legal standard for any hiring, of course.  Let the free market reign and all that.

    Aside from it being illegal, it shows the downside to the current health care reform act.  All a company has to do is create a 'policy' and they shuffle off the most expensive health care to taxpayers because any company can now use discrimination in hiring regard of a person - so potentially expensive employees will never be hired at all which means they are ghetto-ized.  Plus, if they can call smoking a preexisting condition, despite there only being a 10% chance they will get lung cancer, they can call diabetes or cancer or almost any behavior the same thing.
    Eating meat, drinking alcohol, driving motorcycles and owning a pool can all be done healthfully in moderation, while smoking cannot. Smoking IS related, and directly counter-productive, to the job.

    Perhaps the part that bothers me about this article is that this is an inherently political argument with the veneer of being about science. Science 2.0 is a really great site, I don't want it to get politicized.

    Thank you for the kind words.  This is in the "links" section, not an article on Science 2.0 proper, so it is more opinion than an article would be.   Yes, I am against discrimination and prejudice and that shows in my verbage.  My overall point was that you can't legally discriminate against 30% of the population because they happen to be unfashionable.  We can't not hire someone because they are bisexual or hispanic either.   50% of lung cancer patients never smoked and only 10% of smokers get lung cancer so declaring a lifestyle choice as being a disqualification (it is not a health or science-based one) means they can disqualify motorcycle riders or even people who go to Renaissance Faires if a metric shows 10% of them need higher health care costs.   The law protects people equally and there is no evidence a smoker is less competent as a janitor or anything else than a non-smoker, and those are the only legal determining factors.
    While society is working hard on erasing all trace of discrimination based on all other features (race, language, religion, etc.), discrimination against smokers has become a normal and natural way to be for society.
    A smoker friend of mine is late 30s. She had her first smoke at age 11. She had no idea tobacco was unhealthy or addictive because little information was accessible to 11 year-olds about this in the 80s. Today, she truly and deeply wants and tries to quit, but the addiction holds her brain hostage. She is not the bad guy like society presents smokers: she’s a victim
    Yes. The truth is that smokers are only victims of one of the most addictive drug known, nicotine, and victims of how it’s an accessible and legal drug. It’s similar to having heroin legal, and sold at an affordable price at every corner store.
    Any smoker who say they ”enjoy” smoking only say that because they are unaware of having been manipulated through nicotine and having had their brains be addicted to this drug. Tobacco kills people, and nicotine makes tobacco addictive. And, all this is legal. If Mc Donalds was to start putting nicotine in their burgers, people would be addicted after 1 burger. They would then need to eat an increasing amount them without limit, and 95% of the North American’s population who ate 1 burger would die of extreme obesity. That is how addictive nicotine is. Yet, government and society choose to keep nicotine legal. And, it’s sold at the corner store. On the other hand, the victims of nicotine, the smokers, are restricted to the extreme as well as discriminated against, by the same society that allows tobacco to be legal. See any contradiction!?! I am not even a smoker and I can see how the way society treats smokers is unfair and blown out of proportion. The smokers are the victims. The enemies are the tobacco companies and whoever participated to the decision that nicotine was going to be legal (government? society?). Either society keeps it legal and stops restricting smokers and presenting them as evil, or, society makes tobacco, or nicotine, illegal as a whole, and stop selling it.
    But that hasn’t happened yet because society makes too much money off of smokers. As much as society vilifies smokers, if all smokers stopped tomorrow, the whole world would change. There would be a huge hole in the government budget, and all of us non-smokers would have a huge taxes increase to pay to the government. So all of us non-smokers need to be careful what we wish for! In the hope to maintain those revenues, the government and the tobacco companies manipulate you (society) into thinking that the smoker is the enemy. It’s a way to draw your attention to the ‘bad’ smokers, so that you don’t see the conspiracy they are maintaining to keep their own pockets full.
    Rise up people!!! Don’t let yourself be manipulated away from the truth!!!

    I think you make a fine point that smokers are pawns in a culture war but
    She had no idea tobacco was unhealthy or addictive because little information was accessible to 11 year-olds about this in the 80s.
    is a ridiculous assertion. Cigarettes have had warning labels since 1965 and at age 12, most kids can take a loaded gun and go into the woods and kill things.  Claiming an 11-year-old had no knowledge cigarettes were harmful is silly.
    Gerhard Adam
    That is how addictive nicotine is.
    Sorry, but that's just a myth.  There's no question that nicotine is highly addictive, but it's equally true that no one smokes without having initially gotten sick from it. 

    I don't know any smoker that didn't have to make a bit of an effort to become one.
    Mundus vult decipi