Smoking is bad for you. Smoking drives up the cost of health care insurance, and your life insurance premiums. Smoking makes you stink and gives you yellow teeth.
Even so, I do not think that Scott has the right to discriminate against current or potential employees simply on the basis of nicotine consumption. They can prohibit smoking on all Scott properties, including break rooms and vehicles; they can choose not to give smoke breaks (which are a priviledge, not a right); they can charge higher premiums for company-sponsored health insurance; they can do everything in their power to make working for them a living hell for smokers. But they cannot outright discriminate against people on the basis of smoking when it comes to hiring and firing.
On a semi-related note, I cannot stand people in the health care industry who choose to smoke. Sure, we all deal with stress. But health care workers in general are in very close proximity to people, and I don't like to have people that close to me when their breath smells like an ash tray. I don't want to have a paramedic working on me with yellow teeth and tobacco breath (one of my classmates) or someone who always has to turn around to spit out brown goop (one of my upperclassmen).
2 comments:
The smoking battle bothers me. While I don't want to breathe 2nd hand smoke, I don't think that is right to ban smoking from all restaurants. What about people who do smoke? Most probably feel bad enough that they have a habit they cannot break and is costing them money and bad for them, then you throw in that they can't work in certain places and you are going towards making them outcasts in society.
I agree with putting a ban on smoking in public places: government and community buildings, parks, bus stops, and other such places.
But as for restaurants, bars, and ALL other privately-owned places, I believe it should be up to that owner as whether or not to allow smoking in their place of business.
Post a Comment