Smokers

[Wermz]

---

Members do not see this ad.

1) sometime's smoking's just kinda like saying 'f the world, i'm havin a cig.. and f all these people on sdn gettin all up on my balls'
2) smoking is awesome once you're addicted lol
3) it's relaxing, introspective, fun to blow smoke around... a moment's illusion of purposeful action

 

[astrocreep96]

A physician that smokes is like a big fat personal trainer. They might even smell the same.

However, hospital policies that state an individual cannot smoke when not at work are ridiculous. Unless they're paying you at home to not smoke, they can cram it up their ass.

The so-called libertarian argument that it's their house, their rules is similarly ridiculous. They need to stay out of their employee's home time and mind their own damn business.

 

[45408]

A physician that smokes is like a big fat personal trainer. They might even smell the same.

However, hospital policies that state an individual cannot smoke when not at work are ridiculous. Unless they're paying you at home to not smoke, they can cram it up their ass.

The so-called libertarian argument that it's their house, their rules is similarly ridiculous. They need to stay out of their employee's home time and mind their own damn business.

If you don't like the rules, don't work there. Seems simple enough.

 

[Kaustikos]

A physician that smokes is like a big fat personal trainer. They might even smell the same.

However, hospital policies that state an individual cannot smoke when not at work are ridiculous. Unless they're paying you at home to not smoke, they can cram it up their ass.

The so-called libertarian argument that it's their house, their rules is similarly ridiculous. They need to stay out of their employee's home time and mind their own damn business.

No, it makes absolute sense why they don't want to have you smoking at all - Insurance/having to deal with your liabilities involving your habit. And it's not just hospitals, other businesses have that same idea and enforce it. They did something similar in the 1900s with alcohol. Basically, employees were taking lunch breaks and getting hammered and coming back to work. So many casualties at factories and unsatisfactory performance lead to the no-drinking policy. Same with smoking, it obviously has an impact on your work efficiency and is going to be a liability in terms of insurance costs, so why not enforce that policy? it cuts down on costs - makes sense to me?

 

[Janieve]

No, it makes absolute sense why they don't want to have you smoking at all - Insurance/having to deal with your liabilities involving your habit. And it's not just hospitals, other businesses have that same idea and enforce it. They did something similar in the 1900s with alcohol. Basically, employees were taking lunch breaks and getting hammered and coming back to work. So many casualties at factories and unsatisfactory performance lead to the no-drinking policy. Same with smoking, it obviously has an impact on your work efficiency and is going to be a liability in terms of insurance costs, so why not enforce that policy? it cuts down on costs - makes sense to me?

It makes sense, yes, and I'm about as anti-smoking as you can get. But I still think it's a bit much. Since smoking is an addiction, it's not something that can easily be overcome. Maybe if those companies offered some sort of rehab and support program to employees who did smoke before/when enacting these policies or maybe let there be a little leeway in the transition it'd work out better. But just demanding "QUIT COLD TURKEY OR YOU'RE FIRED" would be a bit hard for most smokers to comply with.

I like the model; the execution is what might get to me.

 

[astrocreep96]

If you don't like the rules, don't work there. Seems simple enough.

Their rules extend only to the time they're paying the individual. Seems simple enough. I suppose you'd also be ok with the company deciding what car you can drive (some are safer than others), where you can live (crime statistics and all), what food you can eat (better keep your LDL in check), how often you can be outside (sun exposure, of course), how many girlfriends you can have (multiple sex partners and STDs), or any other daily activity you care to enjoy.🙄

I don't like smoking, but I'm not not an apologist for a corporation deciding they want to decide what I do when I get home. That is completely ridiculous.

No, it makes absolute sense why they don't want to have you smoking at all - Insurance/having to deal with your liabilities involving your habit. And it's not just hospitals, other businesses have that same idea and enforce it. They did something similar in the 1900s with alcohol. Basically, employees were taking lunch breaks and getting hammered and coming back to work. So many casualties at factories and unsatisfactory performance lead to the no-drinking policy. Same with smoking, it obviously has an impact on your work efficiency and is going to be a liability in terms of insurance costs, so why not enforce that policy? it cuts down on costs - makes sense to me?

Insurance is one issue, but different premiums can be negotiated depending on risk factors (it should be that way across the board anyway).

And this is not even remotely the same as someone drinking during a lunch break. You mean to tell me you cannot tell the difference between an inebriated person and one that just had a smoke? Good luck with the health profession thing.

 

[Bacchus]

It makes sense, yes, and I'm about as anti-smoking as you can get. But I still think it's a bit much. Since smoking is an addiction, it's not something that can easily be overcome. Maybe if those companies offered some sort of rehab and support program to employees who did smoke before/when enacting these policies or maybe let there be a little leeway in the transition it'd work out better. But just demanding "QUIT COLD TURKEY OR YOU'RE FIRED" would be a bit hard for most smokers to comply with.

I like the model; the execution is what might get to me.

There's a hospital near my parents' home that has a zero-nicotine use policy. As of May 1 all new employees had to be nicotine free or retest within 6 months. Current employees weren't ousted from their jobs. There is a smoking cessation program in place. At the time of the article, only 20 states considered hiring based on nicotine use legal.

 

[UnlikelyDoc]

 

[45408]

Their rules extend only to the time they're paying the individual. Seems simple enough. I suppose you'd also be ok with the company deciding what car you can drive (some are safer than others), where you can live (crime statistics and all), what food you can eat (better keep your LDL in check), how often you can be outside (sun exposure, of course), how many girlfriends you can have (multiple sex partners and STDs), or any other daily activity you care to enjoy.🙄

That's fine with me too. I wouldn't work there, so I would be exercising my free will to not abide by their rules. As long as their rules aren't being imposed on me against my will, what is the problem?