May 05, 2005

The Smoking Debate

I'm of two minds when it comes to smoking. As a former smoker, I know how enjoyable that nasty habit can be. And, as one who doesn't smoke now, I know how disgusting it can be to be surrounded by oodles of smoke in say, a bar or restaurant. And, I really get angry when people smoke in their homes or cars when there are children around.

But should smoking be banned altogether?

In many towns and cities, smoking is banned in offices and other places of employ. The ban has spread in some states to include restaurants and bars (New York, Connecticut and California come readily to mind). If you're a smoker in San Francisco, you can't light up in public parks, recreation areas or open spaces. In Montgomery County, Maryland, people who smoke in their own homes and the smoke offends their neighbors would have faced heavy fines had a law that was passed not been repealed.

Isn't America the "land of the free?" I guess not if you're a smoker.

A Michigan company has taken this one step further. Weyco, a medical benefits administrator in Okemos, has banned its workers from smoking not only on the job but in their personal lives. The company gave its employees a certain amount of time to quit, offering programs to assist them, and then fired anyone who continued to smoke beyond the time limit...testing them for nicotine in their systems to find out if they violated the ban.

Smoking is a health risk. That much is a given. And people who choose to smoke, knowing those risks, are being foolish. But isn't that their right?

Companies that take this route say they're doing it for a number of reasons: they want to cut down on company health premiums, or they don't want their company associated with the negative aspects of smoking and people who smoke. So what's to stop them from hiring people who are severely overweight? Being obese has health risks as well. And how about not hiring black people because of their higher risk for heart disease? Doesn't that increase health premiums?

Some have argued that it's a company's right not to hire smokers for whatever reason. But in today's society where it's against the law to discriminate on the basis of color, ethnicity, sex or physical disability, why is it okay to discriminate against smokers? Why the double standard?

Either apply the law equally or get rid of it. Smokers shouldn't be reduced to second-class status because of their choices, however unhealthy they may be.

NOTE: Larry Elder wonders when Democrats will be in the same position as smokers.

Show Comments »