Sheriff Won't Hire Smokers

San Mateo Daily Journal ^ | March 1, 2004 | Dana Yates

[at bay]

Rising worker’s compensation and health care cost is prompting San Mateo County Sheriff Don Horsley to put a ban on hiring smokers.

“If your lifestyle contributes to a disability, I’m sorry about that. But I don’t think the taxpayers should pay.” said Horsley.

Since smoking is known to cause numerous health problems, Horsley said the decision to not hire smokers is an economical move that could save the county a lot of money in workers’ compensation costs each year.

The idea came to him after the Sheriff’s Department had to settle a $90,000 workers’ compensation claim with a retired employee. The retiree developed lung cancer…..

[realpatriot71]

Oh, so now the point isn't the cost to the taxpayers for personal choices, it is the fact that it is a "nasty habit". Now, what department of the government will we allow to determine what is "nasty" and what is appropriate behaviours? The cost to the taxpayer to supplement families for their costs is immense. However, it's for the children so that makes it OK.

It's completely unhealthy to smoke and smoking causes more medical costs than any other act - it's demonstratable and obvious. Families may cost more than the single person, but they are not placing a similar burden when compared with smokers. Families are the fundamental basic unit of society - this has been true in Christian as well as Pagan societies. Families raise children to become responsible contributing adults. Smoking . . . what does it do for society again? Nothing.

You are only going to look silly chasing this rabbit any further.

Yes, a restriction of liberty is clear in the $1Billion the state of california collected 2002. Behavior control through taxation is a restriction of liberty. The same government reaping the rewards for this revenue collection is now stating that the people paying the tax are not eligible for employment. In other words, the individuals that pay for that $1Billion are not allowed to benefit from that money. That is a restriction in Liberty.

Currently behavior is NOT controlled - you merely have to "pay to play". As far as benefits from taxation for the unemployed, while I'm not certain it's germane to this discussion, you're right these folks were disenfranchised.

I already stated that they pay for the costs over the non smoker premium. If your statement is that the compensation package should be different for a person that choses to participate in a legal activity, then your behaviour control nanny statist side is showing. If not, then I already addressed it.

Ok, we seem to keep coming back to this. One last time: smokers may pay higher premiums than non-smokers, BUT their premiums cannot keep up with the increased cost of smoking related illness in this country. So, when the sherriff's dept.'s insurance carrier has to start chipping in money above and beyound the deductable, it's costs them (isurance co.) - even with the higher premiums - markedly more than those who do not smoke. In this case it's all business. Smokers and their illnesses cost too damn much!. You want to smoke - pay the entirety of your insurance. Smokers who do this have no beef with me.

I say the same thing about having children.

IMhO making you pay for the schools or other people's children is wrong. However, the choice to have chidlren and the choice to smoke are not ethical nor moral equivalents.

Yes, now that the issue is in the spotlight, the conservatives are stepping up to the plate. However, this has been coming for YEARS and for YEARS conservatives have been sitting on their hands.

Personal attack aside, maybe in Kali you're right . . . where I'm from not so.

[MEGoody]

"nor due illegal drug users"

Nor due?

LOL!

After that little rant about how successful you are, how successful your company is, etc., etc., to see you blow it like that is just so darn funny!

[MEGoody]

"I was merely pointing out that smoking is immoral, a sin."

In your view. . .but I challenge you to find one place in the bible that mentions smoking. The context of the verse you quoted relates primarily to sexual immorality, but 1 Corinthians 6 also mentions drunkeness. I don't see anything that mentions smoking.

Now, having set the record straight on that, I do agree that smoking is unhealthy and that those who smoke should be respectful of those who do not.

But calling it a 'sin and immoral' is an opinion not based on biblical fact.

[MEGoody]

"As far as this thread goes, it's dead. It has turned into a forum for vindictive nico-crazed junkies like yourself"

As opposed to the shrill anti-smoking nutballs?

[CSM]

"It's completely unhealthy to smoke and smoking causes more medical costs than any other act - it's demonstratable and obvious."

Provide this demonstratable and obvious information. Correlation does not equal causation. If your statement is fact, why does the highest per capita smoking population in the world have the lowest per capita lung and heart disease rates in the world? (Japan)

The single biggest determinant for health problems is genetics, followed by diet. Should we restrict persons of certain genetics from applying for a job with this sheriffs office?

"Families may cost more than the single person, but they are not placing a similar burden when compared with smokers."

Yeah, right. The $11K per student education cost, the $4K in lesser taxes are nothing.

"Families are the fundamental basic unit of society - this has been true in Christian as well as Pagan societies."

So in some cases people should be willing to live with the consequences of their personal choices, but in others they don't need to be willing to live with the consequences of their personal choices. It is very clear now.

"Smoking . . . what does it do for society again? Nothing."

Ah, the foundation of socialism. We give up the individual for the good of society. Our name is Equality 25-5439, it is unlawful for us to be writing.........

"You are only going to look silly chasing this rabbit any further."

Why? Fact: Smokers pay higher health coverage premiums out of their pockets. Fact: Smokers pay a little over $1 Billion in California. Fact: Smokers pay higher product costs as a result of the Master Settlement Agreement.

That MSA was supposed to be payback to the states for these additional costs you seem to think exist. How is the money being used? Let me tell you it is not being used to offset any medical costs. Instead, it was put in the general fund. If the costs really existed, it would be used accordingly. On the other hand, since the costs are fictitious the money can be used in the general funds.

"As far as benefits from taxation for the unemployed, while I'm not certain it's germane to this discussion, you're right these folks were disenfranchised."

OK, I'll try to be more clear. The smokers generate $1 Billion in revenues to the state of CA. The smoker is not eligible for employment in this governmental department. I say that if this restriction is put into place, then the revenues should not be allowed.

"Ok, we seem to keep coming back to this. One last time: smokers may pay higher premiums than non-smokers, BUT their premiums cannot keep up with the increased cost of smoking related illness in this country."

Funny thing is, that while the population of smokers has continually declined, health care costs have continued to climb. So, I ask again, provide specific data to support your claim.

"So, when the sherriff's dept.'s insurance carrier has to start chipping in money above and beyound the deductable, it's costs them (isurance co.) - even with the higher premiums - markedly more than those who do not smoke."

Right, the insurance company just absorbs additional costs. The carriers just "chip in" money. Let me be more clear for you. The standard premium is $500, a smokers premium is $750. The way employers handle this is to pay the $500 for both employees and the smokers pay an extra $250 out of their paycheck. The way I interpret your statement is that you propose the employer pay the $500 for the non smoker and make the smoker pay their total $750. In essence you are advocating lower compensation for smokers.

So, you advocate higher taxes on smokers and lower compensation for smokers. Hmmmmm, do you advocate government mandated diets? Obesity is causing 400K deaths a year, ya know. The health costs for obesity is outpacing tobacco, ya know. It's for the children, lets tax any food that might lead to obesity related health care costs.

"Personal attack aside, maybe in Kali you're right . . . where I'm from not so."

I suppose in your area you don't get prime time TV programs. I suppose you don't get magazines. I suppose you don't get any of the media that has been pushing the gay agenda onto the rest of the nation.

[LisaMalia]

that's the beauty of the internet, you shall never know who I am or the name of my firm.

Or if you do, indeed, even have a firm. You could be some slacker out on the street for all we know using a public library computer.

[at bay]

"You could be some slacker out on the street for all we know using a public library computer."

Doubtful, his speech rang true. OTH, that big-old baloney buyer somehow didn't hit the mark....You know it occurs to me that young people just starting to join the chimney people, or thinking about it, should read threads like this. They would probably conclude, "OMG, it's the nicotine talking! These arguments are patently absurd!"

Yes, kids, it is the drug talking, just like coke or heroin addicts, it's always the drug talking. Ironically though, most other addicts have the toughest time quitting the chimney imitating.

Few overweight people revel in defense of their problem. Oh you get the occasional "I'm big-boned" "It's my hormone imbalance" but in large part people would LOVE to lose the love handles. I know I would. So why then these nico-whiners? The drug grips the brain like a vice and squeezes. Only by looking in a mirror and repeating "It's not the drug talking" can a chimney person break the spell, IM experience.

[CSM]

"Doubtful, his speech rang true. OTH, that big-old baloney buyer somehow didn't hit the mark...."

I will ask again. Which of my statements are not believable? I named a list of petrochemical companies that I bought from, I provided some information about my company. I gave specifics. What makes generalities more believable? Oh, yeah, the anti mind works that way!

[at bay]

"Oh, yeah, the anti mind works that way!"

Well, as the above statement indicates, you're not very bright, for one. I mean, you with the life, asked. Anti-mind? What a compelling comeback to my post. And to think it took only two puffs in between sentences to pull it off!

Most corporate buyers are a pretty savvy lot.

I don't really want to give you any tips in how to fabricate stuff more convincingly, but details are good if they ring true. The whole business about you being in a position to punish comapnies enlightened enough not to tolerate the chimney people's deadly habits, Did you drop a fire stick? Are your pants on fire?

[CSM]

"The whole business about you being in a position to punish comapnies enlightened enough not to tolerate the chimney people's deadly habits, Did you drop a fire stick? Are your pants on fire?"

As a buyer I am in a position to enter into significant contracts with any supplier that I deem necessary. That is what I am paid to do and my employer has given me that authority. With the competitiveness in my industry, most parts suppliers are very close in cost, quality and delivery. Given that competitiveness, many intangible elements come into play when sourcing decisions are made.

The personality of sales reps, program managers, plant managers, owners, etc. are a good reflection of the overall attitude of a company. It isn't beneficial for me or my employer to work with inflexible, holier than thou, nanny staters.

I don't consider that as "punishment" of a company, the owner chose to institute a policy and I chose not to enter into a contract with them.

Now, I ask again, how does generalities and lack of details merit credibility in your mind?

[realpatriot71]

In your view. . .but I challenge you to find one place in the bible that mentions smoking.

(here it comes) - So, in your opinion then, unless a particular activity is specifically mentioned, one cannot make a moral judgement based up the principle found in the Word of God? I don't remember seeing the word "abortion," "cloning," nor the use of other intoxicants such as marijuana, heroin, and methamphetamine - are all moral since not specifically mentioned? Is drinking the only immoral vice, then?

You see in 1Cor. 6 Paul is speaking specifically to sexual morality and he gives the principle for such a judgement - eg. the Body if the Temple of the Most High God. Are you saying that this same Godly principle cannot be applied to other selfish acts that hurt the body? Hmmmm? Think about it.

[realpatriot71]

Correlation does not equal causation. If your statement is fact, why does the highest per capita smoking population in the world have the lowest per capita lung and heart disease rates in the world?

You are correct about correlation, but I am not merely making a statistical pronouncement. It is quite clear, and has been for some time, just exactly what damage occurs at the cellular level in smokers in the lungs, and elsewhere in the body. Medicine knows exactly why smoking is bad and why is causes disease. The stats only back this up. Lung CA only hits about 13-14% of the poulation, but 80% of this cohort are smokers. Japanese, as a population, get hit with other disease due to smoking.

The single biggest determinant for health problems is genetics, followed by diet.

You are right bad genes and diet do create health problems only to be exacerbated by other stressors such as smoking

So in some cases people should be willing to live with the consequences of their personal choices, but in others they don't need to be willing to live with the consequences of their personal choices.

As I said before having a family and smoking are fundamentaly different, if you disagree, then I'm not going to convince you on a political forum. One produces a family, one produces harm.

Fact: Smokers pay higher health coverage premiums out of their pockets. Fact: Smokers pay a little over $1 Billion in California. Fact: Smokers pay higher product costs as a result of the Master Settlement Agreement.

AND all this is still not keeping up with health costs for cigarette smoking realted illnesses - fact.

The way I interpret your statement is that you propose the employer pay the $500 for the non smoker and make the smoker pay their total $750. In essence you are advocating lower compensation for smokers.

Yes, you are correct.

Hmmmmm, do you advocate government mandated diets?

No I do not, but eating is fundamentally different than smoking - no equvalent. Furthermore, I would support not hiring obese cops as well because of the related costs. People who are obese - with a few notable exceptions (folks with metabolic abnormalities) - are lacking in self-control. Their eating is just as much an addiction as smoking, and shouldn't be rewarded.

[CSM]

You never answered the question as to who would you put in charge of the government department of behaviour approval? Who gets to decide what behaviours are acceptable.

To summarize your points:
Smoking costs more for HC (no data provided).
Japanese population suffers from other diseases (no info provided)
Increased costs for HC are acceptable if they are from behaviours approved by you (fascism)
The extra taxes and premium costs directly funded by smokers doesn't keep up with actual costs (no actual costs provided)
Eating is different from smoking (well at least until we find an unhealthy food to restrict)

Now, when exactly are you going to change your monikor?

[SheLion]

Now, when exactly are you going to change your monikor?

All of the above cited are just words spewed and thrown out by these A-Holes. They can't provide the truth, it's something they just dream up.

The general public thinks "Oh! If they say so, it must be true." What sheeple we all have become.

[MEGoody]

"So, in your opinion then, unless a particular activity is specifically mentioned, one cannot make a moral judgement based up the principle found in the Word of God?

Certainly you can make a moral judgment - for yourself. But unless something is addressed in the bible, we need to be careful that we aren't playing the Pharisee game, making up rules for everyone else to follow.

"I don't remember seeing the word "abortion," "cloning," nor the use of other intoxicants such as marijuana, heroin, and methamphetamine - are all moral since not specifically mentioned? Is drinking the only immoral vice, then?"

Abortion and cloning are not there, but murder is most definitely mentioned.

While those particular drugs are not mentioned, drunkeness is. Seems to me that covers anything that makes one 'high.'

"Are you saying that this same Godly principle cannot be applied to other selfish acts that hurt the body?"

No, I'm saying we need to be careful about making up rules for everyone else to follow when something is not addressed in a more direct manner in scripture. If that is a rule for you, then go for it.

But remember:

1 Corinthians 6:12 All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any.

While we would agree that smoking is not expedient, we can see from the passage above that it IS lawful.

[BayouCoyote]

"Look at FDR and Churchill,slackers,both and them, and God knows how we won the war with all those nasty GI's puffing away."


You beat me to it.

Thanx!

[realpatriot71]

Smoking costs more for HC (no data provided).

More than 1.7 million Americans die of chronic disease every year (~70% of total deaths); of these people 2/3 of these deaths are due to 5 chronic diseases (1)heart disease, (2) cancer, (3) stroke, (4) COPD, and diebetes [1]. Is smoking related to these same chronic diseases? "As many as 30% of all coronary heart disease (CHD) deaths in the United States each year are attributable to cigarette smoking, with the risk being strongly dose-related. Smoking also nearly doubles the risk of ischemic stroke. Smoking acts synergistically with other risk factors, substantially increasing the risk of CHD. Smokers are also at increased risk for peripheral vascular disease, cancer, chronic lung disease, and many other chronic diseases. Cigarette smoking is the single most alterable risk factor contributing to premature morbidity and mortality in the United States, accounting for approximately 430 000 deaths annually.[2]. Chronic disease accounts for more than 75% of the entire costs spent on medicine [1] - the same diseases caused by smoking! Direct medical costs of smoking alone are more than $75 billion, causing an additional $80 billion associated with lost production [1]. $33 billion is spent on heart disease, cancer, stroke, and diabete (3/4 caused by smoking) [1].

Japanese population suffers from other diseases (no info provided)

"The improvement in the health situation has already been reflected in a reduction in mortality rates, which has contributed greatly to achieving the highest life expectancy in the world. Until the middle of this century, deaths caused by infectious diseases such as pneumonia, bronchitis, tuberculosis and gastroenteritis prevailed in Japan. However, since the end of the Second World War, these diseases have rapidly decreased and have been replaced by so-called life-style related diseases such as malignant neoplasms, and heart and cerebrovascular diseases. Cancer has ranked first in the cause of death since 1981. The number of cancer deaths in 2000 was 295 484, and the death rate was 232.80 per 100 000 population. While Japan has been traditionally characterized by a greater tendency for stomach cancer and uterine cancer deaths than deaths from other types of cancer, deaths from these types of cancer have been declining in recent years. They have been replaced by an increasing number of deaths from lung cancer, breast cancer and cancer of the large intestine among other types of cancer, showing a trend towards the "westernization of cancer"." [3]

Increased costs for HC are acceptable if they are from behaviours approved by you

It's not about my approval its about paying for a bad habit - disproprotionately.

The extra taxes and premium costs directly funded by smokers doesn't keep up with actual costs (no actual costs provided)

Do the math smart guy.

Now, when exactly are you going to change your monikor?

After you kiss my ass :-)

[CSM]

Lets see:
1.7 M deaths due to chronic disease.
430,000 deaths "attributed to smoking"
=25% (coincidental number)

25% of the population smokes. I say we must take actions and restrict the behaviour of the other 75% of the population that result in 75% of the deaths.

"Direct medical costs of smoking alone are more than $75 billion,"

Direct medical costs are paid for by the patient, or the patients insurance. Unless we have adopted a Nationalized health plan without my knowledge.

"$80 billion associated with lost production."

This is a bogus number that can not be proven.

"Cancer has ranked first in the cause of death since 1981."

Thanks for the information (all of it, I just didn't want to repost it.) It is a coincidence that about the time the anti tobacco push started, the rate of cancer began to climb in Japan. I would be curious to find out if that corresponded with an increase in US Agriculture imports....

"It's not about my approval its about paying for a bad habit - disproprotionately."

Yes, but who defines a "bad" habit. You fail to address that. If it isn't you, who will you authorize to decide? The majorit? (Tyranny) Or a chosen group/individual decision maker? (Fascism)

"Do the math smart guy."

You had not presented any actual data to "do the math".

But here it is for you:

---

From: http://www.smokingsection.com/swafr.htm

Finally, an article on the Viscusi study from the San Jose Mercury News(3/27/95):

Study Looks at Who Pays for Costs Cigarette Smokers Impose on SocietyBy David Ress, Richmond Times-Dispatch, Va. Knight-Ridder/Tribune BusinessNewsMar. 27--If there's no such thing as a free lunch, is it possible to atleast get a free smoke?

Nope, says Duke University economist W. Kip Viscusi. In a recent paper forthe National Bureau of Economic Research, Viscusi took a hard look at thequestion of who pays for the costs smokers impose on society.

These include additional health-care costs, passed on to everyone in theform of higher health insurance premiums and taxes for Medicare. Theyinclude additional sick days at work; more fire risks and higher grouplife insurance rates.

Viscusi calculated the additional health-care costs for smokers at theequivalent of about 55 cents for every pack of cigarettes bought in theUnited States.

The added sick days, he figures, aren't that big a deal: he estimates theycost society the equivalent of a penny a pack.

Viscusi pegs the extra fire risk at about two cents a pack. This risk comesfrom those who smoke in bed or never listened to what Smokey Bear said aboutpitching lighted cigarettes in the woods.

The economist puts the added cost to group life insurance policies at 14cents a pack.

That adds up to social costs of 72 cents a pack. The federal governmentcollects 24 cents a pack in excise taxes, and the states average another29 cents. Taken together, that suggests 19 cents a pack of costs to societythat cigarette taxes aren't paying.

For Virginia, with its 2.5 cent-a-pack cigarette tax, the shortfall wouldbe more like 45.5 cents a pack.

But wait. Smokers don't live as long as nonsmokers. That, says Viscusi,means they spend less time than nonsmokers do in nursing homes. That's asaving to society equal to 23 cents a pack.

Smokers don't collect pensions and Social Security for as long as nonsmokersdo, Viscusi adds. There's a saving to society equivalent to $1.19 a pack.

Society does lose out, though, in tax collections. If smokers lived longer,the additional taxes they'd pay on their income would translate to theequivalent of about 40 cents a pack.

Overall, though, as Viscusi counts it, the cigarette taxes smokers pay morethan compensate the rest of us for the additional costs they impose onsociety.

(end quoted article)
Viscusi's bottom line: a net saving to society of 83 cents per pack.

And absenteeism? This is largely a result of excessive drinkingand ensuing hangovers. Based largely on socio-economic differences, ahigher proportion of smokers drink than non smokers. Accordingly, if yousurvey absent workers and ask only the question "Do you smoke?", smokerswill appear to be absent more often. But it is alcohol which is primarilyresponsible. If only non drinking absentees were surveyed, there would beno correlation between smoking and absenteeism.

Apart from being wrong as to fact, however, the social cost arguments dependon a dangerous proposition: that when society, through taxes or insurance,shares costs and spreads risks it thereby becomes entitled to regulate,control and even prohibit behaviors deemed "costly". This is the perfectprinciple with which to transform a free society into a nation of brothers'keepers, since there is virtually no human activity to which it cannot be extended.

---

Pay particular attention to the last paragraph "realpatriot"!

[realpatriot71]

1 Corinthians 6:12 All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any.

Interesting. Furthermore, we can see from this passage, even aside from the health related issues of the Temple, Paul makes it quite clear at the end of this quote, that Christian liberty is under the principle of self-control. Forms of selfish indulgence become wrong when they bring a person into bondage - addition.

[realpatriot71]

25% of the population smokes. I say we must take actions and restrict the behaviour of the other 75% of the population that result in 75% of the deaths.

(?) No you have it wrong. "25%" are the percentage of people who died last year from chronic disease related to smoking :-)

Direct medical costs are paid for by the patient, or the patients insurance. Unless we have adopted a Nationalized health plan without my knowledge.

LOL - yeah it's called medicare and medicaid, not to mentioned all the uninsured that county and VA hospitals take care off. If everyone, smoker or not, were paying their medical bills you might have a point, but they're not, so you don't. :-)

This is a bogus number that can not be proven.

LOL - Oooops cannot counter this one, so it must be "bogus" :-)

Yes, but who defines a "bad" habit. You fail to address that. If it isn't you, who will you authorize to decide? The majorit? (Tyranny) Or a chosen group/individual decision maker? (Fascism)

None of the above - objective medical science and risk/cost analysis have shown that it is completely stupid for the government to continue to pay for people who are willfully and selfishly self-destructive.

You had not presented any actual data to "do the math".

Smoking is the single biggest self-controlable(?) contributing factor to chronic dz - the same diseases that cost the most amount of money to care for and treat.

(3/27/95)

A lot has happened since '95