Firing Smokers - Reading Beyond the Headlines

United Pro Smoker's Rights ^ | 5-11-05 | Stephanie Armour

[SheLion]

Firing Smokers - Reading Beyond the Headlines
Trend: You smoke? You're fired!

May 11, 2005
By Stephanie Armour

More companies are taking action against employees who smoke off-duty, and, in an extreme trend that some call troubling, some are now firing or banning the hiring of workers who light up even on their own time.

The outright bans raise new questions about how far companies can go in regulating workers' behavior when they are off the clock. The crackdown is coming in part as a way to curb soaring health care costs, but critics say companies are violating workers' privacy rights. The zero-tolerance policies are coming as more companies adopt smoke-free workplaces.

•Weyco, a medical benefits provider based in Okemos, Mich., this year banned employees from smoking on their own time. Employees must submit to random tests that detect if someone has smoked. They must also agree to searches of briefcases, purses or other belongings if company officials suspect tobacco or other banned substances have been brought on-site. Those who smoke may be suspended or fired.

About 20 employees have quit smoking under the policy, and a handful were fired after they opted out of the testing. "The main goal is to elevate the health status of our employees," says Gary Climes, chief financial officer.

•At Investors Property Management in Seattle, smokers are not hired. Employees who smoked before the ban was passed about two years ago are not fired; however, they can't get medical insurance through the company.

•Alaska Airlines has a no-smoking policy for employees, and new hires must submit to a urine test to prove they're tobacco-free.

"The debate has gone from where they can smoke to whether they can smoke," says Marshall Tanick, a Minneapolis-based employment lawyer.

Such bans are not legal everywhere: More than 20 states have passed laws that bar companies from discriminating against workers for lifestyle decisions.

There are other ways that companies are taking action against off-duty smoking, such as raising health care premiums for smokers.

Employers say it's about creating a healthy workforce. But it's also a bottom-line issue: Tobacco causes more than 440,000 deaths annually and results in more than $75 billion in direct medical costs a year, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Some smokers' rights groups are vowing legal action.

"These matters will be decided in the courts," says Redmond, Wash.-based Norman Kjono, with Forces, a smokers' rights group. "You're creating a class of unemployable citizens. It won't stand."

And legal experts fear companies will try to control other aspects of employees' off-duty lifestyle, a trend that is already happening. Some companies are firing, suspending or charging higher insurance premiums to workers who are overweight, have high cholesterol or participate in risky activities.

---

[SolidRedState]

LOL

Or walking. They might get hit by an SUV!

Or posting to FR, at home, on their own computer.
They may experience some wrath from some troll and incur mental problems. LOL

[EGPWS]

Or posting to FR, at home, on their own computer. They may experience some wrath from some troll and incur mental problems. LOL

Ohhh, you've given me an uneasy feeling, pardon me while I reference my employee handbook.

I'll now have to seek assistance and find out "how that makes me feel". ; )

Good one SRS!

[TASMANIANRED]

They have criminalized smoking while pushing one of the most lethal life styles as normal.

Anal sex leads to hepatitis, anal herpes, anal cancer, AIDS, increased frequency of suicide and domestic violence.

Makes no sense.

[patton]

Gabz, we are counting on you to hold the border out there.

We don't need DE folks in VA.

[Gabz]

They do if they work with many coworkers who have numerous children who bring minor health issues home from school with them.

Both my husband and I have been sick more in the past 3 years, than in the rest of our lives combined (he's 50 and I'm 45) and that coincides with our daughter starting school. Mind you, she rarely gets sick, but sure seems to bring all the bugs home :)

The sickliest kid in my daughter's preschool was the daughter of chiropractors who were vegetarians that didn't believe in vaccines and were fanatic anti-smokers.........

[ViLaLuz]

Soon, flatulance will also be banned.

[Gabz]

Guess what would happen if companies fired homosexuals?

The ACLU would be all over them like white on rice and the company would be sued out of business.

[EGPWS]

But alas, the "morons" have all the money and are able to finance the pushing of the lies and those who actually know the truth are shrugged off as nutjobs.

Do you really think it takes being a "moron" to make money?

Granted there are morons who have money because they were born with it, lest we forget the likes of Ted "Edward" Kennedy, but being labeled a "moron" because one has money is like walking a slippery slope don't you think, Gabz?

[Gabz]

ROFLMPJO!!!!!!!!!!!

[TASMANIANRED]

Remember the old song "16 Tons"

I owe my soul to the company store.

[Publius6961]

This site and document are way too good to just link to.

Here we go. Reading this makes my blood boil, because here we are, 7 years later, and if anything the lie has grown. From 3,000 (wild guess) to 53,000 (POOB)!

Enjoy.

Return to Researchers' page

WANDA HAMILTON

American Cancer Society Admits "Mistake" in Ad Date of original release: 8/10/98

Return to main page

"Secondhand Smoke Kills more Americans each year than cocaine, crack, heroin, homicide, suicide, car accidents, fires and AIDS," the headline of a half-page ad in the March 10, l998, Miami Herald screamed in big, bold letters. Below was a listing for the number of deaths in each category. The only figure in boldface was: "Secondhand Smoke - 53,000."

As someone who has closely followed the scientific claims surrounding the smoking issue, I wasn't particularly surprised to see the 53,000 figure. Though no U.S. government agency publishes or endorses it, this number pops up regularly in anti-tobacco ads whenever and wherever the push is on for a smoking ban. And, indeed, the purpose of the Herald ad was to campaign for removal of the preemption clause in the Florida Clean Indoor Air Act, thus enabling city and county commissions to enact local smoking bans. Predictably, the American Cancer Society, the American Heart Association and the American Lung Association were the ad's sponsors.

What surprised me was the citation for the 53,000 figure: "U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, ETS Compendium, l986 data." I knew the "official" EPA number was 3,000, not 53,000, and according to such independent analysts as the Congressional Research Service, even the EPA estimate of 3,000 deaths appeared to be too high, given the available scientific data.

Determined to get to the bottom of the puzzling citation, I phoned the 800 number provided in the ad. It connected me to a voice-mail recording at the American Cancer Society (ACS). I left my name, phone number and a brief inquiry about the EPA citation.

I also e-mailed David Lawrence, publisher of the Miami Herald. Lawrence responded that he would share my concerns with the vice president of advertising, as he did each time I sent him an update.

Several days later, Marcia Nenno of the ACS contacted me. She seemed discomfited by my questions about the citation. First, she said the 53,000 figure was actually from the l986 EPA risk assessment. Then, she claimed that it was from the EPA report. Finally, she said the source was a Surgeon General's report. Based on my familiarity with those reports, I replied that it was from none of those sources.

She insisted there was documentation and asked if I would like her to send it to me. "Yes, indeed," I responded.

A packet from the ACS arrived more than a week later. The explanation in the enclosed letter was vague at best: "Upon researching this we found that such a Compendium was produced in l986, thus the statement that the data was l986 is correct. However, the data was not published until l988. Enclosed is the l988 publication that was the basis of the EPA Compendium data: 'An Estimate of Adult Mortality in the United States from Passive Smoking' by Judson Wells."

The Wells article had been published in l988 all right, but in the journal Environment International, not by the EPA, and the photocopy I was sent bore Wells' name, fax number and the date March 18, l998, at the top of each page. So much for the convention of actually having a document in hand before citing it as a source. Nothing in the packet pertained to the United States Environmental Protection Agency or the "Compendium."

I followed up with a letter to the ACS and copied the Herald and the Tampa Tribune, which had also run the ad. My letter pointed out that the ACS had not substantiated their claim that the EPA was the source for the 53,000 figure and that the organization could well be guilty of false and misleading advertising.

In a terse reply, Jeanne Lambert, director of communications for the ACS, wrote: "As an earlier letter to you indicated, the source of 'secondhand smoke kills 53,000 Americans each year' as the EPA was correct; however, it was not published in l986."

I fired off another letter to the ACS. In essence it said that since the ACS had been unable to produce even a single piece of documentation that the EPA published or endorsed the 53,000 figure in l988 (or any other year), I would file a complaint against the ACS for false and misleading advertising.

Several weeks later, the ACS's final response arrived. "The American Cancer Society will no longer use the Environmental Protection Agency as the source for the statistic because we too have been unable to acquire the documentation to support this citation."

At last, the unambiguous, unvarnished truth -- the ACS had lied in their ad.

However, the letter went on to say: "Any future references to 'secondhand smoke kills 53,000 Americans each year' will be attributed to an article written by Stanley [sic] Glantz, Ph.D., and William Parmley, MD, called Passive Smoking and Heart Disease, Mechanics and Risk published most recently in The Journal of the American Medical Association, April 5, l995 ...."

So the ACS and their anti-smoking allies will continue to use the 53,000 figure in their smoking ban campaigns, but at least from now on there can be no doubt about its source: an article by Stanton Glantz, notorious anti-tobacco activist and a founder of Americans for Nonsmokers' Rights. The same Stanton Glantz whose inflated mortality figures on secondhand smoke were rejected by the EPA as too flimsy for inclusion in its own controversial report. The same Stanton Glantz that one of his own -- Mike Pertschuk of the Advocacy Institute -- accused of "ugly, propagandistic distortion."

As for the press, the result was what we have come to expect. Even though both the Miami Herald and the Tampa Tribune publishers and ad directors were copied with all correspondence about the ACS ad, to date neither paper has printed a retraction. Even the smoking gun of an outright admission that the citation in the ad was false has left the media barons unmoved.

Was the exercise worth it? You bet it was. The anti-smoking zealots believe they can get away with saying or doing anything if the subject is smoking. This proves they can't if we remain vigilant.

 

[EGPWS]

The sickliest kid in my daughter's preschool was the daughter of chiropractors who were vegetarians that didn't believe in vaccines and were fanatic anti-smokers.........

The employment scrutiny issue sure can be an issue with a broad spectrum can't it?

Perhaps what we need is more attorney's to to scrutinize it and more politicians to forward the outcome of the attorneys work? /s

[Publius6961]

"morons" have all the money and are able to finance the pushing of the lies and those who actually know the truth are shrugged off as nutjobs.

Not exactly...

The smokers have all the money; and they pass it on to the Big Tobacco Companies; who pass it on to the Gummint; who distribute it to the states; who dole it out to the neurotic and the insane to keep pulling facts out of their butts!

Sad, but true. Adding insult to injury.

[SheLion]

But how will the doctors, drug companies and Health Insurance companies be paid if everyone stops smoking?

Not to mention how the taxes smoker's pay on cigarettes are contributing to their state economy already.

Your State Information:

View your tobacco taxes, a comparison of state excise taxes on cigarettes to state excise taxes on beer and wine, MSA payments to date, State laws, and links to other state-specific information.

Alabama Information / Alaska Information   / Arizona Information / Arkansas Information   / California Information / Colorado Information / Connecticut Information / Delaware Information   / DC Information / Florida Information   / Georgia Information   / Hawaii Information / Idaho Information   / Illinois Information   / Indiana Information   / Iowa Information   / Kansas Information / Kentucky Information / Louisiana Information   / Maine Information / Maryland Information / Massachusetts Information / Michigan Information / Minnesota Information   / Mississippi Information / Missouri Information / Montana Information   / Nebraska Information   / Nevada Information / New Hampshire Information / New Jersey Information   / New Mexico Information / New York Information / North Carolina Information / North Dakota Information   / Ohio Information   / Oklahoma Information   / Oregon Information   / Pennsylvania Information   / Rhode Island Information / South Carolina Information / South Dakota Information / Tennessee Information / Texas Information / United States Information / Utah Information / Vermont Information / Virginia Information / Washington Information   / West Virginia Information   / Wisconsin Information / Wyoming Information  

 

[Gabz]

In Delaware all must comply with the no-smoking indoors law that is actually even stricter than California's law - however an employer still has the right to hire only smokers if he/she so desires.

Years back, when I was still fighting in favor of a law to prevent employers from discriminating against hiring/firing for outside of work legal activities I collected a huge folder of help wanted ads that stated "Smokers need not apply" or "only non-smokers need apply."

It still remains legal to do so in Delaware, just as it would be equally as legal to place an ad stating "Smokers only need apply."

I have since changed my stance on that type of legislation - the government needs to stay out of it altogether.

[SheLion]

Of course there will never be any such outcry over the fact they have all done the EXACT same thing about the second hand smoke hokum.............

When the anti's saw that their war on the smoker's wasn't working, then they started another war on us by telling everyone that our second hand smoke is killing them. 

Oak Ridge Labs, TN & SECOND HAND SMOKE 

Statistics and Data Sciences Group Projects

I think any anti who tries to dismiss the findings of the U.S. Department of Energy labs at Oak Ridge, should be confronted with the question: "Are you saying that DOE researchers committed scientific fraud and that their findings on ETS exposure are untrue?"

[Kozak]

		SAMMEC Home | OSH Home | DRH Home | Help | Contact Us

•	Home
•	Computations
•	Reports
•	User Options
•	About SAMMEC
•	Help
•	Log Out

•	Smoking Prevalence U.S. 2001 Smoking Prevalence
•	Number of Deaths U.S. 2001 Number of Deaths
•	Relative Risk CPS–II(82-88)
•	Life Expectancy U.S. 2001 Life Expectancy
•	Present Value of Future Earnings U.S. 2001 PVFE
•	Selected Population U.S. 2001 Resident Population
•	Standard Population U.S. 2000 Standard Population
Change All Data Elements
•	Select Year
•	Select State

Evaluation of SAMMEC

---

Go to Survey

Smoking-Attributable Mortality (United States, 2001)^1,2

Disease Category		Male	Female	Total
Malignant Neoplasms
Lip, Oral Cavity, Pharynx		3,775	1,140	4,915
Esophagus		6,887	1,624	8,511
Stomach		1,949	567	2,516
Pancreas		3,170	3,446	6,616
Larynx		2,492	563	3,055
Trachea, Lung, Bronchus		79,295	45,805	125,100
Cervix Uteri		0	465	465
Kidney and Renal Pelvis		2,877	211	3,088
Urinary Bladder		3,889	1,040	4,929
Acute Myeloid Leukemia		858	319	1,177
Sub-total		105,192	55,180	160,372
Cardiovascular Diseases
Ischemic Heart Disease		52,201	29,878	82,079
Other Heart Disease		13,110	7,815	20,925
Cerebrovascular Disease		8,305	8,187	16,492
Atherosclerosis		1,358	659	2,017
Aortic Aneurysm		5,771	2,885	8,656
Other Arterial Disease		558	776	1,334
Sub-total		81,303	50,200	131,503
Respiratory Diseases
Pneumonia, Influenza		5,995	4,306	10,301
Bronchitis, Emphysema		7,964	6,702	14,666
Chronic Airway Obstruction		39,859	37,806	77,665
Sub-total		53,818	48,814	102,632
Total		240,313	154,194	394,507

Data Elements
Smoking Prevalence:	U.S. 2001 Smoking Prevalence
Number of Deaths:	U.S. 2001 Number of Deaths
Relative Risk:	CPS–II(82-88)

¹ Among adults aged 35 years and older.
² Does not include burn or second hand smoke deaths.

SAMMEC Home | OSH Home | DRH Home | Help | Contact Us CDC Home | Search | Health Topics A-Z Privacy Policy | Accessibility This page last modified January 24, 2005 United States Department of Health and Human Services Centers for Disease Control and Prevention National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion Office on Smoking and Health

[EGPWS]

Soon, flatulance will also be banned.

Show some vision ViLaLuz!

Strategically, the most efficient way to rid ourselves of flatulence is to focus on the root cause of flatulence in the first place.

Let's ban that! ; )

[Gabz]

We don't need DE folks in VA.

EXCUSE ME??????????????? LOL!!!!

Getting to know owners of various places over on Chincoteague I can say that to a one they all agree the Delaware smoking ban has done wonders for tourism in this area. and that also includes owners of places in Maryland.

People that for years vacationed at the Delaware beaches are now choosing Ocean City and Chincoteague because of the smoking ban.

The phone, email, and fax lines were burning up between Accomac county and Richmond when I spread the word about Mimms proposed statewide ban for VA.

[Kozak]

		SAMMEC Home | OSH Home | DRH Home | Help | Contact Us

•	Home
•	Computations
•	Reports
•	User Options
•	About SAMMEC
•	Help
•	Log Out

•	Smoking Prevalence U.S. 2001 Smoking Prevalence
•	Number of Deaths U.S. 2001 Number of Deaths
•	Relative Risk CPS–II(82-88)
•	Life Expectancy U.S. 2001 Life Expectancy
•	Present Value of Future Earnings U.S. 2001 PVFE
•	Selected Population U.S. 2001 Resident Population
•	Standard Population U.S. 2000 Standard Population
Change All Data Elements
•	Select Year
•	Select State

Evaluation of SAMMEC

---

Go to Survey

Smoking-Attributable Productivity Losses
(United States, 2001)^1,2
(in thousands)

Disease Category	Male	Female	Total
Malignant Neoplasms
Lip, Oral Cavity, Pharynx	$1,549,005	$341,385	$1,890,390
Esophagus	$2,317,447	$416,806	$2,734,253
Stomach	$587,410	$147,513	$734,923
Pancreas	$1,097,729	$844,305	$1,942,034
Larynx	$832,563	$183,911	$1,016,474
Trachea, Lung, Bronchus	$22,466,918	$12,936,723	$35,403,641
Cervix Uteri	$0	$311,004	$311,004
Kidney and Renal Pelvis	$985,720	$69,031	$1,054,751
Urinary Bladder	$699,509	$165,584	$865,093
Acute Myeloid Leukemia	$262,377	$92,723	$355,100
Sub-total	$30,798,678	$15,508,985	$46,307,663
Cardiovascular Diseases
Ischemic Heart Disease	$18,432,043	$5,999,032	$24,431,075
Other Heart Disease	$3,293,297	$1,247,182	$4,540,479
Cerebrovascular Disease	$2,985,009	$2,780,124	$5,765,133
Atherosclerosis	$153,505	$42,895	$196,400
Aortic Aneurysm	$1,300,398	$420,559	$1,720,957
Other Arterial Disease	$135,363	$138,855	$274,218
Sub-total	$26,299,615	$10,628,647	$36,928,262
Respiratory Diseases
Pneumonia, Influenza	$846,994	$504,419	$1,351,413
Bronchitis, Emphysema	$1,439,028	$1,090,167	$2,529,195
Chronic Airway Obstruction	$6,002,919	$5,221,338	$11,224,257
Sub-total	$8,288,941	$6,815,924	$15,104,865
Total	$65,387,234	$32,953,556	$98,340,790

Data Elements
Smoking Prevalence:	U.S. 2001 Smoking Prevalence
Number of Deaths:	U.S. 2001 Number of Deaths
Relative Risk:	CPS–II(82-88)
Present Value of Future Earnings:	U.S. 2001 PVFE

¹ Among adults aged 35 years and older.
² Does not include burn or second hand smoke deaths.

SAMMEC Home | OSH Home | DRH Home | Help | Contact Us CDC Home | Search | Health Topics A-Z Privacy Policy | Accessibility This page last modified January 26, 2005 United States Department of Health and Human Services Centers for Disease Control and Prevention National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion Office on Smoking and Health