FireLink

A station is banning smoking from new recruits. Do you agree with this practice?

http://firelink.monster.com/news/articles/7694

Sorry I feel that it is the individuals right to smoke. Just like it is their right to drink and do many other things. Now if they want to say you can't do it in uniform then I would say ok not a problem. However, they should not be able to deny employment based on their tobbacco use or not. If things like this start going on then I would like to put an idea out there.... let's ban all people with blue eyes from working, or maybe we can ban people that shave their heads or legs or faces..... I mean it can cause razor burn and get infected and they could die and cost the taxpayers money. How many cases of staph infection are counted each year? I'm so sick of the anti smoking crud out there right now it's not even funny. Second hand drinking (DUI) kills too, but they haven't taxed that to 8 bucks a shot...

AzCodito says ...

You have a right to do anything you want to. Let the smokers smoke, just charge them higher premiums on their insurance.  

Smokers do and always have payed more than non smokers. The thing that gets me most is that they lay this on the health care issue, and I feel it goes a bit deeper than that. I think the ones that create these little issues are non smokers. Honestly..... When was the last "uber" tax increase on booze? They raised the tax per pack of smokes twice in six months. Sure smoking puts the firefighter at risk for all sorts of stuff, but I think he/she takes just as much risk every time they hop off the truck. 

Personally I'm so very tired of people trying to save us from ourselves. If we want to go on the health care trip then all firefighters need to stop red meats and start eating tofurkey. Smokers pay for their habit in both premiums and at the register. Becasue if i see a question on the next insurance form that asks me how much red meat I consume in a month I think I will go ape $#!%..........

firedup says ...

I think its a very logical stance to be taking .. from an insurers point of view. We can argue that it is their right to smoke, which is true, it is their right. We can argue that its damaging to the image of the department, because fire fighters are in the public eye, and nobody wants their kids to see their hero with a ciggerette sticking out of their mouths. But when it comes down to it, smoking is hazordous to your health. Period. Any insurance company has the right to investigate whether or not a fire fighters death from a heart attack was solely caused by job hazards or if there were any personal activities that may have contributed to the death. If a fire fighter were killed in the line of duty, and was found to have had been intoxicated , either from drugs or alcohol, that insurance company is likely not going to pay out.  Why shouldnt it be the same with tobbaco?  It is a known and proven medical fact , smoking kills. I am very surprised that this hasnt come up more often.  And that there hasnt been a study done relating to the number of fire fighter deaths from heart attacks, and of those deaths how many were smokers.

firedup,

I truely respect your thoughts on the subject and agree that it is up to the issuer of the policy as to allow or deny a claim based on evidence. However, I do not believe it is ok for a local government to say one set of people can or can't smoke. Again the issue is with the insurance... either raise the base for smokers to gain a policy or seek another company. They need to stop playing it off as the smoker is placing a burden on the system..... These guys pay their premiums and they answered (hopefully) the yes I smoke question. If the policy holder just doesn't do their homework then it's their problem. We also know that fire/drinking/driving in bad weather ect kills, but people still drink .... run into fires and put them out and drive in all sorts of nasty weather. Now if they want to get all huffy and puffy about the burden of smokers on the health care system then maybe they need to pass a law where people on government assisted coverage can't smoke... or maybe if you're poor you can't smoke.... OH! and don't forget that those who currently smoke at the station will be allowed to becasue they will be grandfathered in to the new policy. So you will still have people smoking.

As for kids seeing their (hero) smoking.... I'm sure this is by far the least damaging thing children could have. Watched TV lately?

ok First, this really isn't about insurance premiums, this is borne out by the fact of it applying to only new (probationary) Fire Fighters. This is more about the old story about smokers vs. NON-smokers and thats all it is. I can appreciate that those that don't smoke don't like the smell or the second hand smoke that they may be exposed to, but as cigarettes are not currently a regulated drug( not withstanding the new thing with the FDA) there is no legal basis for telling an employee that they cannot smoke on their own time. this has been tried in the past and shot down by several courts, same idea as an employer telling an employee that they may not consume alchohol or swim in shark infested waters outside the great barrier reef. If they want to make a stand that they don't want smokers then they have to make a hiring practice rule(ordinance) that barres smokers from being employed, and it must cover all city employees and then further must provide those who are already employed with smoking cessation programs including the current crop of medicines use to assist in the course of stop smoking programs. I personally am a smoker, I try to make sure that my habit does not interfere with my coworkers or the personel in my unit when we are deployed, and I at 45 years old am in better physical condition thean most of the kids in my unit( I atleast can pass the APRT).

I know smoking is bad for me. I do my best to respect those non-smokers in my vicinity, as do MOST smokers. I would like to quit, but I would say that nicotene is far more addictive than crack! It's just not that simple to quit! however, to deny someone their right to smoke is like denying freedom of speech. We don't tell you not to talk when you complain about us smoking! If I'm standing 25 feet from you smoking, don't walk up to me telling me I'm polluting your atmosphere, after all, you walked up to me!