Comments on: Escambia Schools To Consider No Smoking Policy For New Hires

By: C

Tue, 17 May 2011 20:04:16 +0000

How will they know if someone’s a smoker? Will they spend money to test them? This is so silly. People should mind their own business.

By: JIM W

JIM W — Mon, 16 May 2011 19:53:00 +0000

Let’s see the sign in front of the school should say if you have any vice or overweight do not apply. I do not smoke and do not hold it against anyone who does. It is a personal issue and I would almost bet anyone who smokes knows what could happen to them. It is a hard habit to quit for sure I watched my dad and it was tuff. But he did it. I can see making people if they choose to continue this habit or stay over weight to pay the difference in the rating on the cost of the insurance because it after all is their choice.
I just think we have to be very careful how we treat people who are trying to make a living by working. I know that at this point there thankfully are more non smokers than smokers. The key has been education and peer pressure not mandating.
Just saying be careful what you ask for.

By: Driven

Driven — Mon, 16 May 2011 07:23:05 +0000

@ Jerry: If you read my whole comment you would know that that isn’t all I got from this new proposal.

Like I said..since this is healthcare issue…ban new hires from eating fast food and drinking alcohol as well. Those two are just as bad as smoking.

Driven

By: eab

eab — Mon, 16 May 2011 01:34:04 +0000

WORRIED RESIDENT said…”@eab, you’ve quit smoking, now you’ve become intolerant of those who do?”

I said…RIGHT!!! (in caps). If I can quit,so can they. I certainly don’t want to pay for their medical care if they don’t. But, come to think of it, you have an excellent point. Make ‘em all quit or give their jobs to someone who wants them.

By: WORRIED RESIDENT

WORRIED RESIDENT — Sun, 15 May 2011 19:24:04 +0000

First, let me say I’m not a smoker, and never have been. With that being said, I still think this policy would be WRONG!! If they want to do this, I think they should also require the current workers to quit smoking in a resonable amount of time. Whether or not they (School Board) pay to help with it (Nicotine patches, etc) would be another discussion. My thoughts are if it is so cost effective for the new hires to be nicotine free, wouldn’t it be even more cost effective for all employees to be nicotine free?!

If this is about insurance cost. Require the smokers (ALL of them) to pay the difference in premiums for non smokers.

@eab, you’ve quit smoking, now you’ve become intolerant of those who do?

By: eab

eab — Sun, 15 May 2011 18:48:31 +0000

Worried Resident said (and in capital letters,no less)…”.I understand having a “smoke free” workplace, but to have it only for the “new hires” is WRONG!!!”

I said…So why is it WRONG!!!?

The folks already working there presumably did not know that smoking would be banned when they started to work. Any new hires would,I’m guessing, be fully aware of the policy. If a candidate doesn’t like it, let ‘em go work somewhere else.

My2cents said…”What you do on your time is your business not your employers.be that smoking,drinking or anything else allowed by law.”

I said…Not if I’m paying for it. You want the job? Quit smoking.

By: My2cents

My2cents — Sun, 15 May 2011 14:54:37 +0000

Your right you can’t change the color of your skin.Maybe I used the wrong example trying to make my point.My intended point being that it is discrmination.
What you do on your time is your business not your employers.be that smoking,drinking or anything else allowed by law.

By: WORRIED RESIDENT

WORRIED RESIDENT — Sun, 15 May 2011 12:40:01 +0000

@My2cents,
Smoking is a choice! The color of your skin is not! I don’t understand why you can’t see that! That is not the same thing!

By: WORRIED RESIDENT

WORRIED RESIDENT — Sun, 15 May 2011 12:23:36 +0000

I understand having a “smoke free” workplace, but to have it only for the “new hires” is WRONG!!! I guess the “new hires” (the ones who smoke), will have to smell the smoke on the old employees when they come in contact, and it’s suppose to be ok!!! Again, I say this is WRONG!!!

By: eab

eab — Sun, 15 May 2011 02:28:42 +0000

I smoked for 25 years but quit about 12 years ago after probably 20 attempts.I do see the wisdom of trying to keep it off any public property where young people might be influenced to start. I also don’t see why anyone should think they have the “right” to smoke on public property just because tobacco is legal. There are lots of things that are legal that aren’t typically allowed in schools.

To equate smoking with skin color is so absolutely absurd as to be laughable.

The issue of whether to allow smokers into an insurance pool is, perhaps, thornier. Since the policy would only affect potential employees, I think that makes it more palatable. Want a job in the school system? Quit smoking. I loved cigarettes. But the facts are they are nasty, unhealthy to smokers and people around them, and incredibly addictive. But if I could quit, a potential job candidate should be able to as well.

It could be argued that anything that drives up insurance costs for public employees is every taxpayer’s business. I don’t know how much in insurance costs the employees are responsible for. If the answer is all of it, then let ‘em smoke.

I have paid taxes all my working life for other people’s children to go to school when I never had kids of my own. I don’t resent this because I think an educated society has many advantages over an uneducated one. I will support this non smoking policy because it may (and I emphasize “may”) help control insurance costs in the public sector. As a taxpayer, that’s my business unless public employees want to bear the entire cost of their insurance themselves.

Now, with all that said, what do we do about overweight folks or people who refuse to exercise? (laughs)