An Unexpected Ally Against Nicotine-Free Hiring Policies

[Vocalek]

This comes from, of all places, Legacy.

Smoke-free versus Smoker-free Workplaces | The Partnership at Drugfree.org

 

[Tom09]

This comes from, of all places, Legacy.

Smoke-free versus Smoker-free Workplaces | The Partnership at Drugfree.org

Who’d have thunk...
There is also a more official Legacy: “smoker-free” position paper.

 

[Ande]

How very very surprising!

And positive. Thanks for sharing.

 

[PaulB]

How odd. I wonder if they'll adopt the relentless rudeness of their TheTruth campaign toward this particular cause...

 

[DC2]

After reading the whole article, I have to wonder if this would qualify as a "defection" to some extent?

 

[pianoguy]

That's quite a refreshing stance for a change.

 

[Vocalek]

My comment is still "awaiting moderation."

The situation is even worse than the article describes. A growing number of employers are instituting nicotine-free hiring policies. Decades of research shows that smokers who switch to a low-nitrosamine, spit-free type of smokeless tobacco have no higher risks of cancer, lung disease, heart attacks, and strokes than former smokers who quit all use of tobacco/nicotine. This good safety record is being used as evidence that long-term use of NRTs would not be hazardous. Yet these employers (many are hospital systems) are stating that if an applicant tests positive for nicotine–even if the source is a medicinal nicotine product–they will not be hired. There is no justification for this policy. It is discrimination at its worst.

Since this article is (re)printed in The Partnership at Drugfree.org, they might disagree with my take on snus (even though I did not name the product).

 

[subliminalurge]

Pretty good article, but I had to step away and come back to it after this sentence:

"These young people are sold a deadly bill of goods about the wonderful lifestyle of smokers and bombarded with industry marketing"

This gives the author away as a militant with little grasp on reality. In my 40 years in this world I don't recall having ever seen a "bombardment" of advertising for cigarettes. An occasional ad in a magazine, sure. A billboard here and there? Yeah. But a "bombardment"? Absolutely not. Especially considering that the young people of today aren't even seeing most of the print advertisement. They use the Internet, magazines are something that Grandma reads. Hell, I'm 40 years old and I don't even have any magazine subscriptions anymore.

If they were discussing Bud Light, Dos Equis, or Jack Daniels, she might have a point. There is definitely a bombardment of advertising for alcohol products. But cigarettes? No. Aside from the posters in convenience store windows, I honestly can't even remember seeing a cigarette advertisement in recent history.

Strange that this woman was able to put together an article that, taken in its entirety, is actually well thought out and makes a strong and valid point. Shame she couldn't have prevented the insane militant from peeking through, though.

 

[rothenbj]

If they were discussing Bud Light, Dos Equis, or Jack Daniels, she might have a point. There is definitely a bombardment of advertising for alcohol products. But cigarettes? No. Aside from the posters in convenience store windows, I honestly can't even remember seeing a cigarette advertisement in recent history.

An alcohol ad bombardment? Between Big Pharma and the medical industries' constant spots along with the lawyers searching for clients to sue the fore mentioned businesses, I long for the days of the Clydesdales and "I love you man!" ads. I suspect that this fact alone has bought the media into the healthists movement.

As they say, follow the money.