Denial of Employment for Nicotine use moves beyond the health industry in Atlanta

[rothenbj]

Smokers can't qualify for some metro jobs | 11alive.com

 

[zoiDman]

This is a Very Disturbing trend.

 

[telsie]

A disturbing trend, indeed, and a good reason to sever the link between healthcare and employment. It's only a matter of time before half the country ends up unemployable because of health screening... cholesterol, weight, blood pressure, etc.

 

[zoiDman]

A disturbing trend, indeed, and a good reason to sever the link between healthcare and employment. It's only a matter of time before half the country ends up unemployable because of health screening... cholesterol, weight, blood pressure, etc.

Health screening used as a biases for Healthcare workers is a slippery slope.

What I found so Disturbing is seeing it spread to other work sectors.

 

[Eddie.Willers]

On the same page:

Metro Atlanta dead last for job creation in August

New data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics shows Atlanta lost more jobs than any other American metro between August 2010 and August 2011.

Is it any wonder, with this kind of paternalistic fascism?

 

[Vocalek]

Just ran across this discussion of the Americans with Disabilities Act, as amended in 2009.

On January 1, 2009, the ADA Amendments Act (ADAAA) became effective. The ADAAA rejects several U.S. Supreme Court decisions which narrowly defined "disability," including the Sutton trilogy, and directs courts to interpret "disability" to the broadest extent possible. Because mitigating measures (other than ordinary eyeglasses or contact lenses) shall no longer be considered in determining "disability," at least some of the rationale underlying Brashear and Rose would not be applicable in cases decided under the ADAAA's standards. With the Brashear and Rose holdings no longer compelling precedent, courts may revisit whether smokers or nicotine addicts are "disabled" under the ADA.

If revisited, the focus will be on the ADAAA's "revised" disability definition. The definition remains three-pronged; the words of the first two prongs have not changed: A "disability" means (1) a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities of such individual; or (2) a record of such an impairment. But the ADAAA now expressly defines "major life activities" as including, but not limited to, "caring for oneself, performing manual tasks, seeing, hearing, eating, sleeping, walking, standing, lifting, bending, speaking, breathing, learning, reading, concentrating, thinking, communicating, and working." The term also includes "the operation of a major bodily function, including but not limited to, functions of the immune system, normal cell growth, digestive, bowel, bladder, neurological, brain, respiratory, circulatory, endocrine, and reproductive functions."

Will a smoker or nicotine addict meet this broadened "disability" definition? The analysis is two-pronged: is smoking or nicotine addiction an "impairment" and, if so, does that impairment substantially limit a major life activity?

Generally, a "physical impairment" is a "physiological disorder or condition" while a "mental impairment" is a "mental or psychological disorder," such as mental ......ation, organic brain syndrome, emotional or mental illness and learning disabilities. Substance abuse, other than the current illegal use of drugs, may also be an impairment. EEOC Notice No. 915.002 (1997).

In September 2009, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issued a Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) to revise its ADA regulations to implement the ADAAA. 29 C.F.R. 1630 (2009). The NPRM lists examples of impairments that: 1) "Will Consistently Meet the Definition of Disability"; 2) "May be Disabling for Some Individuals But Not For Others"; and 3) "Are Usually Not Disabilities." 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(5)-(6) (2009). Neither smoking nor nicotine addiction is mentioned in any of these categories. While smoking might cause impairments that will consistently be disabling, e.g., lung cancer, there currently is no authority supporting the position that merely smoking or being addicted to nicotine "substantially limits" an individual's ability to perform one or more major life activities.

A smoker or nicotine addict might also argue he/she is protected by the third prong of the definition of "disability," "being regarded as having such an impairment (as described in paragraph (d))." This prong prohibits discrimination against any individual with an actual or perceived impairment, regardless of whether the impairment substantially limits a major life activity, unless the impairment(s) is both "transitory [lasting or expected to last for six months or less] and minor." As with the other prongs, individuals must still argue that smoking or nicotine addiction is an impairment. However, under this prong, individuals do not have to prove that the impairment substantially limits a major life activity.

The Job Description

My nicotine dependence (I prefer that word to "addiction") is a disability because going without nicotine impairs my learning, reading, concentrating, thinking, communicating, and working. The last time I became totally abstinent from nicotine, these impairments lasted the full six months that I was abstinent and were not showing any signs of abating.

I can understand why an employer might not want to consider allowing me to smoke to be a "reasonable accommodation" for my disability. But seems to me that an employer needs to be required to provide the reasonable accommodation of permitting employees to use a form of nicotine that does not cause lung disease, cardiovascular disease, or cancer.

 

[emus]

I can switch to zero nic if it helps land a job.
My zero contains pepper extract which may or may not be less healthy than nic.
More data points on nic vapers than pepper vapers.

 

[pianoguy]

Folks who live in states that don't already have a lifestyle discrimination law should push their legislators to enact one:

Labor: Lifestyle discrimination laws are becoming increasingly prevalent

 

[D103]

@ pianoguy

Great link, thanks!!

 

[BCB]

One of our county commissioners tried to install this policy for new hires this year but he failed. He had been given all his anti-nicotine information from the insurance company that we switched to because of steady premium increases by Blue Cross which had provided the county health insurance for decades. They didn't institute the, no nicotine rule but anyone who uses nicotine in any form must pay higher premiums than everyone else (just a smidgen but it still sucks). No mention of higher premiums for other risky but legal behaviors like skiing, biking, mountain climbing, drinking, etc.

In a sick way it's really kinda funny. I work at the county dump. People drive there using internal combustion engines--they never turn off their diesel trucks--it's outside and in the middle of nowhere but the county took time to post "No Smoking" signs up. So you can leave your truck running and toss in a rotting carcass but you're not supposed to smoke a cigarette. Is it the smoke? Can't be because they all came in smoking vehicles. Is is the horrible aroma of burning tobacco? I don't think tobacco can compare to festering fish heads.

If you try to find any logic in any of this you only get a headache.

 

[BCB]

Guess I spoke too soon. The county is still working on it.

http://http://www.bonnercountydailybee.com/news/local/article_4977eb84-eb29-11e0-88f0-001cc4c03286.html

It's still interesting how it goes from smoking to tobacco to nicotine as if all are interchangeable and abhorrent. "We're not going to hire any more burning buildings" is applied to smokeless tobacco users as well. You'd think those who use chew could just spit an incipient fire out.

(well, I don't think that link works--still lernin all this newfangled computr stuf)

 

[Thulium]

Guess I spoke too soon. The county is still working on it.

http://www.bonnercountydailybee.com/news/local/article_4977eb84-eb29-11e0-88f0-001cc4c03286.html

It's still interesting how it goes from smoking to tobacco to nicotine as if all are interchangeable and abhorrent. "We're not going to hire any more burning buildings" is applied to smokeless tobacco users as well. You'd think those who use chew could just spit an incipient fire out.

(well, I don't think that link works--still lernin all this newfangled computr stuf)

Fixed it for you: Policy against hiring smokers eyed - Bonner County Daily Bee: Local News: sandpoint, bonner county, tobacco, smoking, health insurance

 

[BCB]

Thanks, Thulium!

 

[Vocalek]

Wow. 100% of the commenters think the commish is a dork.

 

[rothenbj]

He's either a dork or a "health" professional.

 

[Crumpet]

Autn Esther added her 2 cents in the comments section.

 

[Vocalek]

I spoke too soon. Submitted this counterpoint comment:

It's true that people who use the pharmaceutical nicotine products like the patch, gum, lozenges and prescription inhalers are likely to start smoking again. But nicotine isn't the cause of these relapses. It's the absence of nicotine. These products come with directions to stop using them after 12 weeks. This is not because GlaxoSmithKline knows of any danger involved in using the products longer. It's because that's how long the testing lasted to obtain FDA approval. In real life, when treatment stops, relapse begins.

Smokers who switch to e-cigarettes (or some other smoke-free source of nicotine) are unlikely to take up smoking again. In the largest population survey of e-cigarette users published, Etter and Bullen noted that 77% of daily user don't smoke at all, and those who are (currently) continuing to smoke have cut their consumption from 25 cigarettes per day to 15. It took me 20 years to reduce from 50 cigarettes per day to 10, and it only took a few days with an e-cigarette to eliminate those last 10 cigarettes. That was 2-1/2 years ago! The number of e-cigarette consumers reaching 1 year, 2 years, and even 3 years of smoke-free living is growing exponentially.

Sweden has the lowest smoking rate in the European Union (14%) and the lowest lung cancer rate. But Sweden doesn't have the lowest rate of tobacco use. Many of those former smokers switched to snus, a type of spit-free moist snuff. Swedish smokers who switch to snus tend to stick with it, because they are not inundated with false information telling them that snus is just as harmful as smoking. The facts are that smokers who switch to snus eliminate the elements that cause lung disease because they no longer inhale smoke, and their rates of cancer and heart disease are no higher than ex-smokers who don't use any form of nicotine.

In the U.S., smokeless tobacco products carry warning labels stating, "This product is not a safe alternative to cigarettes" which 85% of the populace thinks means that using the product is no safer than smoking. So in essence, our warning labels are saying "You might as well smoke." Thus, the biggest roadblock to reducing smoking prevalence may well be the false information disseminated by the tobacco control community. How ironic...and sad!

 

[Vocalek]

When I changed what I was doing--trying to give up nicotine--I was finally able to give up smoking. Thousands of us in this forum tried the nicotine abstinence approach over and over and over. It did not work for us. This works.

Nicotine abstinence does work for some people. If it is working for you, that's great. But do realize that, except for identical twins, we all have different physical and biochemical make-ups. Anything that tastes like licorice makes me gag. Perhaps you love the flavor of licorice. I have a friend who is allergic to--of all things--antihistamines. But most people can use antihistamines to treat and control allergies. I thought she might be mistaken about her allergy to antihistamines until one night I noticed that every time I took a Zyrtec, I broke out in hives. Go figure. You may feel great without nicotine. I don't.

On the other hand, if what you have been doing is not working for you, if you're not a happy camper, maybe it's time you tried something different.

 

[rothenbj]

I'm with you 100%, except those other WTA's are what really satisfy me. Snus is MY perfect answer, but I can't stop experimenting. I became an infrequent vaper until the WTA liquid came along. Now I use that much as someone who has a cigar every once in a while.

Then a friend from the dark side offered me some snuff which I reluctantly accepted. I love the quick "hit" of nic, I suppose plus the scent that remains afterward. That again is like a treat, every once in a while.

All those varieties are needed to address the various factors that answer the big question, what do I need to quit smoking.