New England Journal Editorial - Go Comment!
- Thread starter Penner
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Honestly, after reading that article I couldn't tell if they really were for or against the policies. They seemed to be arguing both sides and leaning more toward approval of the policies.
The whole concept of not hiring tobacco consumers vs. hiring them and helping them quit just seems to say "F--- you. We don't care about you anymore unless you are nicotine-free. You're a lost cause."
The fact that a lot of tobacco products do not leave a smell on the employee's clothing nor increase health risks seems to completely elude these people. tobacco/nicotine use ≠ Smoking.
The whole concept of not hiring tobacco consumers vs. hiring them and helping them quit just seems to say "F--- you. We don't care about you anymore unless you are nicotine-free. You're a lost cause."
The fact that a lot of tobacco products do not leave a smell on the employee's clothing nor increase health risks seems to completely elude these people. tobacco/nicotine use ≠ Smoking.
Last edited:
Perhaps a link to the comment section would be in order since I couldn't find it?
Those place are not just hiring smokers but are also excluding anyone who may have nicotine or continine in their systems.
This will exclude those low level employees who in my experience are the food service employees, transportation people janitors etc.
All folks who may come from the inner cities or who may not have college degrees........at least this was the case when I worked in a hospital.
C.B.
Those place are not just hiring smokers but are also excluding anyone who may have nicotine or continine in their systems.
This will exclude those low level employees who in my experience are the food service employees, transportation people janitors etc.
All folks who may come from the inner cities or who may not have college degrees........at least this was the case when I worked in a hospital.
C.B.
I beleive, (I dont know for sure), that you have to register to leave a comment, doesn't sound like they will take anonymous comments. This is a highly respected journal in medicine, so its unlikely they will take an anonymous comment.
The link is www.nejm .org (ecig forum software is not allowing a live link, so just copy it into your browser & get rid of the space before the .org, in the link).
Goto the center of the page, look for "Perspective online first: The Ethics of Not Hiring Smokers" this is the March 27, 2013 issue.
Then click on comments.
HTH
The link is www.nejm .org (ecig forum software is not allowing a live link, so just copy it into your browser & get rid of the space before the .org, in the link).
Goto the center of the page, look for "Perspective online first: The Ethics of Not Hiring Smokers" this is the March 27, 2013 issue.
Then click on comments.
HTH
I am sick and tired of the crap people spew. Did you see that incredible paragraph on third hand smoke? Ridiculous. People standing outside smoking is killing babies and killing even more babies by touching door knobs on their way in from smoking which pregnant women touch.
Smokers need to rise up and say "We won't take it anymore!"
Smokers need to rise up and say "We won't take it anymore!"
7th hand smoke
Being the 7th person to turn a door knob
after a smoker touched it
Would first hand smoke be when the smoker touches the door knob; or when the next person after the smoker touches it??
Would first hand smoke be when the smoker touches the door knob; or when the next person after the smoker touches it??
I like the lead in sentence to the article-
Now that shows what? I see 80% of the yearly deaths NOT being associated with tobacco. Considering that 20%+ of the population are smokers and perhaps 40-50% were ever smokers (more than 99 cigarettes in their lifetime) who will be included in any smoking related death stats, this shock number means very little.
Now that shows what? I see 80% of the yearly deaths NOT being associated with tobacco. Considering that 20%+ of the population are smokers and perhaps 40-50% were ever smokers (more than 99 cigarettes in their lifetime) who will be included in any smoking related death stats, this shock number means very little.
Hah, so they found an acceptable way to discriminate against minorities, one that the liberal bleeding hearts will swallow and stand behind. As minorities have higher rates of smoking and lower rates of quitting. How nice of them..
I pointed that out in my comment, as well as the fact that it is not "tobacco use" that makes up the 400,000+ deaths per year.
One with think with their credentials, they would know the difference between smoking and tobacco use. It bothers the hell out of me that someone can be denied a job because the use of smokless products. Some better rethink this. To think of it, for that matter, smoking as well. We have to defend our right to live. I dont want to hear about the costs of health care due to smoking anymore either. The CNN special a couple of weeks ago shed plenty of light on that. Other lifestyles and habbits are also contributing to our healthcare problem. Not to mention the fact that we have a pill for everything. These Pharma commercials are indicitive of a problem with our mentality and the health care system overall. And to discriminate against one who is using THR as a means to get a bit healthier utter nonsense. Let the hospitals only sell decaffinated coffee and sugar free soda while they are at it. And It doesnt take a genius to figure out that one shouldnt smell like smoke when at work period. Its the same as being well groomed and wearing clean clothes to the job. Nothing but a bunch of nannies!!
- Status
Similar threads
