Company fires all employees who smoke!

[MikeH]

They do raise it every budget.

[Last Conformist]

che wrote:

Nobody just smokes the occassional cigarette, so you can't compare it to drug use (which is illegal) or the occasional drink.

You don't get the phenomenon of "party smokers" in Florida? That's to say, people who don't smoke regularly, but'll take a cigarette or cigar on the occasional party.

[MikeH]

They do, I know some. Laz Gimp is one.

[Dr Strangelove]

There is good news on the horizon regarding all of these problems. A new drug is in trials that dramatically curbs appetite, but also seems to reduce the craving for cigarettes. The drug it turns out is a Cannabinoid Receptor Blocker , it literally turns off the munchies. Of course as you might deduce it blocks the effects of marijuana on the brain.

Given the epiudemic of obesity, smoking and drug use among our nations youth I predict that once it hits the market entire high schools will be put on this stuff.

[Zoid]

If the smokers should pay the true price of smoking, a pack of cigarettes should cost about 40 $ according to a study made by the Duke University of Durham, NC

http://www.dukenews.duke.edu/news/costofsmoking_1104.html

[Last Conformist]

Companies aren't gonna fire all people who make unhealthy lifestyle choices, because that would reduce their pool of potential labour. But I don't see why they shouldn't be able to exclude such categories as for which they figure that the savings from dumping them exceeds the loss of talent.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Kamrat X
If the smokers should pay the true price of smoking, a pack of cigarettes should cost about 40 $ according to a study made by the Duke University of Durham, NC

And from that study...

The authors found that smokers’ costs to society are less than generally believed -- about $1.44 of the $40-per-pack total -- when costs to the smoker’s family are not included.

"The reason the number is low is that for private pensions, Social Security, and Medicare -- the biggest factors in calculating costs to society -- smoking actually saves money," Sloan said. "Smokers die at a younger age and don’t draw on the funds they’ve paid into those systems."

Using this figure, some economists might suggest that cigarette excise taxes in many states already are high enough to recover society’s portion of the cost of smoking.

Hmmmmm...

[Zoid]

But he continues...

But when the combined costs to society and to other family members are considered ($6.88 per pack), one might conclude instead that excise taxes are far too low, Sloan said.

Given the high costs and adverse effects of smoking on individuals, it is "remarkable," the authors conclude, that funds from the 1998 settlement involving 46 state attorneys’ general and major tobacco manufacturers largely are not being spent on smoking-cessation or related programs. Many states are using the funds to cover budget deficits or, as in North Carolina, on economic development in tobacco communities

[Ming]

True enough... but the point that some have tried to make that smokers cause a financial drain on the medical system is not an accurate one. This study shows that the taxes being paid by smokers probably covers the costs to society...

Fat people, gays and other high risk groups, are a REAL drain on the health care system since they don't get taxed to make up the difference that they cost.

While nobody would argue that smoking is a good thing to do, "SOMEBODY" called smokers morons because of the COST to himself, which as the study points out, is probably not true... Other high risk groups cause a much higher drain on the healthcare system... so this person should be calling Gays, Fat people, women who will have children... morons for costing him money, not smokers

Now, as you pointed out, some states have decided to use the revenues generated through taxes and litigation for other things... I don't see that as very relevent to the discussions of cost to society, since the money is there. If they want to "rob peter to pay paul" thats their decision.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
You know obesity is like just as costly on our healthcare system as smoking is. And in fact I would say probably more since it is widespread.

So what are we gonna do next, fire all the obese people?

Unforunatley that's not gonna work, we would have to start importing about 200 million foreign workers.

Canadians.

[Ming]

Asher... using your logic... all gay people should get fired next, because as a group, they are a bigger drain on the healthcare system than smokers

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ming
Fat people, gays and other high risk groups, are a REAL drain on the health care system since they don't get taxed to make up the difference that they cost.

Let's stop with the categorical "gays" discrimination -- while statistically "gays" may cost more, just like women statistically cost more than men, it's a silly way to discriminate for price.

For the gays that live the high-risk lifestyle -- which is an above average rate than normal -- they will have increased costs. The idea isn't to fire gays for high risk, it's to fire the people who live high-risk lifestyles, period.

Not all gays have a high-risk lifestyle, while all smokers will be a much higher risk medically.

There is a difference.

[Asher]

For example, I'm a young guy who doesn't smoke, goes to the gym 3 times a week, in a monogamous long-term relationship.

I'm the kind of guy insurance companies love.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Asher
Not all gays have a high-risk lifestyle, while all smokers will be a much higher risk medically.

There is a difference.

Sorry... there is NO difference. You want to nail one group as a whole while ignoring individuality, yet you claim individuality for gays. You can't have it both ways.

Statistically, gays and smokers as a group fall into a higher risk category. That is a fact. As you point out, that risk can be mitigated by gays if they play it smart.
But the same holds true for smokers. There is a big difference between social smokers and smokers that smoke two packs a day. Living in a major city can cause as much harm as an occasional smoke due to polution.

And again... your point was that smokers cost you money... and as the study points out, they pay their own way, and in reality, probably don't cost you anything. Yet gays who don't practice safe sex DO cost you money... So it's gays you should be calling morons... not smokers... based on your "costing me money" argument.

Again, smoking isn't a smart thing to do... but it ain't costing you a cent. Unsafe sex by gays is costing you money So they are the ones that should be fired

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ming
Sorry... there is NO difference. You want to nail one group as a whole while ignoring individuality, yet you claim individuality for gays. You can't have it both ways.

Eh?

There is no individuality when you discriminate against smokers for smoking.

You are discriminating against smokers for undeniably smoking, which is a well-known major health risk.

When you discriminate gays for the same reason, you do it based on stereotype and generalization.

All smokers are smokers, not all gays practice unsafe sex and live a high-risk lifestyle.

You have to be kidding me when you say there's no difference, unless you really believe all gays are high-risk just like all smokers are high-risk.