Team Research Paper: Smoking and Healthcare Reform
Introduction
In recent years, following the Affordable Care Act becoming law, business has taken a blow at the hands of the government. As the Act continues to be slowly implemented, many companies have adopted new practices in an attempt to cut the costs of healthcare, while still maintaining the benefits already set in place for employees. Among these practices is refusing employment to smokers. Although this practice is not entirely new to companies, it is becoming a more popular option for those looking to save on premiums wherever possible. So this begs the question, is it socially responsible to discriminate against potential employees based on their use of cigarettes? This is a question
…show more content…
Currently, there is no federal law forbidding this type of discrimination against applicants that is clear-cut enough to give smokers any advantage in this issue. Many claim that banning the hiring of smokers is disability discrimination, as nicotine is an addictive drug, and that smokers are protected under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Others argue that a nicotine addiction does not qualify as a disability because it does not impair to a far enough extent. Whatever the argument, it has yet to be decided if someone can use the ADA to successfully overcome smoker discrimination (Lessack, 2011). However, all is not lost for those in need of a nicotine fix. As it stands, 29 states, and the District of Columbia, have outlawed smoker-free policies (Deschenaux, 2011). Of those 29 states and the District of Columbia, “18 jurisdictions have enacted statutes prohibiting discrimination against smokers", “eight states protect the use of lawful products”, and “four states offer statutory protection for employees who engage in lawful activities” (Deschenaux, 2011, p. 44). Texas is not one of these states, and still allows for companies to ban smokers from employment in the …show more content…
Those who are against smoker discrimination contend that placing employment restrictions on smokers, while may be meant for the good of society, will have an adverse effect on smokers, perpetuating health disparities, by taking away needed income which makes it harder to obtain health coverage. Therefore, the policy, intended for the greater good, could result in negative consequences that outweigh the benefits, implying that there is a double effect to the situation (Roberts, 2014). Another argument is the very obvious issue of personal liberty. No company should be able to dictate what an employee does while off the clock. A company that sets a smoker-free policy is unfairly using their power to control parts of workers’ lives that should be left to the discretion of the worker alone. Smoker discrimination is an indirect way of forcing a worker to live a life parallel to what the employer considers acceptable by withholding the right to make a living. This creates a “might equals right” justice system, where the companies who hold all of the money hold the power to dominate workers, who will be obliged to adhere to such standards in order to feed their families. Although the amount of companies employing this strategy is limited for now, if the numbers continue to grow, there are forty-seven million Americans who will end up out of work or be forced to quit participating in a completely lawful
It’s widely known that it isn’t recommended to start smoking because it’s addictive, harmful for the human body and is very costly. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, it is the leading cause of death in the United States, impacting those who smoke personally and as well as those who receive it second hand, and costs the country “$300 billion a year, including nearly $170 billion in direct medical care for adults and $156 billion in lost productivity (2015).” Also, according to Samantha Graff, an author representing the Tobacco Control Legal Consortium, smoking isn’t a constitutional right and is prohibited many public, work and government establishments (2008). That being the case, the comparison strongly insinuates that using free speech is a poor choice and shouldn’t be protected in the bill of rights, which gives further bias to the negative side of his
Do you smoke? Such a question has been asked to most people at one time or another. The topic of smoking certainly requires a thorough analysis, whether you smoke or not. It’s also an issue which seems to polarize people. In this reading we’ll compare contrasting viewpoints by two different individuals. As I present the arguments, I’ll dissect them to truly understand their inner-workings. Both Dr. Haviland and King touch on many subjects yet seem to ignore others. I think a balance must be struck when it comes to smoking, both through individual rights and a social responsibility.
Renneboog, R. M. (2016). Cigarette Smoking Bans: An Overview. Canadian Points Of View: Cigarette Smoking Bans, 1.
The tobacco industry seems like a beneficial addition to our economy. It has basically been a socially acceptable business in the past because it brings jobs to our people and tax money to the government to redistribute; but consider the cost of tobacco related treatment, mortality and disability- it exceeds the benefit to the producer by two hundred billion dollars US. (4) Tobacco is a very profitable industry determined to grow despite government loss or public health. Its history has demonstrated how money can blind morals like an addiction that is never satisfied. Past lawsuits were mostly unsuccessful because the juries blamed the smoker even though the definition of criminal negligence fits the industry’s acts perfectly. Some may argue for the industry in the name of free enterprise but since they have had such a clear understanding of the dangers of their product it changes the understanding of their business tactics and motives. The success of the industry has merely been a reflection of its immoral practices. These practices have been observed through its use of the media in regards to children, the tests that used underage smokers, the use of revenue to avoid the law, the use of nicotine manipulation and the suppression of research.
in only a few years time we will notice a drastic decline in the total
This essay is aimed to explore, analyse and discuss smoking in adults. Smoking is a public health issue as such is one of the major contributors to high mortality and ill-health in the adults which is preventable (Health and Excellence Care (NICE) (2012). The United Kingdom (UK) is known to have the highest number of people with a history of smoking among people with low socio-economic status (Scriven and Garman, 2006; Goddard and Green, 2005). Smoking is considered a serious epidemic in the UK and the National institute for Health and Excellence Care (NICE, 2012) stated that 28% of adults with low economic status are tobacco smokers compared with 13% of those with economic status or having professional incomes. Furthermore almost 80,000 people died in England in 2011 as a result of smoking related issues and 9,500 admissions of children died due to being second hand smokers (WHO, 2005). This essay focuses on definition of smoking, the aim is to underline the relationship between smoking and the determinants of health and then, the size, prevalence, and morbidity trend of smoking will be explored. Furthermore, some public health policies introduced to confront the issues around smoking will be investigated and finally, the roles of nurses will identify health needs the public so as to promote good health and their wellbeing.
Smoking cigarettes is a detrimental practice not only to the smoker, but also to everyone around the smoker. According to an article from the American Lung Association, “Health Effects” (n.d.), “Smoking is the leading cause of preventable death in the U.S., causing over 438,000 deaths per year”. The umbrella term for tobacco use includes the use of cigarettes, cigars, e-cigs and chewing tobacco. While tobacco causes adverse health consequences, it also has been a unifying factor for change in public health. While the tobacco industries targets specific populations, public health specifically targets smokers, possible smokers, and the public to influence cessation, policies and education.
Every year cigarette smoking is responsible for 500,000 premature deaths (Nugel), you do not want to be just another statistic, do you? America’s first cash crop was tobacco. That means that tobacco has been around for a really long time. It was not until 1865, though, that cigarettes were sold commercially. They were sold to soldiers at the end of the Civil War (Dowshen). From then, cigarettes spread like wildfire, and it was not until 1964 that anyone made a stand about the negative effects of tobacco and cigarettes. People start smoking for all different reasons, some to fit in and some to “escape”. Regardless, it is a horrible habit. 3900 children will try their first cigarette today. Amongst adults who currently smoke, 68% of them began at age 18 or younger, and 85% at 21 or younger (American Lung Association). And of all those people, 70% say if they were given another chance they would never have picked up that first cigarette (Tobacco Free Maine). Smoking is responsible for 1 and 5 deaths in the united states, and is the number one preventable cause of death (NLH). Smoking burns and there is no doubt about that, but before one picks up that cigarette, understand the negative effects on not only oneself, but others affected by ones poor choices, like second-hand smoke. Because of smoking cigarettes, many types of cancer, decrease of life quality, and negative health effects have become all too common in the world today.
There needs to be a policy to ban cigarettes, it kills the smoker, in addition, could kill the person exposed to the smoke from cigarettes. “The cigarette is also a defective product, meaning not just dangerous but unreasonably dangerous, killing half its long-term users” (Proctor), cigarettes are not healthy in any way making it a defective product, it mainly kills the smoker rather than helping them. It was produced to be inhalable smoke harming anyone who smokes them making it a defect because in the past the tobacco was too harsh to be inhaled. The policy would help cigarette smokers, especially since they don’t even like the habit of smoking cigarettes, knowing it harms them.
Although it is illegal to discriminate for race, color, religion, sex, and national origin, it is clearly an employer's right to choose not hire smokers. This could save medical costs but at what other costs? If something is legal, is it always ethical?
Each year 440,000 people die, in the United States alone, from the effects of cigarette smoking (American Cancer Society, 2004). As discussed by Scheraga & Calfee (1996) as early as the 1950’s the U.S. government has utilized several methods to curb the incidence of smoking, from fear advertising to published health warnings. Kao & Tremblay (1988) and Tremblay & Tremblay (1995) agreed that these early interventions by the U.S. government were instrumental in the diminution of the national demand for cigarettes in the United States. In more recent years, state governments have joined in the battle against smoking by introducing antismoking regulations.
In the interest of the health of tenants and staff, and the quality of indoor air and enjoyment of the premises, Sharon manor pleased to inform you that effective February 1, 2018, a no-smoking policy will apply to this community smoking will no longer be allowed inside individual units or on private balconies, decks, or patios. If you smoke, please use the designated smoking area or step off the property, at least 25 feet away from any doors, windows, or openings into an enclosed area of the property. When you finished, please extinguish and dispose of your smoking material in an appropriate ash or trash can. areas where smoking will be prohibited, inside units, outside balconies and patios, outside property. This policy was passed to protect
.I believe that the Tobacco industry is unethical, They provide a product that causes addiction and eventual death if smoking continues thought the majority of a person’s life. I think that the tobacco industry needs to take more responsibility for their product. I believe they should do this by not advertising on the false image of being a cigarette smoker and focus on what consumers are actually going to receive for their money when purchasing cigarettes. They should focus on the feeling it gives people, and what the cigarette experience actually is in the most literal terms. Also cigarette companies should tell costumers upfront in easy to read labels the long term and short term effects of smoking to let people clearly know what they are buying and what it’s effects are.
Cardador, M.T., Hazon,A. PHD, Stanton. G. PHD., (September 1995).Tobacco Industry Smokers’ Rights Publications: A Content Analysis. American Journal of Public Health
Those opposing a smoking ban say that freedom of choice would be affected by such legislation. Some people against a ban say that smoking bans damage business. A smoking ban could lead to a significant fall in earnings from bars, restaurants and casinos. Another argument is that the smoker has a basic human right to smoke in public places, and the ban is a limitation for smokers’ rights. Businesses, smokers, publicans, tobacco industries, stars, and some of the non-smokers oppose public smoking ban. Smokers light a cigarette because they need to smoke, not because they want it, because nicotine is physically addictive. Therefore, some smokers think that the public smoking ban is oppressiveness. They see the ban as a treatment to smokers as second-class citizens. Smokers agree that the smoking ban benefits the world, but cannot support the ban, because effects of nicotine obstruct them.