Beyond being banned from smoking in public places or inside the workplace, more and more smokers are finding that their habit may bar them from being hired in the first place. There is an increasing trend among employers to refuse to hire smokers or anyone who tests positive for nicotine, which may include even those who use smokeless tobacco or nicotine patches while in the process of quitting.
The latest trend is especially popular among hospitals, where employers say their anti-smoker policy benefits workers health and productivity and reduces the cost of health insurance premiums, since health care premiums for smokers run $3,000 to $4,000 more per year than for non-smokers. But there are many who oppose such a policy including us here at ACSH who believe that a refusal to hire smokers amounts to discrimination, and is counterproductive to improving smokers health. Indeed, 29 states and the District of Columbia have passed laws protecting smokers from this type of ban, although non-profits and health care organizations are often exempt.
ACSH's Dr. Gilbert Ross believes that such bans will do little to help smokers quit their deadly habit: There s no question that hiring smokers costs more, he admits. But the best way to deal with smokers is not to punish them by refusing them work, but instead to help them quit and charge them higher health insurance premiums. Work is the best place for smokers to obtain access to health care, and if they can t find jobs, they won t obtain these important health benefits.
As ACSH's Dr. Josh Bloom points out, As much as I can t stand smoking, this goes way too far. If you refuse to hire smokers, then what do you do about people who drink? Should we test them for liver damage? Or should someone who is overweight be checked for diabetes? This is nothing but carefully disguised discrimination. It is none of a company's business when employees use a legal product on their own time.