Should Companies Refuse Smokers Hire?

During the 1920's, smoking tobacco had been documented as hazardous to peoples health as studies had linked lung cancer patients were more commonly smokers. Since the 1920's various other studies had significant evidence to claim other health risks with pregnant women, children and the affects of second hand smoke on others. After all these studies came the debate on whether smoking should or should not be continued in a workplace.

indeed at the noses of those of us who don't. While they should have autonomy

Action on Smoking and Health (ASH, 2007; Richardson (2001) argued that manual groups are likely to smoke heavier than the managerial groups and stated likely reason for this such as food insecurity, substitute for food, social environment, segregation and pressure, lack of good health and lack of confidence. In addition to this, epidemiology statistics reported by Health and Social Care Information Centre (HSCIC, 2013 and Wanless, 2004) stated that smoking is more prevalent among the lower socio-economic groups and known to be key part of the disparities in life expectation between manual and non-manual groups. Therefore it is important something is done to eradicate inequality in the health of the general population.

This author creates an invalid analogy when he compares smokers’ right to the civil right sought by Black in the 1950s and 60’s. In an attempt to convince that smokers are being discriminated that smokers are a potential “target of violent antismoker and overzealous public enforces.” There are several problems that gave this argument invalid. First, smoking in public area put other people other on risk and that is why they are being discriminated. The discrimination against black people is just plain cruelty because the white taught of them as less because of their skin color. While smoking it puts other in danger, therefore, they don’t approve of people smoking especially in public area. Second, the civil right movement was to give freedom

Tobacco has existed for long as we have known about history, but due to the negative effects of it to the broader community Tobacco has sparked greater controversy across the globe. Many people argue that it is the government’s responsibility to protect the individual but on the contrary some disagree and believe it’s up to the individual. This essay will elaborate above mentioned aspects and lead to a logical conclusion.

Hospital room 302 is white and clean. It has one window looking out upon the hospital lawn. It is quite and it is not home. This could become the home of a smoker. It is not very friendly or inviting; however, some decision that we make now take away the decisions we get to make in the future. More importantly, hospital room 302 could be filled with a non-smoker who has lung cancer due to decisions they had no control over. The benefits of stopping smoking at any age or extent has the potential to prolong life expectancy, decrease mortality rates, and decrease passive exposure to cigarette smoke.

Nevertheless, the amount of smokers still has a significally high rate. A person does not think about the severe consequences which may result from smoking. Careless to their health, smokers consider themselves invulnerable, and the effects of smoking does not start immediately , however, after a number of years, depending on its intensity, the number of smoked cigarette smoke inhalation depth, duration of smoking it leads to harmful side effects. Smoking harms people not only their health but also the health of the people around him. Tobacco smoke cause damages to the body of a smoking individual, but also their wallet. The systematic use of even small doses of nicotine can cause a dependence. Today, many states, has been fighting against smoking. Smoking is prohibited in many public places and prohibited tobacco advertising. A healthy person runs the risk of making their addiction permanent .Once started, quitting is very difficult, so it is better not to start smoking than to all the forces to deal with this bad habit. Sadly, this is easier said than done, smoking is a choice and their choices effect others as well. By participating in physical activities, sports, training, going to the libraries, or attending clubs and so on, are opposed to the development of bad habits, and, especially the habits of tobacco use. Adoption of a healthy way of life is important. By all means contribute to its decision - the duty of all people and every citizen of United

Specifically, implementation of rules is on the overall safety of each and every person within the workplace. Unfortunately, there will be people who feel triumphant and those who feel discriminated against and defeated. The manufacturers, distributors, and retailers who sell tobacco and now the e-cigarette that creates a vapor for the customer, feel defeated as they and the customers continue to receive push-back from those who do not smoke. Allowing the use of e-cigarettes in the workplace creates a double edge knife for the employer. In defense of the e-cigarette user production will not diminish, and the person will be more enjoyable to be around, since they are able to receive their nicotine addiction. On the other hand, for the worker who does not smoke, while there is still evidence Trtchounian, Williams & Talbot (2010) the vapors released from the e-cigarette and the smoke exhaled by the smoker, possess a health risk to others purely on the chemicals used within the e-cigarette. Moreover, further findings indicate the non-cancer exposure of nicotine and propylene glycol still exceed the minimum of 1.0 parts, which creates a health risk for anyone who inhales the smoke exhaled from another person (Offermann, Francis (Bud), 2014). Any time a person’s actions in the workplace can possibly bring pain and

and The question is why the freedom to smoke in a designated area in public places a problem. If you are outside are in close area people are still exposed to the fumes of second hand smoke. Can the option of smoking be left up to the public rather or not an individual should smoke in public. Where does the line end in the rights of a person the right to inhale clean air, the right to excise your right to smoke in public? Non-Smokers have the right to smoke free clean air environment, and smokers have a personal right to smoke in designated smoking areas. In this research paper I will talk about the controversy issue of second-hand smoke in public places and the privilege to smoke in public.

The 2017-2018 Ethics case of Smokers Need Not Apply presented the issue of tobacco use amongst hospital employees. The hospital job posting had stated that smokers need not apply, as concerns regarding, “the interests of employee productivity, as well as saving on the cost of employees’ health insurance” have become major hiring considerations (NHSEB, 2017, p. 7). This job application caused much controversy amongst smoke-free advocates and the pro-smoking community. After deep analyzation of this case, I would like to answer the question presented: “when, if ever, is it morally permissible for employers to discriminate on the basis of tobacco use?” (NHSEB, 2017, p. 7). In addition to clarifying my final answer, I would like to use the theory

During this clip of “Young Frankenstein” there were a few HR issues that I observed. The first issue I observed was smoking in the workplace. The issue of smoking in the workplace is the impact of second-hand smoke, which could affect the health of other employees and the comfort of non-smokers. People who are non-smokers usually don’t like the smell of cigarette smoke and this could make them unconfutable, which could lead to irritation or even a violent dispute as shown in the clip.

I agree that smoking is detrimental the human body in many aspects, and I cannot support that smoking is not harmful in any aspect. Health care professionals have the responsibility of informing patients that certain behaviors will interfere or worsen their medical condition. I do not agree that patients should be released from care, because of the choices that they live by. Everyone is entitled to health care, if they seek it. I came across an article, How Can We Balance Ethics and Law When Treating Smokers, that reiterated the fact that it is unethical to release patients or withhold treatment, because of the choice to smoke. In her article Senderovich (2016) wrote, “what many do not realize is that physicians are legally not allowed

Should cigarette smoking be banned for everyone in the United States? Why? Why not? Should those who chose their time smoking to relieve stress, personal enjoyment, or simply just because, have to lose their right to what makes them happy? Smoking tobacco products has been around for decades and in many different forms. Should personal rights be pushed aside to please those around us that disagree with the so called “disgusting habit”? In the paper The Washington Times an article caught my interest called”D.C. seeks bans on smoking in national parks” written by Steven Dinan. In this article he stated that “Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton wrote Park Service Regional Director Steve Whitesell saying she’s heard from constituents who fear

I will be discussing the topic why smoking should be banned in the workplace (inside and outside). I’ll be covering the loss of productivity in the workplace and the benefits of a smoke free workplace. In my opinion smoking should be banned in the workplace because the productivity is what makes a business and the benefits are a healthier and safer environment producing a better corporate image.

Smoking is an expensive habit. People who smoke cigarettes can spend as much as $2,500 a year on them. Smokers’ claim that it helps relax them and it releases stress but the negative aspects of smoking outweigh the positive. Smoking is a health hazard for smokers and non-smokers. Smokers should have the right to choose what to do with their own health but they should respect non-smokers. Many people believe that there are good and bad outcomes from smoking. I believe that smoking is bad and that it should be banned.