By Christina Hager, WBZ-TVBy Christina Hager

NEWBURYPORT (CBS) — If you smoke, don’t bother applying for a job at Anna Jaques Hospital in Newburyport.

The hospital is requiring job applicants to take nicotine tests. If they test positive, they’ll be rejected. If they quit smoking, they can try again six months later.

WBZ-TV’s Christina Hager reports.

“How far do we want our private employers to intrude in our private lives?” asks employee rights attorney Philip Gordon. “What happens if, during that blood test, they find out something else about me?”

Hospital spokesperson Deb Chiaravalloti says, “We believe as a health care organization we need to make sure we have a healthy environment for our employees and our patients. Smokers are not a protected class.”

Last year, the hospital prohibited employees from smoking in the designated fenced-off area outside the building.

Next year, the hospital plans to ban smoking on the campus all together, even for patients and visitors.

While Anna Jaques is the first hospital in Massachusetts to require nicotine testing, it is not the first employer. Last month, the Massachusetts Hospital Association announced it is no longer hiring smokers.

Christina Hager

Comments (348)
  1. john_hudsonma says:

    Any private employer should be able to discriminate any way they want. Who is the government to tell them who to hire? If an employer is a public employer, the rules change, but leave the private employers alone. If you don’t like their rules, don’t use their services.

    1. cj says:

      So Mr. Hudsonma, any employer should be allowed refuse to hire a black or hispanic person? Hmm, interesting.

      1. Bob Smith says:

        Yes, they should be able to. Hooters doesn’t hire male servers….

      2. jonathan says:

        Absolutely. Do you really want to work somewhere that the boss only hired you because he had to.

      3. Lance says:

        I love how you go straight to the race card. Wow. Racism is alive and well because of people like you, not hooded white clansmen.

      4. David S says:

        Some day, I’m going to start a business and refuse to hire Christians! Then we’ll see how loudly these “Freedom-loving” types defend my right to discriminate!!!!

      5. Dunnyveg says:

        Sounds as if you are so Politically Correct you don’t believe in discrimination. In that case, you must hate monogamy. When somebody is monogamous, they are discriminating against everybody else since they won’t have sex with the rest of the world. To do away with discrimination we’d also have to do away with families since taking care of one’s own children better than the neighbor’s children is discrimination as well.

      6. Jestah says:

        A private business should certainly be allowed to refuse to hire (or serve) anyone they choose to and you should certainly be allowed to refuse to patronize any business you choose to.

        I don’t see what the problem is. It’s less a matter of race as it is a matter of civil liberties. It definitely wouldn’t be in my best interest to refuse to hire or serve black people as I’m a black man living in a predominantly black neighborhood, but I should certainly have that option.

      7. Borleksj says:

        There are laws that specifically address discrimination on the basis of race. There is no law that addresses discrimination based on whether or not you smoke. However, companies can do this at their own peril. They will be excluding some very good employees.

      8. AM says:

        that comment = stupid

      9. Tom Gilson JR says:

        I think that if you are a private company you can hire who you want. Why should i have to hire black or Latino ? Because they are black or Latino? What if a white or Asian guy is the best person to fit in that spot? Thats right we have quotas called affirmative action ! Equal but separate.

      10. sean says:

        hey Cj think about what u just said… should a employer be allowed to refuse a black or hispanic employer? answer yes if there is a more qualifying person the problem is that employers are forced to hire black or spanish just because of their skin now what is the real race issue here…………

      11. sean says:

        hey Cj think about what u just said… should a employer be allowed to refuse a black or hispanic employer? answer yes if there is a more qualifying person the problem is that employers are forced to hire black or spanish just because of their skin now what is the real race issue here……………….

      12. TParty Radio says:

        Certainly they should be able to to NOT hire left-wing fringe kooks whatever color you are. More relevant is screening out those who have a propensity for illness to further save on health-care costs. That’s where you lefties are driving this.

      13. Alex says:

        Why is it that discrimination only works one way? What about the black or hispanic person that refuses to work for someone! We should force them to work for someone they do not want to? That is obviously ridiculous.

        Any employer who discriminates solely on the basis of ethnicity will eventually loose out to market forces by not having the best employees available. But even if the employer does fine in the market place, he has the RIGHT to hire whomever he wants to.

      14. Russ says:

        cj – you’re taking the argument to an entirely unrelated and idiotic level. This has nothing to do with arbitrary discrimination because of color or background. Your logic is pathetic. I will bet 100 bucks you vote Democrat.

      15. HP Loveshaft says:

        David S blathered: “Some day, I’m going to start a business and refuse to hire Christians! Then we’ll see how loudly these ‘Freedom-loving’ types defend my right to discriminate!!!!”

        Ahhh…yes. They hypothetical straw-man argument: when your argument is so weak a traditional straw-man just won’t do.

        Something tells me your lack of logic and outright hostility ensures you’ll never have a business successful enough to actually hire anyone. Just sayin’…

        And trust me, slappy, these ‘Freedom-loving’ types would just use their freedom of patronage to ignore a business that was S-T-U-P-I-D enough to discriminate on something like religious beliefs, and certainly wouldn’t even want to work for such nonsense.

      16. Ted says:

        No,thats not what he said…read again…SMOKERS ARE NOT A PROTECTED GROUP!

      17. Jim S says:

        @ David S

        So, start a business where you refuse to serve Christians. Is this supposed to bother me?

      18. pumapanzz says:

        I WET MYSELF

      19. onlyme says:

        Not if they receive federal funds in any way – “take the king’s shilling do the king’s bidding”

    2. HarryMac says:

      Wow, let’s get out the sheets and burn a few crosses.

      1. SEAN says:


    3. billy charles says:

      It’s called survival of the fittest. Smokers are dead men/women walking. Their wrinkled, worn faces tell the story, if their gravely voice doesn’t give them away. Sad really. There should be warning on those packages of cigs. Oh wait, there are.

      1. thomas paine says:

        billy, billy, billy…. Let’s just line up the smokers and shoot them since they are dead men/women. That line up would include the president and the next majority leader.

      2. JaniceK says:

        Gee Billy, I’ll be sure to tell that to my 84 year old mother — a smoker all her adult life.

      3. Reallybilly says:

        Well Billy I agree, and since my IQ is higher and I am younger than you, You should die too. Since you are the accused you have no rights on this matter as me and my ‘peers’ will descide what is best for you. At this point, I think you should just go back to mommys apron strings but when your ready, step back up and try the debate again.

      4. Pete says:

        Billy, you troll. You couldn’t tell a smoker from a non-smoker if your life depended on it.

        I think they shouldn’t hire drinkers either because I don’t want someone who drinks dealing with my medical condition.

        There should be warning labels on those bottles. Oh wait, there are.

      5. deadhead103 says:

        What about obesity? Obesity will soon overtake smoking as the #1 preventable cause of death. They are also dead men/woman walking yet I have not heard of any hospital not hiring fat people. Imagine the outrage, hospital won’t hire fat people!

      6. Borleksj says:

        Some smokers, past and present:

        Albert Einstein, Winston Churchill, Sigmund Freud, Mark Twain, John F. Kennedy, George Burns, Michael Jordan, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Jack Nicholson, Bill Cosby, Lucille Ball , David Bowie, Drew Barrymore , George , Walt Disney , Bette Davis, Sammy Davis, Jr., Barack Obama, Albert Einstein, Thomas Edison,, Alexander Graham Bell,, Robert Oppenheimer, Edwin Hubble, Franklin D Roosevelt, Gerald Ford, George Orwell, Oscar Wilde, Jean-Paul Sartre, Elizabeth Taylor, Robert Palmer, Sophia Loren, Kate Winslet, Raquel Welch, Luciano Pavarotti, Catherine Deneuve, John Wayne, Nicole Kidman, Mel Gibson, and on and on.

        Hey, maybe the smokers are the fittest. They seem to live long and productive lives.

      7. Aaron says:

        Thomas, that’s a great idea. Our president sucks anyway. Great suggestion, got any more?

      8. A says:

        And to you Janice. You should kill her yourself. She’s a burden in the medicare system. She’s basically eating up money that could help future generations in the long run. Good work. All you pro-smokers come up with these fantastic ideas. Keep’em coming.

    4. scott duck says:

      Smokers shouldn’t concern themselves with trying to work right now. They should live out the rest of their final days with family and making it count, as time is short.

    5. Charlie says:

      So any private employer or business should be able to allow smoking too. Without any say of the government or local laws that say so. Enter at your own risk signs should be just as good as NO Smoking signs. Just wondering.

      1. Chris says:

        YES Charlie! Absolutely. It’s called PRIVATE PROPERTY. It’s what makes our country great.

      2. mhoram1881 says:

        Unfortunately the government doesn’t see it that way If a private business allowed smoking the government would swoop in and shut them down right away for violating the non-smokers rights. I myself am a non-smoker.

        To those that think this is no problem, wait til you start getting tested for high blood pressure, high cholesterol, genetic disposition to cancer, and denied a job because of any of those. Thats where this is all heading.

      3. Jestah says:

        Shouldn’t an employer have a right to hire who they want though, mhoram?

      4. SEAN says:


    6. Susan Bennett says:

      A feeling widely shared in thestates of the Old Confederacy until quite recently as I recall

      1. Charlie says:

        So Susan Bennett, Do you believe in the free choice or everybody should do as you do.

    7. reese says:

      Employers have no right to tell us what to do in our private lives regardless. I bet this employer allows people to drink on their off time. Or I bet it allows them to skydive. So this no smoking thing is just silly. We should boycott these kinds of control freaks. With business practices like this, do you really believe they are looking out for the consumers best interest?

      1. Sheri says:

        This needs to be stopped or employers will try all kinds of abuses. One of the last couple of places I applied for a job wanted to do blood tests – for what they wouldn’t say. Another wanted a list of all my prescriptions. All that info is none of their business.

      2. Burt J says:

        Why not test for cholesterol, sugar, alcohol, etc. – anything and everything potentially harmful? While I’m on the subject, what ever happened to good grammar, spelling and punctuation. many of these comments are borderline illiterate

      3. Borleksj says:

        This hospital should ban any attractive females because they could distract male doctors during surgery – a definite health risk for the patient.

    8. Craig Henne says:

      How about gay men, don’t they have a much higher HIV infection rate? CDC says yes. Can you imagine the cost factor in having someone contract HIV and having to cover them?

      1. Sheri says:


        I’m a pharmacist. Cholesterol levels are none of an employer’s business. They have no right to force anyone to take medicine.

      2. Totalschmuck says:

        Who really cares that about the fact that you are a pharmacist. Just because you can count pills doesn’t mean you understand anything better than Craig does….. (except maybe counting pills)

      3. cynic says:

        Burt J… it isn’t that thery are Illererate…It’s just that the wbesite coler scheme makes it almost imposible to read to make corrections.

    9. EDEDWARDS says:

      I think people who have high cholesterol and refuse medication and have a BMI reading above normal should not be allowed to work in hospitals.

      1. Russ says:

        BMI is the biggest load of BS and people are not questioning it!!! BMI was intended as a way to compare overall populations, i.e. the people on island “A” with the people on island “B” to see which island had the larger, more developed or better fed people. It does not take into account an individuals muscle structure or frame size or age and IT WAS NEVER MEANT TO BE USED AS A DIAGNOSTIC TOOL FOR INDIVIDUALS!!!

        TOM CRUISE’S BMI INDICATES THAT HE IS NOT ONLY OVERWEIGHT BUT OBESE. I never noticed it but he IS a big blubberly flubbery weeble whose flab wobbles and jiggles when he walks.


    10. boiz says:

      And when someone discriminates against you because you’re not very smart, who will stick up for your rights?

    11. CBC says:

      John, when you are discriminated against for lack of intelligence, don’t ecpect smokers do defend you.

      1. Russ says:

        Anyone who is too weak-willed and weak-minded to get themselves to stop sucking smoke a few dozen times a day is nobody I’d want to defend me. People like that – including our so-called President – are pathetic. I feel sorry for them. Well, except not for the President. I’d like him to smoke two cartons a day.

    12. Bubba says:

      Well you cannot discriminate based on religion, sex, age, race, sexual orientation, social status, household income, or if you are handicap.

      What is next? Blood tests to see if you are more prone to any illness and rejection based on say diet?

      1. cynic says:

        Russ to you they are too weak-willed and weak minded to quit… Maybe it’ds just that they don’t want to quit thathey don’t. They is no reason why anyone ahouldn’t smoke if they want to. Beacuse there are sick people like you in the world has no bearing on the subject.

    13. Ron says:

      Hospitals are not private employers, they are supported by our tax dollars. What an employee does during their off duty time is no business of the employer, and this employer should be sanctioned for this irresponsible act.

      1. Burt J says:

        Wrong, Ron; many hospitals ARE private employers. It’s only when they’re affiliated with the government, as in a county medical center, state university medical center, etc., that they receive government assistance with our tax dollars. ALL other hospitals are corporations, and thus subject to different laws. If the corporation’ benefits package does not include healthcare, the hospitals have a lot more leeway as to whom they will or will not hire.I’m confident that our Supreme court would agree with the discrimination against smokers, now that they’ve officially turned this country over to the corporations

      2. cat says:

        NON-Profit hospitals do not pay taxes. Why do you think they keep building on and on and on to their hospitals. They don’t want to lose their tax free status.
        Anna Jacques Hospital is a non-profit, and therefore, supported by our tax dollars.

      3. Russ says:

        I work at a hospital. It is a non-profit. While we may not pay ‘income tax’ on our profit (as-such) we do provide endless medical care for free, or at less than actual cost for people whose medical care is “paid for” (ha) by government programs. If anyone thinks we ought to pay tax on top of this public confiscation of our money then they can take a flying leap. We do NOT get subsidized by tax dollars either even though we are ‘non profit’.

    14. Justin says:

      They don’t care if you are on dope and crack… but nicotine!!! – you are OUT!!!

    15. David Ray says:

      A large part of this hospital’s income is derived from medicare, which MY tax dollars pay for. And yes, I’m a smoker… This is none of their business what I choose to put into my own body. Especially when it comes to a LEGAL item you can buy in any grocery store, here in America. That’s just wrong.

      1. Russ says:

        I agree you ought to have the right to smoke. If you want to be that stupid that is indeed your right. However medicare does not provide hospitals with “income”. It sends people to get treated and then pays less then the cost of that treatment. Or maybe you haven’t kept up with the news for the last 15 years or so?

    16. jdoe says:

      Sounds good, just be sure to return any federal grants, tax credits, federal aid, or money that helps your “private” business.

    17. Barcellona says:

      Sure, can we have AIDS tests, Weight tests, cholesterol testing as well??

    18. Mark Jasper says:

      Next week those taking opium based products will not be allowed to work either. Sorry cancer patients.

      1. Russ says:

        Geez, if anything is going to convince me that online posting is a waste of time, it’s dumb comments like this person’s.

    19. Freeman says:

      Unless, of course it’s a gay person, or a black person, or a professing christian, etc. God bless America.

    20. Greg says:

      Based on that you can discriminate because of race and ethnic backgrounds right? It is after all your own private business.

      Think before you type dummy, that is a asinine statement you just made. Completely uniformed of real world realities.

    21. Richie says:

      Because you don’t smoke that does not mean that you are perfect if you stink does this mean you not permitted on the bus? I think you are a loser in life just thinking this way. The place should be shutt down period.

  2. AmyInNH says:

    If they’re going to only hire people who’s behavior endorses their mission, then they should also screen for overweight, disease afflicted, high risk activity, alcohol consumption, etc..

    1. Borleksj says:

      The irony here is that smokers are usually the most productive workers, in my experience.

      1. RaulJones says:

        How so? They’re always off taking smoke breaks.

      2. scott duck says:

        Exactly! Borleassj nailed it. How can they ever get anything accomplished when their lives revolve around the next drag?

      3. David S. says:

        For the same reason that when you want something done you give it to the busiest guy in the office! It’s just the way it works.

        Smokers are more productive, because we have to be in order to have the time to get our needed nic-fix.

    2. chipgiii says:

      You are right on the money. I wonder if they are dismissing existing employees who smoke. This is anti-smoking nazis run amuck. Not an advocate of anyone smoking, but last time I checked it isn’t illegal to smoke in this country.

      1. RaulJones says:

        Not illegal, but it is a health risk. Look it up sometime.

      2. n/a says:

        People with hiv can be considered a health risk. What should we do with them?

      3. Craig Henne says:

        Why can’t they tell people they may not ride a motorcycle or engage in other “risky” types of sports or activities? No snow skiing ,etc.

      4. Borleksj says:

        Life is fatal. So maybe we should ban all life.

    3. TB says:

      Personally, I am a smoker; when i’m not working. I do not take smoke breaks, I do not smoke on my lunch. I do not go to work smelling of smoke; my personal choice doesn’t effect my job in any way. I don’t feel they have a right to not hire someone b/c of smoking. That is just silly. They do have the right to keep it off of campus, yes. But that’s about it.

      1. Think about it says:

        “I drink a great deal. I sleep a little, and I smoke cigar after cigar. That is why I am in two-hundred-percent form.” – Winston Churchill (lived to age 91)

      2. Russ says:

        TB – you THINK you don’t go to work smelling of smoke. Trust me, you smell worse than a cat’s litter box with a fresh load of “sausage” in it. You just can’t smell it because your sense of smell is mangled from smoke.

        I thought I didn’t smell bad, except RIGHT after a cigarette, when I was a smoker, and now I realize how bad I DID smell from smoking. I will agree they should not refuse to hire a smoker, unless possibly their experience is that smokers cause problems handling and working around patients because of their smell. I can smell someone smoking even outdoors at quite a distance.

  3. PBoston says:

    These are the same companies who serve alchohol at the company Christmas party to employees they know will get behind the wheel and drive home. You can see the hypocrisy.

    1. Craig Henne says:

      Maybe they should ban people who imbibe in alcohol consumption? Look how many people who drink cause trouble or expense? I could site a hundred examples of risky activities. Stay out of peoples private lives.

  4. mark says:

    Every time a smoker goes out to have a cigarette it takes time from their work. Add this up over a year and it is like a paid vacation. This is not fair to the rest of the employees.
    Why should smokers be giving this right. I would not hire them.

    1. Austin says:

      That’s irrelevant. They’re discriminating against people who just have nicotine in their bodies. They’re free to prohibit smoking on the premises, even on lunch or breaks. Lots of places do that. Interesting how people still support discrimination, as long as it’s popular.

      1. chris says:

        but its ok for them to screen for drugs? nicotine is a drug! whats the difference?

      2. Mike says:

        “Interesting how people still support discrimination, as long as it’s popular.”

        Austin that is the first intelligent comment I have read. It doesn’t matter that the hospital is private they don’t get to discriminate arbitrarily.

    2. jimboo2 says:

      Your attitude is why we have unions – maybe you should start thinking your lucky that these people are even willing to work for a clown with your attitude.

      1. Russ says:

        I’d rather hire a smoker than a union member, ANY day. You get more work out of a smoker.

    3. chipgiii says:

      Most places you can’t leave anytime you want ot have a smoke; you have to do it on a break. One thing is for certain, if you were having heart failure and the best heart surgeon available happened to be a smoker, you would change your tune, fast. And yes Mark, you would be very surprised at how many doctors are smokers – most are very discreet, but many do smoke.

      1. RaulJones says:

        And if he had HIV…?

    4. Ron says:

      The majority of smokers I know only do it during breaks/lunch. As for not hiring one, some of the best and most dependable folks I have ever worked with were smokers. Also, the last I heard, it is against the law to refuse to hire someone only baseed on the fact that they have partaken of a completely lawful item. That would be the same as saying that you would not hire someone for drinking kool-aid which is probably what you are drinking since your argument is so lame.

  5. Ryan says:

    Well first off this is a hospital so they have every right to weed out the people who are doing unhealthy habits. Should they not hire “fat” people? They probably are doing that right now. It costs the employer money for health insurance so if they can show that their employees are non-smokers they probably get a break on the cost. I think that in this economy that everyone should be doint the same thing. Stop drinking soda, stop smoking cigarettes, stop drinking a ton of alcohol. Start growing your own vegetables and fruits and start eating healthy. Or simply choose another place to work.

    1. n/a says:

      Yes. So now a company can hire only blonde hair and blue eyed people? Let’s get to the heart of this. Only the approve class of human, physically and ideologically will succeed financially in society. Are these thin, nonsmoking, bicycle riding, volvo driving, obama voters the new ubermensch?

    2. Martin Hale says:

      Ryan, without endorsing or disparaging your the rest of you ideas, I suspect you’ve hit on the real motivation for this action – the cost savings on health insurance.

      It’s no coincidence that this story is being reported just ahead of the New Year – I’d bet years of HR experience that their new health care policy takes effect on 1 January and they’re just getting their ‘ducks in a row’ to be compliant with the new policy.. Smokers just plain cost more to cover with heath insurance and at a time when health insurance premiums are rising 15% and more, it makes a certain sense in requiring your group to be smoke free in order to get a discount.

      1. JaniceK says:

        Surely you aren’t saying that Obamacare is going to increase my rates? He promised me that wouldn’t happen! /sarcasm off

  6. Joe says:

    So I take it we should cut out bathroom breaks, lunch breaks, and breaks in general so people can’t just decompress for a few minutes.

    I personally hate smoking, but to state that they can’t do it because they’re taking a break is a stupid argument!

    1. Russ says:

      I used to be a smoker and like many others I might go outside four times a day for maybe five minutes or so to have a smoke. (Of course you stink so bad for the first ten minutes after you come in you can hardly work around anyone, but…) Say 20 minutes a day, an hour forty minutes a week, that’s like 80 hours a year being paid to suck on cigarettes. Oops, that adds up. And don’t say ‘yes but non smokers do XYZ’ because smokers do the same other things just as much.

      1. cj says:

        Oh, Russ. Unlike you will refrain from calling you names. My comment only noted the practice of selective discrimination leads to dark places. Cigarettes are legal, and smokers have the right to smoke. The act of smoking does not alters one’s ability to provide excellent medical care.
        That said, I agree any employer has the right to fire someone for cause. If a smoker regularly calls off because of their habit, the employer has the right to fire them. I’ll further stipulate that an employer does not need offer heath benefits to smokers — which are artifacts of enticing people to apply for a job.
        What an employer should NOT be allowed to discriminate based on a legal right we all enjoy.
        And for your information I am a life long registered Democrat, not “democra-tic.” I am a conservative who has been voting mostly for Republicans because I more a libertarian in my beliefs. Freedom means I will be offended by what others believe and/or lawful activities — that is my right. Freedom means I will NOT prevent anyone from perusing their happiness simply because I disagree with their choices.

      2. cynic says:

        Russ..with all due (None)respect …you are FOS.

  7. Shay says:

    people smoke on their breaks genious…. non smokers get breaks to

    1. RaulJones says:

      I don’t get any breaks where I work. Not even a lunch break. Shoots down your “theory”, doesn’t it?

      1. frank says:

        So you are ok firing someone who smokes at home, and never while at work?

      2. CW says:

        Then you should call the State & start asking about labor laws.

      3. Kim DryGuys says:

        Breaks are mandatory per Federal Law. Workers rights and all that. Why cant someone use their breaks to do as they choose? Its nicotine, not heroin. jeez.

      4. DoAsISay says:

        Well Raul if you work for someone else than they are violating federal law not allowing you a break or lunch during an 8 hour day. If you work for yourself, well that’s your choice.

  8. cj says:

    When they came for the Jews, I said nothing. When they came for me, there was no one left to say anything. Don’t be so willing to restrict the freedoms of others — that’s not ‘fair’ either.
    Tabaco is a legal product. All posting here had best be ready to lose their own freedoms, whatever they may be.

    1. RaulJones says:

      Gads, that argument got old years ago. I have the right to be free from stinkin’ ass smokers. So there.

      1. tsp says:

        Mr. Jones,
        “I have the right to be free from stinkin’ ass smokers. So there.”

        No you don’t.

        In a society we all have to tolerate things we may not like. ‘I have a right to be free from your car’s exhaust’, ‘I have a right to be free from your BO as I pass you on the street’, ‘I Have the right to be free of the eye pollution of your appearance’.

        When a majority of society becomes as intolerant as you appear to be it’s all over.

        No company should be able to dictate the behavior of their employees when they are ‘off the clock’.

      2. n/a says:


  9. Shay says:

    it’s like someone said above… can;’t lay off the big mac’s… don’t apply… got health problems, your out to,… rediculous and hypocritical

  10. reggie says:

    You submit to a screen for illegal drugs awhen you pply at even McDonalds. What is different? Both illegal drugs and cigarettes are PROVEN to be harmful to your health. How is this any different other than cigarettes are still legal?

    1. Reggie says:

      Look at the amount of time lost in your own workplace to “smoke breaks” and sick days. With the gov’t making it nearly impossible for a hospital to financially break even, why not screen out the less productive employees?

      1. Shay says:

        are you seriously implying that non smokers don’t take sick days?

      2. julaine says:

        how about the workers who have kids and need to take time off for sick kids, etc

    2. Shay says:

      very simply ILLEGAL drugs… are not legal… tobacco products are… you really need that spelled out for you?

      1. Reggie says:

        Legality is only a formality. The FDA has banned a lot of drugs that are MUCH safer than cigarettes, but because tobacco has the money behind it, it isn’t regulated by the FDA. You’re not seeing the big picture here. I assume you are a liberal.

    3. Borleksj says:

      You’re kidding, right?

    4. Whitewitch says:

      Therein lies the difference….cigarettes are different. Wait until something you do is considered unhealth or unliked by others in society – then we will hear screaming of unfair. But I guess you don’t smoke so it is okay if they go after smokers.

    5. KD says:

      There are some cases where tobacco is actually therapeutic. You will never hear about it from the anti tobacco Nazis though. Just something to consider.

      1. Russ says:

        I’ve heard that tobacco is sometimes therapeutic, but only up til about age 63 when you die of lung cancer.

  11. Shay says:

    no one is saying these people are out smoking during non break times. Non smokers get breaks to… are they being more productive on their breaks than smokers are? no
    What I do on my break, as long as it’s legal, is my business

  12. Sandra Day says:

    Question: Why is tobacco still legal if it’s so lethal? America – wake up! Insurance companies are the true thieves of liberty and it is they who are making the rules as they go. No problem to pay out the wazoo for coverage, but when it’s time to pay for coverage, they will find every reason not to. It’s nothing more than a casino game – the odds are always in favor of the house. Insurance companies are ruling all of the occidental countries of today. Think about it – what rules dont’ apply to insurance companies that are set up to help them avoid paying?? It all goes back to them.

    1. Reggie says:

      Sandra, do you smoke? Do you participate in other hazardous activities? If so, your chances of injury are higher, so if you are more likely to get injured = use benefits, why shouldn’t you pay more in insurance costs? What incentive do you have to stay healthy if there are no penalties?

      1. Charlie says:

        REGGIE How about the state laws that allow drivers to operate motorize vechicle with a .08 alchol level in their system. Is this a good idea?

      2. Sandra Day says:

        You’ve proved my point – it’s all set up so that insurance companies can “level” the playing field in their favor. NO – I don’t smoke. But it doesn’t matter. I like to travel, which involves a lot of pollution in terms of jet fuel. I like adventure. And I think life should be lived to the fullest. Who are you to tell me what I should and shouldn’t do that’s LEGAL? Make cigarettes illegal and then we can talk.

      3. Reggie says:

        Charlie, you bring up a completely irrelevant point with alcohol level. Thank you for admitting i was right by not having anything constructive in your rebuttal.

    2. dareisay says:

      In my State, insurance compannies are also the reason for dictating the use of seat belts.
      Before long the only people they will insure will be Monks!

      1. Reggie says:

        You really think seatbelts are a bad idea? Wow darwinism is alive and well. In your case, I’d make an exception and let you drive around without one.

    3. JustMe says:

      You have a 1:6700 chance of death in an auto. Should cars be banned as well?

      1. frank says:

        So according to those that think it is ok not to hire smokers because of the time, Is it ok to not hire women since they might have kids and need time off for the pregnency?

  13. eddie too says:

    they should not hire promiscuous people either since they transmit std’s.

    1. wink says:

      Oh Come on! I like working with promiscuous people!

  14. dareisay says:

    This is an infringement on one’s lifestyle, using a legal product..while we spend millions on drug addicts, using an illegal product…and organizations try to find jobs for the drug addict.

    I can tell you this, when you keep allowing things like this to take place, you will eventually see more rights taken from you!
    Seat belts, smoking, salt, sugar, they are dictating what you can and cannot use or do.
    We are not children, everyone should be responsible instead of having government dictate to us! If you smoke, go where it won’;t bother someone, but do not deny them a job!

  15. eddie too says:

    and promiscuous people are not a protected class just like smokers.

    they slhould certainly test for std’s and not hire those who test positive.

  16. julaine says:

    I would think having a weight problem should disqualify one from working. So lets eliminate fat people, smokers, anyone with a health problem as well.

  17. FearArDoiteain says:

    This is great. Make this a condition of running for president. Then we can get rid of the kenyan president in 2012.

    1. dareisay says:

      Plus any candidate should be required to take skills tests, IQ tests, any drug tests, just like we have to do in order to get a job!

    2. Shay says:

      “It is better to keep silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt”


      1. FearArDoiteain says:

        shay, “It is better to not Post if you don’t know how to spell”. Your earlier Posts indicate you never learned.

  18. Beauxdog says:

    I work in a hospital and it is a high stress environment. People deal with stress in different ways. So… who do you want caring for you? A highly qualified and skilled nurse who smokes… or a less qualified nurse who doesn’t?

    I am implying that your status as a smoker doesn’t impact your qualifications. Non-smokers could be just as qualified. However, by eliminating smokers from the hiring pool, they are lowering the quality of available applicants.

  19. Pat Walsg says:

    what about the patch? electric cigaretts ect ect if you use any of them on your own time, you can’t work there? Stupid, and these are doctors

    1. Whitewitch says:

      Excellent comment Pat – well said. Patches and electric cigs are also legal!

  20. WeThePeople says:

    Sounds like an intrusion into the personal lives of the employee?
    But it is not.
    It is simply a cautionary reaction to ObamaCare.

    The hospital is responsible for the lion’s share of the cost of health care for it’s employees, and therefor is just trying to mitigate their cost.

    Healthier, non-smokers will enable better group rates.
    Simple math.

    And you can be sure that following the same thought process and ObamaCare to the obvious end, that there will soon be an age limit for new hires.
    It is very likely that you will see new hires be of the age of 30 or less in the near future.
    Again, ObamaCare and Insurance premiums.

  21. JEW says:

    @Reggie So your a liberal if you are for smokers rights?
    I am a Conservative that also smokes, drinks, and enjoys “dangerous activities” Heck my job will kill me before smoking does! What a person does on their OWN time is their business! Not yours, so get a life and stop trying to intrude in others with your nanny state agenda! I remember a time when a Man could be a Man now most have been BANNED!

    You call someone a “liberal” when your own personal agenda screams that you are nothing but a hypocrite!

    Well time to go smoke another.

  22. Tim says:

    You are all missing the point! As a smoker of 30 yrs I quit 5 yrs ago and have never felt better! The fact is that smoking is an addiction and leads to nothing but health problems and eventually death, and is terrible way to die! KICK THE ADDICTION!! DO IT FOR YOURSELF. PEACE!!!

  23. Danny says:

    They are DRUG ADDICTS!!
    Why WOULD a hospital hire drug addicts??

    Why do you who oppose it, hate freedom so much?

    1. Robyn says:

      Caffiene is a drug also. Maybe they should not hire people who drink coffee or soda.

  24. markjohn says:

    they should also keep track of the internet histories and tv shows people watch, and if it isn’t wholesome then they don’t get to work, and who they vote for, and if it isn’t who they want you to vote for you don’t get to work, and gay people, and blacks, because they are bad

  25. David Davis says:

    Does this hospital get funding from the state and federal government? The same state and federal government that collects taxes on cigarette sales? If so it’s only right that they forgo being given ANY FUNDING from any state and federal grants since they feel so strongly about the smoking issue. Someone in Boston should look into that. See if their hospital “spokesperson,” would like to comment on that….

  26. Russ says:

    Anyone who engages in high-risk activities such as hiking, biking, skiing, skateboarding, snowboarding, surfing, camping, etc., should also be banned from a livelihood. Any of the above can cause injury – which means higher health-care costs. Sex outside marriage? No job. Not hiring a contractor to fix your roof and do-it-yourself? No job. This is what we need in a recession, to keep people out of work!

  27. Whitney says:

    These lines used to differentiate who can and can’t hired are so abitrary it leads to abuses. That’s why equal opportunity laws exist. All these free marketeers claim that its the right of the private company to discriminate, that’s fine until it happens to them!!!! Most people on this post are ripe like sheep being lead to slaughter…..shame we have become so weak and spineless

  28. cnm says:

    They don’t take away our freedoms all at once, they do it a little bit at a time, until there is nothing left. The nanny society, certain people imposing their will on everyone else. That’s not what America is supposed to be about. Thomas Jefferson called it “The dictatorship of the majority.” We have a hospital here in Charlottesville VA (home of Jefferson) that is doing the same thing. Ironically the hospital is named after him…rolling in his grave no doubt!

  29. n/a says:

    This is interesting. Can we screen for prospective employees taking antidepressents? Want your kid around someone who may be unstable if they miss their meds? How about women within their child bearing years? What does that cost employers and insurance companies? High blood pressure meds? Diabetes? Sexual lifestyes?
    All these have high costs to them. Some people really need to refrain from throwing stones in glass houses

    1. RaulJones says:

      I guess we should throw out the ADA. Cripples have no right to work, do they? Look at the costs! You have to build them a ramp for their wheelchairs!

      Fuque, most of you people are nuts.

      1. n/a says:

        Good point. I just thought, I have a motorcycle endorsement on my drivers liscense. Hope im part of a protected class.

      2. n/a says:

        Raul, if the arguement is abouts costs, then you have no valid point. If YOU don’t like the smell of smoke, too bad. Maybe I don’t like the name raul, or the type of cologne you wear. So if I bother you, I should be homeless and starve. If you bother me, well I should just starve cause your a superior human? Think that ideology was tried before. Where do I pick up my striped pajamas?

  30. Joe says:

    A company who has to pay you for your work, should be able to hire whomever they choose, regardless of anything. The Golden Rule as we know it is, “He who owns the gold, makes the rules!” They have every right!

  31. Tspud1 says:

    I certainly hope all the people making this rule walk or ride a bike to work since the car and bus is polluting the air they breath. Try taking their car from them with the same excuse and see what reaction you get.

  32. Robb says:

    Nicotine is the problem? They might want to check their living habits. I own a pest control company and the absolute worst kept houses and apartments I’ve seen belong to nurses. I’d rather they have nicotine in their bodies than be giving me injections, inserting IVs, dispensing medicines or performing other patient care after seeing the filthy condition in which they choose to live.

  33. Rand says:

    Well, let’s just see what happens when this hospital refuses to hire a Black, Muslim, Smoker, who is overweight. Whoa!……Can you smell a discrimination lawsuit?

    1. DapperDon says:

      Or worse, can you imagine this hospital not hiring a gay person with HIV? Well, I guess if he/she didn’t smoke, it would be okay.

  34. irv says:

    The problem is intrusive testing and how far it may go. If they draw blood they may be testing for genetic markers indicating predisposition for other maladies that will affect the total cost of group insurance down the road. Would it be ok if they screened for sickle cell, or Parkinsons?

  35. Aunt Bee says:

    Who owns your body?

    Allowing this will lead to things that we haven’t even imagined yet.

    Anyone that thinks this is a good idea should be able to participate and volunteer and those that don’t should not be required.

    Welcome to OmeriKa.

  36. Larsnic says:

    Not hiring someone for using a LEGAL product. Interesting…Wonder if they also do Urine tests for drugs prior to hiring?

  37. john says:

    To all of you who agree with this policy. I hope that if you ever get a disease such as cancer, that your employer doesn’t deem you too expensive to continue employing. Decisions like these lead to actions like that. Insurance and medical institutions like these are the problem. Fix those because people will never be perfect.

  38. Tim says:

    Smoking and smokeless tobbaco are addictions , and an addict will make every exscuse for their addiction. Most change their mind when the doctors start carving their lungs out like a pumpkin before holloween! Or start skin graffting parts of you face to where your lower lip once was. If people want to play russian roulette with a revolver that has a bullet in every chamber doesnt mean that employers have to pay them to watch!!

    1. Larsnic says:

      And I suppose you feel the same about those who are overweight, smoke pot and take other drugs? Oh, how about those with HIV?

      1. n/a says:

        Can you imagine what would happen if they didn’t hire a person cause they tested positive for hiv? I think I would risk a nurse or doctor that smelled of nicotine than one that could transmit a deadly disease if they cut themselves with a scalpel while working on me.

  39. hospital worker says:

    so they screen for nicotine and your chewing nicotine gum and you are disqaulified? STUPID

  40. Ellen says:

    What hypocrites, then ban cigarets like they ban marijuana, and by the way I am a smoker, but this is like Big Brother in a big way.

  41. Robert Johnson says:

    Smokers are drug addicts! I will nor hire them.

    1. DapperDon says:

      Maybe you should hire a spell checker.

  42. Tomass says:

    I am a non smoking healthcare worker in a very high demand field. I would NEVER apply for a job at this place. Way too intrusive. Do you also want to check my junk for STDs? How about a prostate exam too? No thanks, I’ll apply elsewhere.

  43. Moe says:

    I agree, they should not allow smokers to work there as this will decrease their health care costs. I also believe they should submit those same applicants to diabetes screening, cholesterol screening and blood pressure screening as well as checking their BMI. If we’re going to discriminate against smokers, we should also make sure to discriminate against fat bodies who are too lazy to keep themselves in shape. It’s only fair.

  44. Lilly says:

    Witch hunters. I hope life is as “good’ to each and every one of their imperfect, gross, and elitist souls. Do they kill smokers who arrive and need treatment?

  45. JerryO says:

    I am a health professional, and am against smoking; but this is overdone! Why not ban:
    people who are too fat, this, tall, or short?
    people of certain race, color, or ethnicity?
    people who have had a traffic citation conviction
    people who drink alcohol or gamble?
    people who are or have been depressed or anxious?
    people with disablilties?
    I guess this hospital would have never hired Winston Churchill or Albert Einstein in their day. Perhaps they would like to genetically engineer their employess or hire robots? They probably have the right to do this, but it’s getting a little out of hand!

  46. Tim says:

    Look you all have the right not to apply at that hospital for a job!!!! I work at a hospital and take a health screenig every year! By doing so it reduces my health premium. So if you like paying for your addiction and higher health cost fine. You all have that right! You do not have the right to have some one else to pay for your stupidity!

    1. n/a says:

      Tim, do you ride bicycles on a public roads? Do you fly on a plane? Do you run on public roads as exercise? Do you practice an alternative lifestyle? Do you drink alcohol? Use a cell phone? Live in a city?
      If you answered yes to any of them, why should the rest of us pay more for YOUR lifestyle. Why should your employer?
      What you refuse to realize is your freedoms are dependent on the freedoms of others. So much for the connection between education and intelligence.

  47. John Joseph Grimes says:

    JerryO said it best. Nobody gets out of this world alive and we all know people who did everything the right way and still died at a young age. As the patient asked the doctor; “Will I live to be 90”? “Do you smoke, drink or chase women” asked the doctor, and the patient said “NO”. The doctor replied “then why do you want to live to be 90”?

  48. franklygross says:

    So Tim, it reduces your premium, not the topic at all. If you stopped taking the screening would they fire you?

  49. Kevin says:

    What if you are on nicotine gum trying to quit? EEOC: Women and minorities encouraged to apply (and we all know that this mainly benefits women). US = fail. Merry Christmas feminized fools….

  50. T Hood says:

    Next, marijuana will be legalized(I hope not), then the stoners will complain about being tested for jobs. Employers reserve the right to employ anyone based on their own standards. I would love to be treated at a hospital where someone isnt twitchy because they havent smoked in 2 hours.

    1. DapperDon says:

      Try another hospital.

    2. Moe says:

      I would love to be treated at a hospital that had all thin nurses and doctors, that actually practiced the health BS that they preach.

  51. katz says:

    One does not have to be a smoker, or even a tobacco user, to enjoy nicotine. Nicotine is also much less harmful than alcohol and many legally abused prescription drugs.

  52. DapperDon says:

    So let me see if I understand this….we (the taxpayers) hand out billions of dollars a year in welfare and foodstamps without any questions asked. But, if someone wants to actually work and try to support themselves, then they have to take some silly “nicotine” test in order to get a job. Meanwhile there are absolutely no requirements for drug testing of any kind for those people getting government assistance. Regardless of how your feel about smoking or smokers, does anyone other than me see a problem with this?

    1. sally says:

      excellent point.
      since when does some company believe it is so valuable that it has the right to dictate anything personal.

    2. n/a says:

      Agreed! Just wondering when smokers will be required to where their own scarlett letter. Or maybe motorcycle riders. Funny that the mouth pieces of tolerance are the first perpetrators of intolerance. Completely Orwellian
      Producers must submit to drug testing for the priviledge of giving their money to non producers who take drugs. Makes my head hurt

  53. Jubilate Latte says:

    Sure they can do it, but is it a good idea when it comes to their bottom line? Smoking patients sure as heck aren’t going to go to that hospital willingly. I’m not sure I would, even as a non-smoker, because of the arrogant nature of the intrusion.

  54. Dialla Ingalis says:

    Nicotine is a naturally occurring chemical. They could test positive even if they don’t smoke.

  55. jonny says:

    OMG its got to be the damn Jews again has anyone ever checked Hollywood its run by Jews only and no one is screaming about that! ACLU is run by Jews Its the KKK for Jews they are aloud to own business and hire only there kind WHY? THE Jews hate white people,,, so they keep this race card going even when its not even there. Jews are the real racist here!

    1. christian says:

      you know what jonny? When you get back to the who made this stupid decision it probably was a godless joo. a joo who hates christ and a joo that thinks he’s more important than he is. ya it’s always the christ hating joos that ruin it for everyone. always was, always will be.

      1. n/a says:

        Yep christian, you didn’t hide it well by the name you chose. Cant win in a respectful arguement so you descend to deceit. Pathetic

    2. n/a says:

      Oh here we go, a liberal smoking nazis trying to slander their freedom respecting opposition. Warning this is a troll!

    3. Doon says:

      Let any argument go on for five minutes and one of your type will crawl out from under some rock. You are disguisting.

  56. Truth Hurts says:

    What about the fat obess people??? I wouldn’t hire them either. They are just as much at risk for health problems as smokers. Anyone with more than 20% boby fat just fire them !!

  57. Tom2u says:

    Does this hospital have a drug or alcohol testing policy for its current employees?

  58. Tim says:

    Hey! people you all have the right to smoke! Or intentionally reduce your life expectancy any way you want! Yes we are all going die too ! But if it come from living life normally instead of self induced through addiction so be it! You all have the right not apply for a job there too! N/A INSULTING SOMEONE FOR A DIFFERENCE IN OPINION HAS SHOWN YOUR INTELLIGENCE !!!… franklygross your answer is no! The screening is offered to employees at their choice with no repercusions. You have the choice not to work there!!! No one has taken your freedom of choice away!!!

    1. n/a says:

      Im sorry tim but your attitude is insulting. Please tell me what living life normally is? It is you who have no respect for others but your own ideas of how one should live. And you are willing to reduce a segment of the population to limited rights based on your intolerance of all those who don’t believe as you.
      im sure you wouldn’t support a business practice that discriminated based on sexual orientation or race, why would you support one based on a different lifestyle?

    2. Sandra Day says:

      Let’s just say that there are plenty of people who have lived an entirely healthy lifestyle only to wind up dead with cancer anyway. The first person that comes to mind is Paul McCartney’s wife – vegetarian. What kind of car are you driving? Hopefully not a gas guzzeler that pours toxins into the atmosphere. When Americans start driving smaller cars, reducing their FOOD intake, HFCS laden soft drinks, and actually talking to their kids about sex and protection, then we can talk about quitting smoking. But what the hell type of hypocrisy is this. This country has gone TOO far for TOO long with this hypocritical behavior. Guess what? Life is not perfect. No one is perfect. Try accepting others and their legal indulgences and the world might be a better place.

  59. Smokers Suck says:

    Smokers are nasty anyways!!! Not only do we have to breath your second hand smoke but you also stink!!!

    1. DapperDon says:

      You might want to use a little more deodorant yourself.

    2. Tspud1 says:

      And your car is pollution free?

  60. DocJoe says:

    But it’s okay for Obama to smoke in the White House….

    I’m sure these rules only apply to the peons–the janitors, nurse’s aides, nurse, etc. .
    If a thoracic surgeon or a hospital CEO enjoyed Cuban cigars he wouldn’t be denied access to the facility. Are they going to test EVERYONE? I doubt it. Only the low ranking members of society.
    We all created equal, only some are more equal than others.
    And by the way, I would much rather have a dedicated nurse who smokes than a negligent one who doesn’t.
    Let’s face it, this is just like Nazi Germany, and this is NOT hyperbole. It’s okay to pick a certain class of people to detest and feel superior to. These are people who can now be legitimately denied jobs and housing. Why don’t we just create a ghetto and wall them in?

    1. DapperDon says:

      Or, just build a few ovens and be done with all those nasty, evil, Jews…I mean smokers.

  61. Scott says:

    Nicotine isn’t the problem with smoking cigarettes… it’s the smoke. What if a person that goes in for an interview has stopped smoking but is still using patches or nicotine gum? Medically, nicotine is no different than caffeine. If they want to test for tobacco use, testing for nicotine is not the way to do it. Testing for tobacco specific nitrosamines would be more accurate as this would not include those people who have stopped smoking by using nicotine patches or nicotine gum.

    But then… that’s not what this is about…

  62. dlk says:

    The moment they told me I needed to take a nicotine test I would get up and
    leave – and I don’t smoke.

    The irony is, watch them relax their guideline for some critical shortage like
    ICU nurses.

    Stuff them

  63. Tspud1 says:

    I still want to know if they can ban cars, bus, planes, trains, tug boats, jets, buses, etc because of the second hand pollution? It’s the exact same argument that smokers use to not allow smoking in a public space. I am a non smoker but this nanny state is getting out of control.

    1. Sandra Day says:

      My sentiments exactly.

  64. Doug Z says:

    Wow, so many of these comments miss the real point here, which is that smokers are not productive employees. Anyone whose addiction forces them to take a 10-minute smoke break practically every hour is an unproductive employee. 6 cig breaks per day x 10 minutes per break = ONE HOUR LESS WORKED IN A DAY! I would NEVER hire a smoker if I owned a company, because I have yet to meet a single one who works as much as a non-smoker.

    1. n/a says:

      Using your guidelines single moms are just SOL I guess. How much time do they need off?

    2. Josh-o says:

      That’s very poor logic!

    3. Todd W says:

      This is the most absurd argument against smokers I ever heard. So non-smokers don’t walk around the office or workplace stopping to chat for wasteless minutes in a day, dont get up for coffee breaks, water breaks? What about the people who exercise in a company fitness center and during company time but still take time for a lunch? Most smokers I know if my workplace are just as productive and limit their smoking time, breaks, lunch breaks etc. In an office environment smokers also get to interact and discuss ideas they may not come naturally in a team setting. Working as much and working intelligently and productive are two different things.

  65. EON59 says:

    Employees have the right to set up rules of employment. they should be able to hire whomever they find that benefits the company. On the other hand since groups have made a passionate drive to ban smoking people still die. No one gets out alive and there are a lot of smokers that live longer than people living so called healthy lives.

  66. Bob says:

    Why don’t your far left kooks go buy an island somewhere and live there? A hundred years later we would find a bunch one guy in charge and the rest broke pesants.

  67. Tspud1 says:

    I still have to breath your fumes from your car Mr Smokers Suck, what a hypocrite

  68. hate smoke-nazis says:

    This is discrimination, pure and simple. Just look at all the hate spewing from the smoke-nazis: “smokers are nasty”, “smokers are lazy”, “smokers smell”, “smokers are worthless”, etc. These are the same words that just 50 years ago were being used to propagate discrimination against another group of individuals. However, these individuals were able to use the justice system to achieve protection from such practices and smokers need to do the same.

    Lawsuit. When are we filing it?

    1. Doug Z says:

      You will likely have time to file your lawsuit during one of the 6-8 10-minute+ smoke breaks you’ll take today while I’m sitting at my desk actually working.

      1. Doug Z Nazi says:

        Or would that be when your surfing the net? Or getting your coffee? You hypocrit, what we do with our break is our business not your fat butts. Complain about the time not the activity. That is not a valid arguement. If you believe you are correct, then you should support prohibition also.

  69. jixx says:

    everyone is a dead person walking… der,,,

  70. nunya says:

    This is so rich and exactly the ‘told you so’ I was looking for. Im so anxious for the first lawsuit i have an erection. I cant wait until you holier than thou pious non-smokers start to get BMI tested. Its going to be so much fun watching the self righteous squirm when they come for the legal things you like to do in the interest of public health. Fools, enjoy your self made utopic quagmire, smoking is really my only unhealthy aspect and im sure you will suffer more from your civil liberty losses than mine. Male gay sex is statistically more physically dangerious than naturl intercourse, time to Ban gays? Think people.

    1. downsideup says:

      Re: time to ban gays:

      SSSH! Don’t give the government any ideas!

  71. nolakingfish says:

    OK I’m in the cleaning business and I don’t hire smokers either
    Reason 1 Clients don’t want their office to smell like smoke.
    Reason 2 Clients don’t want their office to smell like smoke.
    Reason 3 Clients don’t want their office to smell like smoke.
    Need me say it again?

    1. progressivefacist says:

      And that makes sense to me. Private business but, maybe you could tell your people not to smoke in those offices? I mean, they dont smell like it so much that it would ruin everything around it. IF you believe that then, no perfume, cologne, hell, no scents at all. Send em home with a camera to prove they bathe. More facism disguised as progress.

  72. nickinva says:

    A friend of a friend of mine is a rabid non-smoker works for a healthcare policy thinktank, goes to the gym regularly, but likes to go to bars and get loaded 4 or 5 nights a week and wake up in a different guy’s bed the next morning. She rarely used condoms for these encounters and has had chlamydia several times. Now she is married and trying to have a baby, but is having some fertility issues because of her past lifestyle. Her insurance has paid for the STD treatments and now the fertility treatments which are pretty expensive. Despite these issues, this woman would be welcome at Anna Jacques because she has never had a trace of nicotine in her blood, even though she probably costs them what it would cost to insure 5 smokers who were more responsible about their sexual practices. It is a myth that smokers cost more to insure, since most smoking related diseases occur after age 65. Once, they are sick, smokers tend to die quickly too, so they add money to the system since they don’t live long enough to collect their pensions and social security.

  73. John Galt says:

    For those who are saying that smoking costs society, you should be careful.

    Btw, it is easy for people in large metropolitan areas to say “just find another employer” if you don’t like their hiring practices. That is not the case for tens of millions of workers in smaller cities and in rural America. If you live in many small towns, you don’t have much in the way of employment options other than places like Wal-mart. These businesses have a monopoly on the labor market, and living in these rural areas is a form of economic slavery. If the only employer discriminates against you, how do you expect to be able to provide for your family?

    This isn’t some academic argument, it is reality for millions of families. Employers have no business being involved in your drug use, sexual practices, or political views. Workers are not chattel, they are humans and their employers DO NOT own them!

    1. time says:

      God Bless John Galt. Too bad its too late and as is proven throughout history, these types of anti-freedom peoples will only be dislodged though fear. IE, violent revolution targeting them.

  74. M.P. Cooney says:

    Wow! what a bunch of people that are educated beyond any reasonable common sense.

  75. bayou girl says:

    Lots of interesting discussions could be posted here, but it’s degenerated into a name-calling contest. What a disappointment.

    1. nunya says:

      Unfortunatly, when someone refuses to accept a premise of freedom for all, you will have that. Hypocrits are not sufferd long and irrational behavior begets irrational behavior. If they refuse to listen and deny the few their Civl Rights based on the will of the many ( or ignorant) then im all for action far exceeding simple name calling. Its almost time.

  76. Smokin' Joe says:

    Does this mean smokers will be exempted from the taxes that subsidize this hospital?

  77. Whitney says:

    Oh by the way – smoking is still legal

    1. Josh-o says:

      Yea…because it makes HUGE tax revenue!

  78. Whitney says:

    by the way – smoking is still legal

  79. Jason says:

    It is important for people to understand that a health care worker who smokes still smells of smoke when working. This can cause problems for patients, mostly those with respiratory issues. I agree with the hospital, and hope more do it. There is nothing more embarrassing than an employee that smokes and a patient that requests to not have them assist them because of the smoke smell.

    1. n/a says:

      Are you kidding me? You know how many times I’ve been stuck in an elevator with someone who bathed in perfume to the point my eyes were burning?
      most of these people with cigarrette smell induced ” respiratory” issues were immature spoiled hypochodriacs who feel special at having some “itis”and making people around them alter their behavior to gratfy their own ego

  80. Dave says:

    70 yrs. ago there were people who were intolerate of their neighbors differences.

  81. Tom says:

    ‘I have a right to be free from your BO as I pass you on the street’,

    Adnd are you out there protesting against those with BO?

    Are you passing laws against BO???

    Idiots like u should have all of there rights stripped away so u can see what its like.

    U ARE WHAT WRONG WITH AMERICA the land of WHINING lawsuit happy rigthts banning idiots.

    people like u shud be sent to a 3rd world country.

    1. Adolph Obama says:

      I’d like to be free from BO (Barack Obama) and his communist programs as well.

  82. Tom says:

    See this is the big problem in AMERICA, we have sold of souls to the corporations.

    Corporations tell us how to live, wht to buy, and what we can and cant do in our private lives. WE have forsaken are freedoms and sold out.

    Just remember all u anti smoking nazis this is where it astarted, they may not come for u today but im sure there somthing u do in ur home that they are against and before long U wot be able to to do that either, be it smoking, smoking weed, drinking alcohal or being mexcian.

    I hate the smell of women who u use to much perfum, but am i out there taxing it, banning it and refusing to hire those that choose to cover there bo in perfornm?

    NO i buck up and am a man about it, i dont complain and i just suck it up.

    All u smoking nazis are pansy little girls who just want to compalin and ban until every subarb is just the way u want it with 2.5 kids and minivans in every drive way.

    U people make me sad to be an american. The former land of the free.

    Im sure washingtona nd jefferson would have handed u over tot he reds.

  83. Vicki says:

    If they don’t hire smokers, they shouldn’t hire fat people, either.

    1. Frankly says:

      Can I add “no ugly people”. I have a real problem dealing with ugly and fat hospital staff who bathe in that stinky perfume that smells like roses. So no smokers , no fat people, no ugly people and no people that wear perfume that smells of roses. I almost forgot….no Australians. I can’t stand their nasally, sing-song accents.

      1. Josh-o says:

        Hmm…we all need to ask ourselves….What did Hitler Do? Seems to me like history is repeating itself….its just without the war.

  84. Josh-o says:

    Well…so much for “life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” Why have we allowed this “nanny state” to get away with this.

    We should be more worried about what is in our city water supplies, plastics, genetically altered food, police state….ect (you know…things that really should matter) But we all are just sheep, waiting to see the next episode of “Dancing with the stars” or “American Idol”

  85. Ernie Kirstein says:

    I love these comments. They all fit so perfect since OBAMA SMOKES.

    1. Josh-o says:

      They are menthol so it doesn’t count.

  86. Christopher says:

    This is old news. I went to work at a Texas hospital in 2009 and they tested me for niccotine. I, as a consenting adult, willingly subjected myself to this test because I wanted to work there. Nobody made me work at that facility–it was a choice. Working for any company is NOT a civil right. It’s an agreement or contract between two parties who wish to benfit each other. I don’t need Big Brother to mediate my personal affairs. Kudos to a private company for assuming a set of values and sticking to it. If there were a hospital that decided to hire smokers (there IS one down the road from us), that’s fine. I respect their policies, too.

    1. Josh-o says:

      Hey MORON… is a CIVIL RIGHT!

      Civil and political rights are a class of rights that protect individuals’ freedom from unwarranted infringement by governments and private organizations, and ensure one’s ability to participate in the civil and political life of the state without discrimination or repression.

      god the ignorance of humanity is astounding!

  87. DPO says:

    Gay men can spread AIDS in the “privacy” of their own homes because liberals tell us that what happens in someones bedroom is private. However if you have a smoke in the privacy of your own home that is bad!

  88. Tom says:

    The first modern, nationwide tobacco ban was imposed by the Nazi Party in every German university, post office, military hospital, and Nazi Party office, under the auspices of Karl Astel’s Institute for Tobacco Hazards Research, created in 1941 under orders from Adolf Hitler.[32] Major anti-tobacco campaigns were widely broadcast by the Nazis until the demise of the regime in 1945.[33]

    ^ Proctor RN (December 1996). “The anti-tobacco campaign of the Nazis: a little known aspect of public health in Germany, 1933-45”. BMJ 313 (7070): 1450–3. PMID 8973234. PMC 2352989.

    Soo all of u anti smoking idiots out there now know. U ARE NO BETTER THEN HITLER AND THE NAZIS!!!!! Dose that make u feel good to kow that u are just following hitler and his nazi buddies down the same road? it started with smokers then moved to the jews. So i wonder who americans will lock up first?

    the muslims nah, thats not PC!!!

    maybe those crazy jesus loving christians, nah bush and (hmmmm iIDK( obama are christains we cant do that…

    maybe the smokers, and the fat people. yeah lets lock up the fat people no one wants to look at them.

    Just remember everytime u support a smoking ban Hitler is smiling down at u from hevean.

    Stick that in ur salad and eat.

  89. JLC says:

    This is the sort of management (we know better for you and you will do it or else) giving birth to labor unions. If the folks at Anna Jaques Hospital are not yet organized I hope they soon will be.

  90. deadhead103 says:

    When obesity takes over smoking as the #1 preventable cause of death, will the hospital stop hiring fat people too?

  91. jim says:

    what about smokeless tobacco? The nicotine shows up in the blood test but they are NOT smokers.

  92. Steve says:

    Good policy! Smokers are generally AWFUL employees. They spend too much time outside smoking and not enough time working. Then when they are working, they get all uptight because they’re just itching for their next puff. Not to mention that nasty smell.

  93. norsebybirth says:

    Looks like the hospital would refuse to hire Obama as their attorney when he re-enters private lif in 2013 – or would they find an work around to their policy.

  94. 1836Davy_Crockett says:


  95. Dennis says:

    Yea, ani’t that great we have a smoking Preident and coke head and dealer. But, he signs bills like the PACT act. Of course now he doesn’t even pay for his smokes, he sends out an aid to get them and pay for them out of the aids pocket not Obama’s and Obama’s wife is stuffing her face with twkkles (sp) and getting a bigger and bigger butt. But she says people are to fat….

  96. aelfheld says:

    Yeah, I really want someone jonesing for a smoke coming after me with a needle.

  97. Tim says:

    N/A after reading your past posts I have determind that you must be not only a smoker but a lideral, short, fat ,ugly out of work babbling gay! That is why must have so much time on your hands! Give it a rest!!!!

  98. STEVE TAYLOR says:

    First they exclude the smokers,then then obese people ,then people of non Aryan race what then?

  99. dave says:

    Time for death. Join a militia learn to shoot. Freedom is no more.

  100. Burt J says:

    Oh, I forgot to ask: is it even legal to require an applicant for a job to submit to a blood test? I don’t know, but I sure hope not!

  101. go f#ck yourself says:

    So what comes next? if you are fat, like fast food? watch TV? drive a car thats older than 5 years. Are divorced?
    Disgusting……..That’s why I don’t live or work in the U.S.A anymore.

    1. me says:

      Well, tell me where the h3ll you went then so I can get outta here too.

  102. Bill Bailey says:

    Too bad we can’t do the same thing with Presidential candidates.

  103. Adolph Obama says:

    I’m glad that ObamaCare will soon completely control every aspect of human behavior. If you smoke, you will be sent eventually to a mandatory rehab center. Cigarettes will be black market soon, along with everything that ruins your health. You fat people will also be sent away until the pounds come off.

    Ein Volk.
    Ein Reich.
    Ein Obama.

  104. Ray Baby says:

    I’m fine with it, I hire smokers because I smoke. I don’t like fat people so I don’t hire them. Fairs fair right?

  105. bys says:

    Does anybody not see how intrusive all this is? You work 8 to 12 hours a day, do your job, go home. Home is your time not the boss’s. What has happened to sanity anymore? Soon it will be if you voted Democrat, no job, if you had some alcohol during the past year, no job. If your colonoscopy showed a polyp, no job. If your BMI is too high or too low, no job.
    Eventually all of us will fall into somebody’s discriminatory category…ALL OF US.

  106. Bob says:

    If an employer wants to regulate what I do in my free-time then I expect to be paid just as if I was on call. Seems like an easy fix to this problem to me. If you want to monitor any aspect of my personal life away from the workplace then I will be charging you for that privilege since I’m never truly off the clock. I bet the extra wages paid would quickly outweigh any savings form their health care plan. Too bad we will never be able to organize an demand this type of treatment.

  107. Anon says:

    First they came for the smokers and I didn’t say anything because I wasn’t a smoker…They will come for you someday. Are you overweight? Have ADD? You don’t eat enough green vegetables? Heart disease runs in the family? Oh well, it’s for our own good, right? God help us.

    1. Dan Sichel says:

      Absolutely correct.

  108. Shrek says:

    I wonder what would happen if I had a private company and refused to hire Muslims, and most of my employees were Christian……….Hmmmmmmmmmm

  109. Joe White says:

    It won’t take long for someone to describe his nicotine addiction as a ‘disability’ and sue the hospital for discrimination.

  110. Dan Sichel says:

    Ok, so if I don’t want to hire somebody who is gay based on their behavior, I am discriminating, but if I don’t want to hire a smoker based on their behavior, it’s all good. That’s not right.

  111. John Smith says:

    Obama gets a pass; America gets a pass.
    Now, Please Shut up before this is made larger.

  112. cat says:

    So I can go outside on my break and smoke up my medical weed, but not a cig? Bummer. Well, at least I can work out the rest of my shift with a nice buzz.

  113. EricK says:

    Why don’t they just make smoking illegal? Because the States and the Feds rely on the tax revenue from the sale of tobacco.

    1. cat says:

      Let’s make everything illegal; booze, cheeseburgers, hot dogs, chips, crack – oh wait…

    2. cynic says:

      Because Non-Smokers NEED someone to hate.

  114. pistol000 says:

    There are always exceptions to any rule but statistically, smokers use more sick time (prone to more illness) and require more breaks than a non smoker.
    I’ve always said to my smoking friends “just smoke 10 or 20 before work and be done with it” as you can tell I do not smoke. Smokers are addicted to a legal drug, but they are addicted none the less. I would certainly consider smoking a liability when I would consider hiring an employee

    1. cat says:

      Do you’re smoking friends call in sick a lot?

    2. Bob says:

      “… statistically, smokers use more sick time (prone to more illness) and require more breaks than a non smoker…”
      Every place I’ve worked, hourly employees all got the same break… whether or not they smoked. For exempt employees, it’s irrelevant by definition.

      I always wanted to see these statistics about sick time vis-a-vis smoking, but never bothered. Partly because I suspect they’re similar to the” studies” on second-hand smoke, but also because I realized they’re also irrelevant. If one of my employees is taking too much sick time, I don’t care WHY — there are company policies that deal with this.

      Although it’s also irrelevant, I’m a former long-time smoker. Been clean for five years. (I like to brag about that now and then.)

  115. D says:

    I’m sorry but we see from your blood test that you have herpes. Sorry, no job for you.

    I’m sorry but we see from your blood test that you have Hepatitis. Sorry, no job for you.

    The list goes on and on. This is BS all the way. Buh-Bye once free USA and Hello Fascists!

  116. BSERIUS says:

    gotta agree that any PRIVATE employer has the right to set restrictions,,

    Now , Pres Obama would not get hired

    Also, is the hospital a private employer?
    AND what if a hospital made other restrictions on people doing legal activities,,,Imagine the uproar if women were tested to see if they had abortions

  117. Mike1234 says:

    This is a NON-PROFIT and as such is granted FREE tAXES by the FED and teh STate and LOCAL Govts. They should NOT be allowed to pick and choose.

    Next, you idiots, an employer could hire only women, only blacks, only 18 year olds, only non-drinkers, only non meat eaters, etc.

    Are you all the willing to give up your civil rights? Stand up for yourself!!!!

  118. Michael says:

    The Cleveland Clinic has been doing this for a couple of years now. It’s nothing new.

  119. Adheeb says:

    Well, Mr. Obama still smokes, would he be rejected if he applied? No, he would just refuse to hand over his smoking certificate then claim he never smoked.

  120. jerryo says:

    Thirty states and the District of Columbia have enacted lifestyle antidiscrimination laws that prohibit employers from refusing to hire workers for engaging in legal activities while off-duty and away from the employer’s premises. This includes smoking, drinking, and overeating.
    (From the actual article about this hospital in Mass.)

  121. Andrew says:

    If I were an employer, I wouldn’t want smokers simply cuz they take frequent smoke breaks

    1. Bob says:

      Every place I’ve ever worked, all “hourly workers” get the same breaks. Some smoke on their breaks. Some feed their faces. Some sit and think pure thoughts. But they all have the same breaks.

  122. manu says:

    They should weigh people too. If they are overweight, they should be rejected. Being overweight is unhealthy and has no place in a hospital.

    1. Bob says:

      Right! In fact, now “They” are saying that obesity is a greater health problem than smoking.

      And we know what that means, right? Look out, MacDonalds. Look out, Hershey! .

  123. Alex says:

    I’ve been smoking for over 16 years and I’m healthier than the majority of non-smokers. I have been to the hospital once during that time……for a broken hand and I rarely ever get sick. Some of the greatest inventors ever were smokers. Can you imagine if people shunned Einstein just because he smoked a pipe?

  124. Steve says:

    A lot of Native American religions use tobacco in religious ceremonies and I would love to see them refuse to hire a native American based on this.

  125. rmirod says:

    Discrimination by an individual is part of the human being’s ability to determine good from evil, right from wrong, relativism from moral imperative,etc. Discrimination by Blacks is tolerated in their choices of organizations that serve Blacks, eg., NAACP, Black Colleges, Black Universities, etc Do you have all White organizations that are similarly obviously supported by the US government…none that I can think of. Discrimination is strictly a political exercise and deals strictly with power gained from “buying” politicians to serve the racial stripe of their choice. In truly free societies the right to discriminate is part of what freedom means. The United States stopped being a free society with liberty and justice for all when the Communist or Liberals of the Democrats and the Republicans took over to “rule” by using the SCOTUS to get laws that violate Article I Section I of the US Constitution whereby the Congress was by- passed for expediency. Now the USA is just another “nanny NAZI-like police state”.

  126. John Doe says:

    Oh, now everyone has a problem with this type of policy. It’s ok to descriminate against a person for consuming marijuana, but not tobacco? A person should be able to do whatever they want in their personal time so long as it doesn’t hurt anyone else. Doing it on company time is another matter.

  127. Brasso says:

    One Freedom at a time….One Freedom at a time… them fade away…..any of you that think this is about race are sadly mistaken….this is about Freedom….it isn’t going to matter if you are black, white, hispanic or asian…..One day we will wake up and the flag will have changed colors, no stars but one…and the stripes to will have faded to a solid red….read here:

  128. Tommy says:

    If they test for smoking will they next do a test for percentage of fat since that kills people and makes them sick more often too. Will they have to take an oath not to go to fast food joints. Will drinking be allowed in your off time? How about dangerous sports that may inflect more injuries and cost them, are they allowed? Can you only own the most safe vehicles to keep from having more injuries and thus costing more insurance and lost time. Stupid company I think.

  129. smokehouse56 says:

    The radical socialists on this baord are stunning. It’s hard to believe they think like they do. But than again, it’s their way of life.

  130. why is everyone so angry? says:

    This business serves people who have health issues. If the employees partake in an activity, by choice, that could result in harming its patients, then the employer has the right to change policy to avoid lowering the standards of it’s services (ie. the health of the patient.) You don’t want someone who just came in from smoking, working with someone with respiratory issues. This isn’t a civil rights issue. It’s good business practice.

  131. why is everyone so angry? says:

    This business serves people who have health issues. If the employees partake in an activity, by choice, that could result in harming its patients, then the employer has the right to change policy to avoid lowering the standards of it’s services (ie. the health of the patient.) You don’t want someone who just came in from smoking, working with someone with respiratory issues. This isn’t a civil rights issue. It’s good business practice.

    Sorry for the repeat, I put in the wrong email.

  132. Problem is it’s not a private company. It could not exist without public funding. A private company should be allowed to do this, but only to the extent that private bars and restaurants can continue to serve who they would like (including smokers).

  133. Annie Daniel says:

    If I were a patient there I would prefer employees that tested negative
    for HIV. Smoking, not a concern.

  134. torabora says:

    We need to test for the presence of semen in the alimentary canal. That is a naughty place for it to be and not healthy. Such people should not be working at at a hospital.

    Also, a body fat index should be used and a negative test for gingivitus and dental caries. Fingernails must not be chewed either.

    Psychological testing must be done as well.

    This could be fun.

  135. Cato Americanus says:

    Coming soon, the Body Mass Index test. Because overweight people are prone to such a dizzying variety of illnesses that it makes smoking look like a comparatively healthy lifestyle choice. Thanks for not defending the smokers, oh rest of the world. When they discriminate against your particular clique, there will be nobody left to defend you.

  136. Reggie says:

    If you don’t agree with this hospital policy, just don’t go there. That’s what freedom is. They are free to hire whomever they want, and you are free to go to a different hospital. At least until 2014 when obamacare kicks in. In the meantime, be careful or an evil ambulance might take you to this smoke-free hospital and save your overly dramatic life.

  137. DF says:

    Hitler banned smoking. Smoking is freedom.

  138. john c says:

    Proof that the employer has the right to refuse to hire, and the worker doesn’t have a right to a job. Question, if the smoker is black, couldn’t they claim racial discrimination?

    If the hospital is paying for the employee’s health insurance, doesn’t the employee’s lifestyle become the business of the hospital? I think so.

  139. guest says:

    this is discrimination. No employer has the right to tell me what I can and can’t do out of work. I don’t smoke but am often around smokers I would probably test possetive for nicotine. I think this is a lawsuit waiting to happen.

  140. Harleyrider Davidson says:

    Scientific Evidence Shows Secondhand Smoke Is No Danger

    Written By: Jerome Arnett, Jr., M.D.
    Published In: Environment & Climate News
    Publication Date: July 1, 2008


    BS Alert: The ‘third-hand smoke’ hoax

    The thirdhand smoke scam

    Heart attacks Frauds and Myths..

    New study: No evidence linking SHS and lung cancer

    Surgeon General’s Office Again Misrepresents and Distorts the Science in Report Press Release; Why the Need to Lie to the American Public?

  141. Harleyrider Davidson says:

    Heres a time line starting in 1900,dont be surprised to see the same thing playing out today nearly 100 years later.

    1901: REGULATION: Strong anti-cigarette activity in 43 of the 45 states. “Only Wyoming and Louisiana had paid no attention to the cigarette controversy, while the other forty-three states either already had anti-cigarette laws on the books or were considering new or tougher anti-cigarette laws, or were the scenes of heavy anti- cigarette activity” (Dillow, 1981:10).

    1904: New York: A judge sends a woman is sent to jail for 30 days for smoking in front of her children.

    1904: New York City. A woman is arrested for smoking a cigarette in an automobile. “You can’t do that on Fifth Avenue,” the arresting officer says.

    1907: Business owners are refusing to hire smokers. On August 8, the New York Times writes: “Business … is doing what all the anti-cigarette specialists could not do.”

    1917: SMOKEFREE: Tobacco control laws have fallen, including smoking bans in numerous cities, and the states of Arkansas, Iowa, Idaho and Tennessee.

    1937: hitler institutes laws against smoking.This one you can google.

  142. Harleyrider Davidson says:

    About 90% of secondary smoke is composed of water vapor and ordinary air with a minor amount of carbon dioxide. The volume of water vapor of second hand smoke becomes even larger as it qickly disperses into the air,depending upon the humidity factors within a set location indoors or outdoors. Exhaled smoke from a smoker will provide 20% more water vapor to the smoke as it exists the smokers mouth.

    4 % is carbon monoxide.

    6 % is those supposed 4,000 chemicals to be found in tobacco smoke. Unfortunatley for the smoke free advocates these supposed chemicals are more theorized than actually found.What is found is so small to even call them threats to humans is beyond belief.Nanograms,picograms and femptograms……
    (1989 Report of the Surgeon General p. 80).

    1. Ted says:

      Hey Harley, I think your post really hits the mark. Please run for office some day.

  143. Harleyrider Davidson says:

    Osha has whats called PEL’S and limits for an 8 hour period of exposure to chemicals in indoor environments…[epa is in charge of outdoor air]some smoke free groups have tried to use 30 minute air samples using epa monitoring to create a air borne healthscare.

    The actual standard to use is OSHA’S

    The EPA standard is to be used for OUTSIDE ambient air quality and it is the average over a period of 3 years.

    The proper standard to compare to is the OSHA standard for indoor air quality for respirable particulate (not otherwise specified) for nuisance dusts and smoke. That standard is 5000 ug/m3 on a time-weighted average (8 hours a day, 5 days a week) and is intended to be protective of health over an average working life of 30 years!

    This is where second hand smoke really becomes a joke,remember its nearly 90% water vapor and air… lets get to the facts of toxicology and dose makes the poison:

    According to independent Public and Health Policy Research group, Littlewood & Fennel of Austin, Tx, on the subject of secondhand smoke……..

    They did the figures for what it takes to meet all of OSHA’S minimum PEL’S on shs/ets…….Did it ever set the debate on fire.

    They concluded that:

    All this is in a small sealed room 9×20 and must occur in ONE HOUR.

    For Benzo[a]pyrene, 222,000 cigarettes

    “For Acetone, 118,000 cigarettes

    “Toluene would require 50,000 packs of simultaneously smoldering cigarettes.

    Acetaldehyde or Hydrazine, more than 14,000 smokers would need to light up.

    “For Hydroquinone, “only” 1250 cigarettes

    For arsenic 2 million 500,000 smokers at one time

    The same number of cigarettes required for the other so called chemicals in shs/ets will have the same outcomes.

    So,OSHA finally makes a statement on shs/ets :

    Field studies of environmental tobacco smoke indicate that under normal conditions, the components in tobacco smoke are diluted below existing Permissible Exposure Levels (PELS.) as referenced in the Air Contaminant Standard (29 CFR 1910.1000)…It would be very rare to find a workplace with so much smoking that any individual PEL would be exceeded.” -Letter From Greg Watchman, Acting Sec’y, OSHA

  144. A. Levy says:

    While it is now quite fashionable to ignore a smokers right to free choice, i wonder what those same people would say if we also ignored a womans right to her free choice. I have a feeling their attitude would be very different. The question now is, why is a womans right to choose, more important than a smokers right to choose?

  145. Ted says:

    How is it that so many of you turn this into a race thing. Race is a protected area….smokers are not, and technically speaking smokers endanger others around them.

  146. Magnum says:

    Using the hospital’s reasoning, all applicants should also then be tested to ensure they do not have AIDS, under go evaluation for mental stability, and for any condition that might threaten the health and safety of the facility’s environment.

    It might, however, lead to a serious staffing shortage!

  147. Todd T says:

    A nicotine test that is positive does not mean you are a smoker. I’ve not smoked in months, but I’m on nicotine gum. Doesn’t make sense.

  148. Daniel says:

    It’s one thing for employers to require applicants to pass a drug screening and criminal background check, but credit checks? What if, God forbid, someone lost their job, became homeless or went bankrupt, which ruined their credit for a few years. Unless one is applying for a position that demands certain responsibilities (a CEO, an accountant), why does any employer need to know personal financial information? Also, if employers should be able to do anything they please, is it legal for them to spy on employees, even when they’re at home? I’m all for the Free Market, but sometimes corporations cross lines of decency.

  149. Former smoker says:

    Smoking is NOT a civil right. People don’t CHOOSE the color of their skin but they CHOOSE to smoke. In a way, people choose their religion but usually they are brought up in it from the time they are born and don’t know any different. People start smoking when they are old enough to know better and they CHOOSE to do it anyway. As a society we constantly make laws for the good of society as a whole that “infringe” on the individuals “rights”. You can’t drive any speed you want to. You can’t park any place you want to. You can’t use illegal drugs if you want to. Smoking is deadly. Its effects accounts for more health care expenditures than anything else and the more places that ban it the better.

  150. Tom says:

    It’s all a matter of who’s in a PVG, Protected Victim Group, and who isn’t. When the hospital administration refuses to hire a surgical nurse that’s HIV positive these same people now defending them will screaming for their crucifixion. How about a devout Muslim that eats with his right hand and wipes himself with his left? You want one of them in the kitchen making your meal?

  151. mia1984 says:

    Does this mean they can also reject HIV+ applicants?

  152. Wes says:

    Stupid policy. But if its a private business, then it’s their decision to make.

  153. Hard habit to kick, but its fair. Smoking is bad, doesn’t help and i wish all smoking would end! The lwa smoke, but they can do that since they are “Dead” and beyond all pain and suffering! Give your smokes to the lwa and drop your habit.
    I would not like smokers at my business either.

  154. Rusty says:

    Refusing to hire liberals – now there’s a great idea.

  155. cynic says:

    Why would anyone want to work for these sickos?

  156. cynic says:

    Every one is missing the point…It’s not about rights this and right that….It’s about…..These people aren’t human…they are sick…..They would have been the first to load the trains to the concentration camps. The Tobacco hysteria allows them an acceptable way to practice their sickness.

  157. cynic says:

    Hitler is alive and well and living in Newburyport.

  158. cynic says:

    While they are testing for nicotine are they also testing for AIDS?

  159. cynic says:

    Smokers are not a protected class.. They are the perfect victims…You can do whatever you want to them.

  160. cynic says:

    Would WBZ be kind enough to un delete ‘Billy’s” comment….Obviously it is interesting enough for so many to comment on….I would like to be allowede to see what he said.

  161. cynic says:

    Since WBZ apparently not going to print Billy’s comment would someone please quote it to me?

  162. cynic says:

    Why do smokers stand outside and smoke? Because the non-smokers have made rules to force them to stand outside and smoke. Why did the non-smokers make these rules that force Smokers to stand out side and smoke….So they could complain about smokers standing outside smoking.

  163. brasfutebol says:

    That was a really amazing writing

  164. Hotel L says:

    I do not disagree with this post..

  165. criminal attorneys wv says:

    That was a truly good writing…

  166. cigarette discount says:

    This definitely makes perfect sense to anyone!

  167. terra nova tv show says:

    Thank god some bloggers can still write. My thanks for this blog post!!!

  168. Johnna Arroyos says:

    Great post. I am continuously reading this website and I am impressed! Extremely useful info particularly the ultimate phase

  169. serenitykvholmes says:

    With havin so much written content do you ever run into any issues of plagorism or copyright violation? My website has a lot of completely unique content I’ve either written myself or outsourced but it appears a lot of it is popping it up all over the internet without my authorization. Do you know any solutions to help stop content from being stolen? I’d definitely appreciate it.