don's report archive

by Donald B. Ardell, Ph. D.

Wellness in the Headlines
(Don's Report to the World)

"Elsewhere, Target said that it would ban Santa Claus outside their stores but that it would continue to have many other obese people inside." Andy Bowowitz, "War Cost Tops One Zillion: Pentagon Renames Iraq Conflict 'Operation Infinite Expense',"
~The Borowitz Report, December 14, 2005.
 
The World Health Organization (WHO), a specialized health agency established by the United Nations in 1948, has just banned smokers from employment. Unlike Target Stores with obese people inside (according to Andy Borowitz's comical parting "elsewhere" sign-off line, above), WHO will NOT continue to have smokers inside, at least none who are employees. 
 
WHO is based in Geneva, Switzerland; it currently has about 2,400 employees. WHO was founded to promote "the attainment of the highest possible level of health by people worldwide." WHO's famous definition of "health" is "a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being -- not merely the absence of disease or infirmity." 
 
A spokesperson for WHO explained that the organization exists to encourage people to lead healthy lives, therefore, "as a matter of principle, it will no longer recruit smokers." (Or those who chew or snuff tobacco.) The new policy applies to current employees, as well, who are asked to declare their intention to cease and desist using tobacco. WHO leaders want to ensure the organization's efforts to curb the tobacco epidemic are reflected internally."
 
Nearly everyone knows smoking is the number one cause of premature deaths. Annual deaths on a global level are about five million adults. Basically, smoking is universally recognized as a hazardous practice, both to smokers and those around them. A billion people will die from tobacco-related diseases (cancer, for example) this century, according to one UK scientist, unless large numbers can be persuaded to quit. Most of the deaths will occur in developing countries, like China and India. It's hard to imagine any greater hazard to world health, save of course the threat of annihilation of the species caused by intolerant religious fanaticism. Maybe religious zealots should be banned from WHO employment, as well.  
 
In the US, tobacco manufacturers have pressured their indentured politicians to pass legislation at both state and federal levels that outlaws hiring practices that exclude smokers. However, twenty state legislatures have so far managed to resist such legislation. One such state is Michigan, where an insurance benefits firm, the Weyco Corporation, has a WHO-like policy NOT to hire anyone who smokes. When this policy of no smoking employees, including then current workers who smoked, was announced, a grace period was offered along with varied programs to assist smokers to quit. That period passed some time ago -- a few workers who refused to take the mandatory breathalyzer test left Weyco. 

Weyco's no-smoking policy, not surprisingly, was vigorously opposed by tobacco interests and civil liberties groups. However, Weyco acted within the bounds of employment law in Michigan and the policy stands today.

Let's address the question posed in the essay title - is an employment ban against smokers a good idea? Is such a ban intrusive (in other words, at odds with civil liberties), a characteristic of a nanny employer and a somewhat tyrannical rule? Yes, I think it is -- but in my opinion it is a GOOD form of intrusion, a barrier to the kind of civil liberty nobody should expect government to protect. A little nanny-ism can, on rare occasions, be a good thing, especially for the very, very foolish or immature who do not have sufficient common sense to look after themselves properly. Tyrannical? Yep, but again I'm OK with tyranny of such a benign nature as in the limited instances shown by the WHO and Weyco smoker bans. In the former instance, the employer is a health organization; in the latter a private for-profit company. Each should enjoy the right to refrain from employing people who choose to do something both unhealthful and damaging to the interests of the organization.
 
I do want to emphasize that I also feel everyone should be free to behave outrageously, if such behavior is legal and not harmful to those who do not want to be a part of or affected by such behaviors. For instance, just to pick a few dramatic examples, if one wishes to cavort about in the buff, speak ill of public officials, smoke all day long or otherwise engage in behaviors highly objectionable to religious leaders and other self-appointed moral guardians, I say "go for it and have a blast." However, if a private company chooses not to hire those who so cavort or behave, it ought to be free to do so, provided a health-related justification can be found for the proscription. 
 
Anyway, that's MY take on the WHO and similar smoking bans. What's yours? Would love to hear from you. 
 
Be well. Always look on the bright side of life.

(Note: This essay will be filed in the archives in the PHYSICAL DOMAIN under the skill area of lifestyle habits. Additional articles related to this theme may be found there.)

(Ed. Note: Views expressed in this and other columns are those of the author and not necessarily those of the SeekWellness Editorial Board.)

 Send e-mail to Don Ardell