Board Bans Hiring Smoking Deputies
Hoping to stem escalating insurance costs, Riverside County has banned the hiring of sheriff’s deputies who smoke and may expand the prohibition to all hires in county government.
So, they are hiring only non-smokers because it they are less likely to get cancer, heart disease and other ailments linked to tobacco. This is due to the fact that it will decrease insurance costs.
Along those lines, I say they should ban . . .
. . . anyone who drinks alcohol : There were 19,817 Alcohol-induced deaths in the United States each year, not including motor vehicle fatalities in 2001, in addition to 27,035 deaths in the United States from Chronic Liver Disease and Cirrhosis – because Chronic Liver Disease and Cirrhosis is the 12th leading cause of death in the United States.
. . . anyone who drives a car: The Motor Vehicle Deaths for the US in 2001 = 43,788, the US Motor Vehicle Fatality Rates: 15.4 deaths per 100,000 population (2001).
. . . anyone who has diabetes – or is at risk for diabetes because the number of deaths related to diabetes in 2001 in the US = 71,372
. . . anyone who is depressed, has a history of depression or shows any risk factors for depression because the US Suicide Deaths Annually = 30,622 (2001).
Likewise . . .
Anyone who lives in a high risk crime area is at risk for homocide or crime related injuries.
Anyone who participates in any active sport – such as football, skiing, skydiving, etc – - because it puts them at greater risk for related injuries and fatalities.
Anyone who has a family history of cancer, heart disease or any other debilitating or possibly fatal disease, because the genetic link predisposes them to the disease.
Hell – - how about anyone who walks across the damn street because it puts them at greater fucking risk of being hit by a bus.
This crap is so lame! Oh, so we are not going to hire smokers who may be very qualified for the job eh? Lower cost for insurance… well what about the job itself and the dangers they face at getting shot? This is so fucktarded.
You said what I didn’t – - but I was thinking.
Totally disagree with the post and the comments. Smoking is absolutely linked to many fatal diseases and is highly highly preventable (don’t smoke). If insurance rates are skyrocketing, and this is one way to reduce them, I say more power to the city.
There’s a huge difference between alcohol, which a huge huge percentage of the country is capable of taking part in on regular, non-addictive occasions (and kills 19,000 according to you) and smoking which kills in the area of 500,000 a year. Those deaths, and the illness that go along with them are taxing the healthcare system in a HUGE way. I’m paying more for insurance because of it, and it pisses me off.
1 out of every 5 deaths can be attributed to tobacco. If you add up all the things you’ve listed, you don’t get anywhere near that.
Low hanging fruit.
Oh, and one other factoid… secondhand smoke kills more than 53,000 people a year. That’s almost 3 times the total amount you quote that died from self induced alcohol deaths.
Jake – thanks for the comments. But, in my mind, death is death and risk is risk. Is one risk worse than the other because it’s higher?
So they eliminate smokers – - then the second leading cause of death becomes their first. Do they start eliminating those people too?
time to prefab those spankin new android types who are perfect, infallable and indestructable. lol
Well ok, then let’s not hire people who drink – that causes health issues, let’s not hire people who eat junk food – that causes health issues, let’s not hire people who have unprotected sex – that causes health problems, let’s not hire people who use cell phones – may cause health problems. I could go on and on and spew all kinds of facts about people who do things “by choice” that risks their health and how it is driving up the cost of your health insurance. It is ridiculous to not hire people because they are smokers! It is discrimination! The department should put programs in place to help people to quit smoking not keep them from employment!
I’m totally with you on that, Lori. I know where I work – we have an Employees Assistance Program where anyone who comes forward for help with a personal problem – - whether it’s financial, marriage, mental, health, addictions, etc – - we are legally bound to assist those employees in finding the help they need.
This law is reactive instead of being proactive, as it should be.
I hope you know I was directing my last comments at Jake Lisa. I should have clarified that.
I did, Lori – no worries. I just figured I would respond because I agreed with your remark.
Plus, Jake seems to be MIA lol
Hi !