[Dion]

Inquirer Editorial: Refusing to hire smokers won't work

Even if we assume that Penn and other employers are doing this for the good of society - and not just to lower their costs to provide employees with health benefits - they have crossed a boundary between discouraging smoking and demonizing smokers. Why is no one proposing such sanctions for other kinds of health liabilities, such as family history of heart disease? The stigma and misunderstanding surrounding addiction are part of the answer.

As Ezekiel Emanuel, a Penn vice provost and bioethicist, and two coauthors note in the commentary opposing Penn's pending policy, most of us should have the humility to recognize that addiction and other health problems could afflict us. "And," they add, "health-care organizations in particular should show compassion for their workers."

Addictions are by definition intractable, but we haven't accomplished much by removing addicts from society through imprisonment and other punishments. In fact, as the opposed authors point out, smoking rates are much higher among the unemployed and the poor. That doesn't bode well for the public-health results of policies that deny smokers a livelihood.

http://articles.philly.com/2013-04-0...urance-smokers