Smoking Ban

Smoking Ban

I think this is a competitive tactic used by big business to control the freedom of their employees. I know that cigarette smoking is the number one cause of cancer, I am quite sure big business knows this also, but I think this crosses the line. I am a smoker, and I do respect my corporation's wishes not to smoke within the facility, designated smoking areas have been into play to keep the facility smoke-free. Nicotine is highly addictive as most drugs are, but drugs are illegal, and at this point, nicotine is not. There is a major crackdown on smoking, I have noticed this when it comes to the health insurance provided by my employer; you must designate whether you are a smoker or non-smoker; they offered to pay, through insurance, a large portion of the cost for you to quit smoking. Chantix and the patch are practically given away, in an attempt for you to kick the habit. I feel that this is a violation of our personal freedom rights as American citizens, to be randomly tested for nicotine is absurd! This type of control should be unacceptable by all means; as long as corporations like Phillip Morris and RJ Reynolds pushes these cancer sticks, people buy them. I also see their point, our government has allowed these corporations become so powerful that they cannot be touched, therefore, these companies attack the individuals they can touch, that is the employees who smoke. This is definitely a power imbalance in which the employee who smokes is on the losing of this battle. Alcohol is not illegal, although there are a lot of functioning alcoholics in our workplace; big business has deterred smokers smoking, or fired them, if this ban was put on alcohol in the workplace, it probably wouldn't be enough workers to fill the positions. I think the motivation to behind this type of ban to save a buck; insurance rates are probably higher for a smoking facility, vs. a non-smoking facility. I think that big business is interested in efficiency and yield, and to hear the insurance companies say it, smokers are not efficient because this employee could cost the insurance company a great deal of revenue treating cancer, vs. someone who do not smoke. I don't think that big business is concerned about the health of their employees, unless they have to come out of pocket to treat cancer, we all can be replaced. The bottom line is the dollar will sign; and if big business can save revenue by eliminating smokers, so be it, it is what it is. I think this ban crosses the line between professional and personal responsibility, because no matter how many cigarettes one smokes, it doesn't affect their professionalism, this ban tends to venture into one's personal life. If I don't smoke on your property, and my service to this company is immaculate, then what is the problem? What I do all my breaks and at home, provided it is legal and not tarnishing the company's