Police officer fired for smoking tobacco (off the job)

[Ryder]

I was under the impression that the 95% cost of tobbacco paid in taxes was to pay for health care problems caused by smokers. So where has such enormous sums of mega dollars been going? And what about the free for nothing double payment when they beat the tobbacco corps in their courts? I'd say smokers already paid their own way. If everyone quit smoking the whole economy would collapse.

Give em an inch and they'll take a mile comes to mind. It's just too bad we can't give them enough rope to hang themselves.

Disclaimer: I don't smoke but liars and thieves really me up.

 

[Moondancer]

I DID smoke. I ended up with quadruple bypass surgery at the age of 45 (TWICE!).

A friend of mine asked me if I was going to sue the tobacco companies since the thoracic surgeon said the coronary arteries were damaged from nicotine.

I told him he was an idiot. I told him that I knew the risks from the day I took my first puff and I still continued to smoke until the docs told me I had heart problems. He was more than just a little ticked when I told him he needed to realize that all actions have consequences and that if you don't have enough stones to take responsibility for your choices then you ain't much of an adult.

 

[Devonai]

I smoke a pipe and the occasional cigar. I will smoke a cigarette under the right circumstances, such as while out in the field, which would preclude the 20-30 minutes required for the former.

I do not inhale any of the above (Clinton jokes aside). I smoke because I enjoy the smell of tobacco. Yes, stale tobacco odor is pretty foul, but it helps to limit the most offensive items (cigar, cigs) to outdoors.

If I have any say in the matter I will be smoking my Ehrlich's Canadian-style pipe with a stout English burley blend. It aids in concentration and relaxation and smells wonderful.

I would almost never sign any contract that prevented me from smoking a pipe. If I did find it in my best interest to sign such a contract, I would smoke anyway. And I would not put up a fuss if I was fired because of it.

 

[iamkris]

Dave -- sarcasm

 

[veloce851]

This idea that you should be barred from working for the state or any public office, just because you choose to smoke, what if you eat McDs, Wendy's.. should you then be barred from service because obesity increases insurance premiums.
Make the smokers pay a slightly higher Ins premium the same way Ins companies do it to individuals.
They idea that you can't performa a job because you partake in a health risk on your own time.

How about employees that skydive, drive in automobiles, rollerblade. WORK OUT for that matter.
EVERYTHING in life is a risk.

If we continue to legislate our rights to take on risk then this society is going to fall.
Just as someone else stated we are putting a price on liberty. All in the name of Insurance premiums.

PATHETIC.

If I had a job and they threw a "contract" in my face that said I have to give up my liberties to continue my employment. If you have kids to feed you are going to sign it regardless if its right or wrong.
Any contract lawyer can argue your way out of a contract signed under duress(sp).
So I don't fault any of these officers for "breaking the law" by engaging in a once legal activity.

 

[buzz_knox]

Duress means you have no choice. Economic duress is a very hard row to how, given that you have to basically have to show that except for that job, you would be starving. I don't think any court would accept that. I certainly wouldn't.

 

[brownie0486]

In Mass. it isn't a contract, it's the law after a certain date back a decade ago now perhaps.

You choose to work as a PO, you follow the states guidelines or find another profession. It isn't mandatory to apply to the position, but if you pass the testing and academy you will be required to follow the law.

They instituted the law as officer deaths from stroke, heartattacks, emphazema [ spelling ], and all the other maladies associated with a lifetime of smoking were killing the officers while on duty and costing the states towns and cities a whole lot more money in death benefits, helth coverage, insurance payouts to surviving family members.

Smoker all his life, he chases a BG and keels over dead from a massive coronary. Family collects his pension and death benefits.
Would it happen to anyone who didn't smoke? Sure, but statistics show smokers have more health issues while living [ cost to the city/town in overtime for his absence to cover shifts, healthcare charges/use ]and were dying prematurely costing the cities/towns even more.

Your hard earned tax dollars at work. Paying for the officers healthcare do we not consider the consequences of their actions when the data stares us in the face nationally for everyone about the costs associated with smoking?

You want the job, don't smoke. I think thats your choice to continue with the app process knowing the rules. No one is forcing this on anyone. Oh--and if you are caught while employed, you get to find another job that will allow you to smoke shortly.

Happened a couple of times in towns around me in the last 5 years. They were both let go, fought it in court and lost. Now there is precedence in this state and you really might as well walk if they get it documented.

You will find it very difficult to tell the officers who smoke they will pay more in premiums, the unions will not allow that discrimination amoung their ranks. They either all sink or all swim in the union.

Brownie

 

[faustulus]

Brownie,
You are missing the point, by passing the law the government is doing more than playing the statistics (if not no police would have cars or guns) they are making a statement that the government disapproves of smoking -- that is a moral decision. Since heart disease is hereditary in some cases, the could pass a law saying that no one with a history of heart disease may be a police officer or they could say that someone who is homosexual could not be a police officer, or a woman. Try telling someone 'if you want the job don't be homosexual' and see how long that lasts in a court of law. The problem is this law is immoral and wrong.

 

[brownie0486]

Restrictions and company rules inthe private sector would be no different.

If you are working for a company who has a policy that no jeans are allowed, would you take the job and then expect to be able to wear jeans?

How about private companies telling me I can't be armed on their property as a condition for employment? I have the choice to not take that job if I do not like the restrictions placed on it's employees.

We live with restrictions in our lives everyday. Some we can live with and others we can't on an individual basis. I don't like the fact that I can't carry at work, I find another job.

I don't like the idea I can't smoke asa condition for employment, I go somewhere else or come to terms with their corporate rule.

If I accept employment knowing the restrictions and then break them I have put myself in a postion where I can be fired for violating those rules/restrictions.


Brownie

 

[faustulus]

Private companies can do many things the government cannot. As I said the yard stick is different for government. If I want to put the 10 commandments on my storefront window I can do that, however, the State cannot because it is supporting an establishment of religion. Same thing here, with the law the government has contradicted itself. It has said that partaking in a legal substance while not at work is wrong and you may be punished for it. What has hurt them is they are inconsitant about it. Alcohol cuases health problems as does many types of food, if they had banned all these things they might have an arguement. What they did is single out one.

If you are working for a company who has a policy that no jeans are allowed, would you take the job and then expect to be able to wear jeans?

Do you think it would be legal if the company said you couldn't wear jeans in your house?

How about private companies telling me I can't be armed on their property as a condition for employment?

Again, what if your employer said you could not own or carry a gun while not at work, would you have a problem with this? What if it was the government saying you had no right to carry a gun?

 

[tyme]

[blockquote] Do you think it would be legal if the company said you couldn't wear jeans in your house?[/blockquote]
If jeans contributed to health problems that were easily confused with job-related injuries, and if the State was picking up the tab for their disability, yes.

 

[faustulus]

If jeans contributed to health problems that were easily confused with job-related injuries, and if the State was picking up the tab for their disability, yes.

What about the gun part? I am pretty sure you could find at least one or two towns in America that would say guns contribute to 'health problem' and cite CDC statistics to back them up. The state (and lets be clear by state we mean government) is picking up your health benefits so it should be allowed to prevent you from owning a gun.
That is what you are arguing for, be sure it is you position.
And lets follow the idea of state funds to its logical conclusion. If the state gives you money for anything that would allow them to prohibit guns. On medicare or medicade? No guns.
Many of you are doing exactly what you accuse Liberals of doing, picking and choosing which rights you want to support. You are all out of sorts when the ACLU wins a radical First Amendment case, but how many of you would critisize the NRA for a smiliar win for the Second?
If we don't fight for them all, the all will fall.

 

[brownie0486]

Guns being health issues do not have the extensive databases to show cause and effect as in smoking which has been well established as a leading cause of heart disease as well as other malady's.

They might claim it but they could not prove it without a database to show their position.

As to wearing jeans in my house. My house is not a public entitity where tax payers are responsible for my actions.

No correlation to the example, try again.

It's not the three muscateers here. You certainly can pic your fights as you see fit, but because you don't fight them all certainly doesn't mean you lose them all. Rights are always fought on an individual basis, isn't that one of the reasons the rights were listed seperately in the "bill"?

Brownie

 

[444]

If you took a job that required you to sign a contract that you would not privately own firearms and you violated that contract; you should gracefully accept the consequences. Why ? Because you are a lair that can not be trusted. You are not a man of your word.
If on the other hand, you feel this is none of their business, and it is a violation of your rights then don't apply for, let alone take the job. How difficult is that to understand ? Why is that difficult to understand ? It really is just that simple. You can be on all the holy crusades you want and you are only beating your head against the wall. When you are working for someone else, you don't make the rules. When you voluntarily sign a contract, you don't change the rules after the fact because you arn't a man of your word. Period. Like it or not.

 

[faustulus]

It's not the three muscateers here.

When Hitler attacked the Jews I was not a Jew, therefore I was not concerned. And when Hitler attacked the Catholics, I was not a Catholic, and therefore, I was not concerned. And when Hitler attacked the unions and the industrialists, I was not a member of the unions and I was not concerned. Then Hitler attacked me and the Protestant church — and there was nobody left to be concerned. --Martin Niemöller Congressional Record, 14, October 1968, page 31636

444,
If we were talking about a private enterprise I would agree. But we are talking about the government. By saying it don't allow you to smoke/own guns/wear jeans they are it is making a judgement which may or may not be shared by the all the people who make up government. In doing so they break the social contract which exists between the governed and the state.

 

[hammer4nc]

Once again, a legal discussion that serves as a litmus test; whether or not one accepts authority without question. I put myself in the "not" category.

A reminder: many legal questions involve "competing" rights. In this case, does the right to privacy supercede the desire by the state to reduce its healthcare costs? A quick search thru Mass. statutes will reveal any number of "wellness" programs, not just about smoking/heart disease, but concerning things like diet, exercise, obesity. How far does it go? Anyone care to speculate?

One member attempted to justify the smoking ban based on "scientific data". I'm not arguing against the data, just the concept that its any of the governments business to regulate legal activities outside the workplace, as a privacy issue. We're right on the brink of having genetic testing which could prescreen for various disease markers. Just think how much the govt. could save by not employing folks with risky genetics! That would be just peachy for the "acceptance" crowd, yes?

The following issues, raised previously, no one has touched:

1. Contracts (expressed and implied). A few members have quoted the "express" or written part of the contract. However, the law also recognizes the "implied" part in any contract; that not written, but established by common practice. In this case, the failure by the state to enforce the no-smoking ban in any consistent fashion would lead a reasonable person to believe the law was one of many that was not actively enforced. Anyone care to argue otherwise? How about other Massachusetts "blue laws" still on the books?

2. Arbitrary and capricious: the state has a responsibility to enforce its regulations in a fair and equitable manner. Has it done so? Only two enforcement actions in 15 years? Has this person had substantive due process?

Batter up.

 

[brownie0486]

hammer4nc:

Where did you get the figure that only two instances had been enforced in 15 years?

The rule is enforced pretty regularly where I'm from in Mass. if the admins are made aware of the officers actions against policy where smoking is concerned and it subsequently documented.

Brownie

 

[Edward429451]

Under the law, all new public safety hires must sign a contract, as Jeffrey did, pledging not to smoke tobacco products.

Contract problems people? Hehe.

I think if you sign a contract, you should live up to it and if you didn't want to abide by the terms, you shouldn't have signed. Simple.

This is why I didn't sign the CCW contract. Up front when they're tryin to get you to sign, everythings all peachy keen. "Aw,it just a formality they do, everybody has to sign it, it isn't nothin."

Until its signed, then thet got you by the short ones and will use any and all technicalities (contract terms) to nail it to you.

So tell me, how many of you people actually read all that fine print in your CCW application? Looked up the references to law and such? Hmmm?

They make you sign your 1040 forms too. Wonder whats up with that?
Traffic citations? Signature. Hmmm.
Duress? Intimidation? Har de har har. Be careful what you put your signature to cause they might just hold you to it.