Moreover, it will ban all smoking - including the use of e-cigarettes - at all of its six campuses.
Although such policies have been in effect for more than thirty years, and have repeatedly been upheld by the courts – even when adopted by governmental bodies, to which the Constitution, as well as anti-discrimination laws, apply – critics still raise the same stale objections, says public interest law professor John Banzhaf, who jump started the trend, and helped to defend such policies from legal attack.
Without such a no-smoker policy, nonsmoking employees are forced to absorb about $2,500 more each year to cover these unnecessary expenses – money which could otherwise be used to provide them with expanded health insurance coverage, higher wages or other benefits, etc. – a situation which Banzhaf says is grossly unfair to the great majority of workers, as well as to cash-strapped hospitals serving the public.
Also, hospitals are especially concerned about their image and reputation, with patients complaining – and sometimes even voting with their feet – about seeing doctors and nurses standing outside smoking, or reeking of tobacco smoke residue inside, when they come for treatment.
Although some critics claim "discrimination,"
Also, the military and many police departments require employees to exercise in their spare time; pilots and train operators must refrain from drinking for 48 hours before flying; and reporters often can't accept gifts from those they write about – so the concept of imposing conditions on employees, even when they are away from the job site, appears to be one of long standing and is widely accepted.
Under our free enterprise system, employers – not the government – set the criteria for hiring, except regarding certain limited immutable conditions like race and gender where there’s no rational basis for making a distinction. But an annual saving of $12,000 a year per employee provides a very rational basis upon which to make these decisions, and smoking is an activity which tens of millions have given up – so it's far from an immutable characteristic like race or gender, explains Banzhaf.
Asked why the principle shouldn’t also apply to obesity, Banzhaf notes that the federal government has classified obesity as a “health status,” one sometimes protected under the Americans With Disabilities Act [ADA], and the American Medical Association [AMA] classifies it as a “disease” – neither of which is true of smoking, which is classified only as a “behavior”
JOHN F. BANZHAF III, B.S.E.E., J.D., Sc.D.
Professor of Public Interest Law
George Washington University Law School,
FAMRI Dr. William Cahan Distinguished Professor,
Fellow, World Technology Network,
Founder, Action on Smoking and Health (ASH)
2000 H Street, NW
Washington, DC 20052, USA
(202) 994-7229 // (703) 527-8418