Is that not blatant discrimination in the work place...?!!

Hi. I stumbled upon your brochure. I agree that facilitated social obstricization is much worse for society than smoking by some.

The following is driving me crazy, and I had to tell someone.

The other day, I was in a job interview with an employment agency. One of the question on the application was "Do you smoke?" I found this offensive, and to a point gave them the benefit of the doubt, and wrote in the margin, "Prefer non-smoking environment."

Apparently, this was not good enough for her. She asked me in the interview if I smoked, and said everyone who smokes always answers it the way I did.

Then she added with something similar to, "we just like to know in case our clients request a non-smoker... Someone might be allergic to it and even though you might not be smoking in the office, you might have one at lunchtime and it might still be on YOUR CLOTHES"!!!

Is that not blatant discrimination in the work place...!!

I thought it was more likely that some employees prefer to hire non-smokers along the lines of thinking they're better human beings, etc. And that the employment agency allows it.

Joanne

Dear Joanne,

The story you relate points directly to what led many of us to become active in what have become known as the "tobacco wars". And it illustrates what we mean when we say on our website, "this site is not really about smoking, it is about liberty..."

Your experience illustrates a trend of blatant discrimination toward smokers in the workplace which is particularly pronounced in some parts of the United States, more low- key here in Canada.

Clearly there is no health rationale behind the kind of impertinent inquisition you were subjected to at that employment agency. It's just that some employers, in their quest for a "smoke-free" environment, have decided that they would prefer to be "smoker-free." The moment any campaign for the hearts and minds of the public leads to that sort of thing, we are in very dangerous waters indeed. And it's not just smokers who should feel threatened, but everyone who values a free and tolerant society.

You may have noticed in our website that we frequently refer to so-called anti-smoking groups as "anti-smoker groups" -- and not only because we like the sound of the rhetoric. The fact is that the anti-smoking movement, desperate to get public support for their agenda, have abandoned all caution and decency in the way they approach the public. Since attacking the tobacco companies didn't get them far enough, fast enough, they shifted to attacking smokers as suspect characters -- at best, pathetic addicts who "need our help"; at worst, socially irresponsible misfits who are spewing out deadly air pollution and (apparently) creating inhospitable workplaces by trailing around a residual odour of tobacco smoke. Who would want to hire a smoker, when you put it like that?

They have created a climate which encourages the kind of social intimidation you describe. Social intimidation of smokers is encouraged because it is seen as an effective way to modify people's behaviour in the direction of "a healthier society" -- a goal for which any means justifies the end.

Creepy, isn't it?

When does a campaign degenerate into a persecution? When stories like yours start emerging.

Thanks for sharing it with it. We hope you're sharing it with others, as well. There are a lot of people with common sense out there, and when they begin to see how extreme the anti-smoking campaign has become, they will think more critically about it.

FORCES Canada