Hacker News Reader

Comment by t34543 | Hacker News Reader

I understand the health implications of being a nicotine user but I’m totally against policies like this.

It’s your body, if you wish to smoke you should not face employment discrimination.

Strongly disagree. I am very allergic to smoke, cigarette smoke in particular. Its not just the smoker that's being affected. I've had numerous run ins with HR about second hand smoke on the job and how it affects my health. I wish my company had a policy like this.

This is a no nicotine policy, not a no smoking policy. It bans vaping, gum, patches, and lozenges. It bans employees from using them even if they are never used at work. The employee simply has to test positive for nicotine.

They've banned smoking on the job for years now.

This is now banning nicotine use off the job as well.

I have the same problem with perfume, cologne, and hairspray. Even more of a problem with automobile exhaust. I don't complain to HR though.

Assuming you don't smoke tobacco, aren't the health effects of nicotine (at the levels 99% of people limit themselves to) basically nothing?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicotine#Adverse_effects

It expressly does NOT cause cancer in humans. It means you get a bit less REM sleep. No one has shown it causes birth defects in humans.

Caffeine sounds much worse!

> Assuming you don't smoke tobacco, aren't the health effects of nicotine (at the levels 99% of people limit themselves to) basically nothing?

Nicotine itself is believed to be associated with higher risk of cardiovascular disease. (the "Cardiovascular system" section of the wikipedia page on Nicotine is quite lacking)

Isn't nicotine far more addictive than caffeine? Perhaps a direct comparison could show that nicotine is less harmful on paper, but the addictive nature seems like it could make nicotine more dangerous in practice.

Yes, I agree. This move makes me much less likely to use U-Haul. I don't like supporting companies that abuse their employees.

Abuse? Second hand smoking is a thing, it's the smokers who are doing the abuse, both to themselves and others.

This isn't about smoking, this about nicotine supplementation.

Second hand smoking can be addressed by prohibiting smoking on company premises, which is totally fair game.

This is the company demanding to have a say in what their employees do on their own time, off of company property. That's abusive.

This isn't sufficient. Smoking's effects lingers on the smoker for quite a while after they smoke. So even if they leave the company premise and come back, there's still the effect of third hand smoking. This was studied and shown to enter the HVAC system and even affect rooms where the smoker isn't sitting in. It's quite the dangerous, selfish, and disgusting habit.

The case that secondhand smoke (outside of enclosed places where the smoke accumulates) is harmful to nonallergic others is weak at best. The case that thirdhand smoke is harmful is essentially unsupportable.

It's been shown in studies, such as https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/hvac-systems-spre...

That article does not provide any evidence that thirdhand smoke is a real health hazard.

This isn't a ban on smoking. It's a ban on nicotine. That includes gum and other forms of it. It's not just about cigarettes.

You know what else emits large amounts of toxic gases at U-haul? The rental trucks. Maybe they should eliminate ICE vehicles first. And then not hire anyone who owns one.

> Second hand smoking is a thing

Second-hand smoking is no more a thing than pink fairies are a thing. It's junk science used to justify a moral panic — at its root, the same impulse behind drug laws, anti-homosexual laws and racist laws.

Both the American Cancer Society and the Center for Disease Control disagree:

https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/seco...

https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/tobacco-and-canc...

I read the first link, and I don't like the presentation for two reasons - they define secondhand smoke as tobacco smoke, so by definition (e.g.) living in a house with a fireplace that's used all the time doesn't count. And grouping living with a smoker with all other incidental exposure does not seem legitimate to me. It's like saying because workers in a popcorn factory sometimes get a horrible lung disease from artificial butter, you are at significant risk because you eat it a few times a year.

So I'm not saying there's anything out and out false there, but it is what I think of as (more or less) "fake news". My conclusion is that yes, it is bad for parents to be smokers, but if we're not going to take all children away from them for being unfit, then how much less should we go on a holy war against smokers in general for their impact on strangers?

I'm old enough that I remember when nonsmoking sections in restaurants were right next to the smoking sections. It's nice to have it banned indoors, but that's the point at which we've gone far enough, and people who claimed there was a slippery slope turned out to be prophetic.

It seems logical to separate "wood-burning" smoke from tobacco smoke for research and policy purposes.

Your popcorn factory example doesn't apply here at all. They are not saying "smokers have health problems, therefore second-hand smokers have problems". They are directly tying second hand smoke to the health problems.

If you think this is "fake news", please refer to the reference section.

Agreed... I absolutely hate cigarette smoke, but voted against the bans. Though I wouldn't have minded nearly as much if they tethered the bans to allow smoking only at places with a hard liquor license that forbade children.

In general, I tend to favor personal liberty and freedom. There's a very small jump from this to similar efforts in favor of prohibiting any number of things on personal time and property (ban on fat people, meat eaters, sugar, grain eaters, etc). I mean, what's next? Morality clauses for all employees?

> I absolutely hate cigarette smoke, but voted against the bans.

This is why such bans at adult-only leisure places need to be at the community level, instead of at state level. So your vote matters where it happens.

I was a smoker during the bans and happily voted for them. Airports and other huge event centers not having smoking areas is incredibly inconvenient but I didn't have any problem standing 25' from an entrance, going to a designated area or any of that. I've always thought it was disgusting and didn't want anyone to have to walk through my addiction.

Smoking is still legal in bars/clubs when I go back home and it's so disgusting when I get home that I want to trash my clothes.

But there's an easy way to effect your local bars/clubs ... talk to the owner, let them know you're voting with your wallet. It doesn't need to be a government position to limit personal liberty.

Bingo. I live in an area where adult-only leisure establishments can choose whether to allow smoking. About 80% don't allow it by conscious choice and everyone is happy.

I'm not sure how you're realistically expecting a single person to walk into some 3 story club in the middle of Tampas club district and ask for cigarettes to be banned when every other club allows them. I'd be laughed out of whatever weird fish-tank backed club-boss room they let me in.

I mean, maybe it's worth trying but it just seems astronomically impossible to me.

> Smoking is still legal in bars/clubs when I go back home and it's so disgusting when I get home that I want to trash my clothes.

Curious where this is that doesn't have many more non-smoking places? All places I see where it is still legal have more non-smoking bars/clubs than otherwise.

I'm specifically talking about Tampa. I haven't lived there in over a decade but went back in the last few years and completely forgot that you could smoke in bars there. It was so gross. And of course some drunk burnt me with their cigarette while walking through the packed bar.

Not sure the ratio of smoking/non-smoking. I was in Ybor the big club/bar area and I feel like everywhere was smoking. They even had cig machines in most if not all of the bars. It was constant smoke.

Yup, we have to find places that conform to what we want (e.g. loud music, sells liquor, etc). So long as we have a reasonable choice, we're good. I am willing to go out on a limb and bet that there are more bars in Tampa that disallow smoking than ones that allow it. We should avoid outright banning something in all adult leisure places we never attend, lest we've moved the goalposts from health to convenience.

> I understand the health implications of being a nicotine user but… if you wish to smoke…

Conflating nicotine use and smoking suggests you do NOT understand the health implications. Even though the 2 have historically been close to intertwined they're not the same thing. This mentality is understandable due to years of frightening PSAs but it's inaccurate and precisely why issues like this hiring policy arise.

Right, cause Nicotine is "only" a highly addictive, deadly poison.

I dunno, I like it. Unlike other leisure-time activities being discussed here, smoking usually occurs during the workday and makes people stink for hours. It's on par with a severe personal hygiene issue, which I think is also a reasonable barrier to employment if it's affecting other employees. I would very seriously consider quitting my job if I had to smell cigarettes due to a coworker.

It’s a slippery slope, but it’s easy to think that way because it’s personally appealing to you.

What if the policy banned something else - chewing gum, perfume, or eating foods with strong odors? All of those things do bother me but I put up with it because it’s not just about me.

Those don't really seem comparable to me. Perfume, maybe, I guess, but I doubt Uhaul is having a problem with serial perfume wearing. "Slippery slope" is a really weak argument, anyway. Unlike food and perfume, cigarettes cause real health and social issues. I don't see a problem with trying to address those. If you don't like it, don't work there. I do like it, so I find this to be an incentive to work there.

> "Slippery slope" is a really weak argument, anyway.

The slippery slope is the only argument here. Testing for legal and somewhat socially tolerated substances is an encroachment of civil liberties.

> Those don't really seem comparable to me.

Neither would marijuana and tobacco smoking to someone in the 1950s.

> Testing for legal and somewhat socially tolerated substances is an encroachment of civil liberties.

I don't agree. The government isn't involved here at all, so no civil liberties are being encroached. On the contrary, requiring that companies hire people even if they smoke is an encroachment on the company owners' civil liberties. For something as clearly optional and harmful both to the smoker and their coworkers, I don't think being a smoker is worthy of having protected class status.

You are free to smoke; they are free to not hire you for smoking; and you are free to not work for them due to their policies. This seems like a fine situation to me.

>The government isn't involved here at all, so no civil liberties are being encroached.

The government is legally bound to respect your civil liberties.

Every other entity is just bound by their conscience and the consequences of their actions (we still live in a free-ish society after all). While what Uhaul is doing it not illegal it is still highly disagreeable from a civil liberties and employee rights standpoint.

Legal does not imply morally sound and vise versa.

Why do the company owners' civil liberties matter less than the employees'?

Being able to give someone else orders, in this case telling them they aren't allowed to smoke, isn't freedom. It's the opposite.

obesity causes real health issues too

While everyone else is here debating their biased you've isolated the key problem here.

Regardless of your thoughts on smoking, should a company be allowed to influence the personal lives of its workforce.

Companies testing for marijuana and other illicit drugs open the doors for this decades ago, now the intrusion is into legal substances. Where does the line end?

The slippery slope is already visible, be careful what you allow here, regardless of your thoughts on smoking.

According to the article, this is NOT smoking but nicotine itself.

As written/described in the article, this would cover nicotine patches and gum to which your criticisms do not apply.

I don't understand how this is legal.

How about banning sugars? Or prohibit alcoholic beverages again?

Because only certain discrimination - discrimination based on "protected class" - is illegal.

Banning people based on skin color? Illegal.

Banning people based on eye color? Likely legal in most states.

Note that the linked site mentions they only do it in some states, because it is illegal in the others.

Eye color correlates a lot with skin color so it would also be illegal, otherwise you can filter out almost all black people by only accepting blue eyed applicants.

You just basically answered "because it is not illegal".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com