Fewer jobs and higher insurance costs for smokers

The war on smoking is a cover to hide the fact our vaccines give us cancer, our jobs give us cancer, our water, our air, our vehicles,.

Hey non smokers, why don't you go lock yourselves in a garage with your running car? I'll smoke, and we'll see who dies first.

You're right, the American economy and health care system are shining examples. Canadians are stupid! Damn our indiscriminate health care system and relative avoidance of the recession.

Face it folks. In todays politically correct world, WE are the last acceptable prejudice. People can be as awful to us as they like and feel good about themselves. Imagine if you would, a company turning someone down because they're native, or black, or female. It's essentially the same thing. I've seen it said here before, but I'm going to say it again...where do non-smokers expect the government to make up the millions of dollers a year that smoking generates? That's not a reason for smoking granted, but it's my choice dammit! I don't force it on non-smkers. I don't smoke around non-smokers. I can remember years ago when my local mall went non-smoking. They lost so much business in a couple of weeks that the management built a smoking room fr us. Untill the non-smoking bills started passing. Which I'm fairly certin are human rights violations as well.

Last I heard you could not be discriminated because of health issues in Canada but maybe I misread the constitution, or is some discrimination allowed?

An opportunity is being presented, to make a healthy lifestyle change, and again, people are determined to defend their "choice" to smoke. I do agree, that if you clamp down on one dangerous lifestyle choice, you should clamp down on ALL of them! Driving a car is one of the most dangerous things you can do. There are tiers to that kind of insurance as well.... high risk drivers pay more in insurance.

I know that when I applied for life insurance, ALL health issues came into consideration: smoking, drinking, genetic factors too. It has an affect on these premiums.

And..... though it may not be legal.... I suspect, that employers are ALREADY taking into consideration HEAVILY, whether you are a "smoker" .... or "overweight"..... or anything physically apparent challenges to your potential as a long term, high production capability. Remember, for every job, many candidates apply! Of course they are going to choose the healthiest "looking" ones. And if you come in smelling like an ashtray, as a potential employer, my first thought would be, "how many times a day does this person have to leave their desk to get a FIX?"

HOWEVER..... all this being said.... I don't disagree with the smokers entirely. I do think, all choices are CHOICES. Addictions are choices. There are ways to get help that are not expensive, self help books, subsidized counselling. I suspect that many smokers do not wish to give up their habit , and use the excuse of expensive quitting remedies as an excuse. Ultimately, the best tool you have in quitting an addiction is DESIRE. and ACCOUNTABILITY. Learning to deal with stress in healthy ways AND... also choosing to allow LESS STRESS in your lives is yet another option. Imagine the money that could be saved if you no longer smoked? The time you would regain that you used to use getting a FIX, and the mental energy you have been devoting to your addiction.

I know..... because I struggle with overeating, though I'm not obese. In fact I'm using a process of self hypnosis, acupuncture, talk therapy and cognitive behaviour change, to help me turn my "bad" habits around. This process doesn't FIX me...... but it makes me more aware of my automatic, self deprecating behaviours, and I question deeply why I would have "used" substance to beat myself up in such an obviously dehabilitating way.

Wish all of you the best with your discussion. Very interesting material here.

It is socially acceptable to be rude to smokers, even encourgaed. There are very few places where you can smoke. I am a smoker and even though there are very few places left to go, a lot of non-smokers will walk right through the smoking area and feel free to be rude, even though smoking areas are defined and they could have easily avoided it.

OK hows this maybe the taxes from cigerettes could be kept in an account and doled out to smokers to cover thier health care costs. Then there would be no worry of being a drain on the system for a product we leagaly buy.

Why stop the Moral discrimination at smokers? , why not people that eat red meat , drink beer or have sex before marriage. If you want to force a way of life on people that's called Religion not government and its nothing to do with medicine or health there is some evidence for a genetic component to becoming a tobacco user. First they came for the tobacco users but I said nothing , because I was not a smoker. next they came for the beef munchers , but i said nothing because I was a vegetarian ... also you shouldn't make the sickest people pay more that's nonsense.

In a word :the beginning of Totalitarianism.

Are smokers getting a raw deal ? yes and so is everyone else, whenever moralistic policy is passed.

I had to laugh at all of the anti smokers on here trying to defend their habit. I work as a nurse with patients who are in their final stages of life due to illnesses that have been deemed incurable. About 90% of these individuals are long time smokers with end stage lung, throat and mouth cancer. As well there is always at least a few with endstage COPD (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease). I know that a lot of you compared being overweight and smoking, however, what about those who have thyroid or other metabolic disorders who exercise and diet, but still do not lose weight? I think it is fine to compare, however those of you who are smoking THIS IS YOUR CHOICE, people who are overweight with metabolic issues IS NOT THEIR CHOICE.

What i dont understand is if you know the extreme harms of smoking, why point fingers at those with other issues instead of facing your own demons.
And the last time i checked, being overweight never put another individuals health at risk. Smoking kills, and cancer is one of the ugliest, most painful diseases i have ever seen. Why not stop smoking and point your righteous fingers at yourself?

First of all the highest cause of death over everything is alcohol. The government won't allow that to be picked on because they make to much money off of it. If our government stands behind all of this discrimination, which is what it is. Then they ought to remove it from the market. I would say take it off the market or start heavily fining everyone who discriminates against smokers. Canada presents its self as free country, a country that does not support discrimination. Yet Canadians and the government freely discriminate against people who smoke. The government makes an incredible prohit off of the sales of cigerettes. While condoning the discrimination. It is time for this insanity to come to an end. Take it off the market, or give smokers their rights back.

If the reason they are giving for not hiring a smoker due to the potential of earlier than normal insurance claims there is a long list of activities that should be included: obesity, unprotected sex, alcohol consumption,extreme and perhaps mild sports, water recreation, foreign travel etc. I agree with the person thar stated we need to be responsible for our own actions but for different reasons. As long as a person doesn't hurt other people or their property, govt and big business should have no say in what a person does on their own time.When I ride my bycycle it should be my choice to wear a helmet not the govts. We have to many rules and regulations. I want to be responsible for my own actions. If the reason for nailing smokers is due to the waste of money on the health care system perhaps it's time for more efficient spending in health care and our govt systems.

Talk about ignoring human rights! Not hiring a person because they smoke is like telling them you can't hire them because they are too old! Called discrimination last time I checked.
And with all the taxes collected the government would be broke if it wasn't for tobacco!!!

I'm an EX-SMOKER. When I was in highschool I worked for a small pharmacy in a Toronto suburb. This was back when cigarettes were still being sold in pharmacies / drug stores. We offered free local delivery to the elderly. There were several customers that would order their prescriptions & their cigarettes. One gentleman would routinely order his 2 puffers & 2 packs of Export Plain. For those who don't know Export Plain are cigarettes without the filter. I remember very clearly one Friday afternoon I went to deliver to his appartment. When I got there I had to let myself in. He was lying on his couch, frail, in urine soaked clothing. He was so weak he couldn't get up and he couldn't get enough air in his lungs. He begged me to stay with him so he wouldn't die alone. I don't know where his family was but I will never forget that day. He passed away that weekend.

I acknowledge the power of tobacco addiction. I'm lucky to have been able to quit. All of these hardcore smokers who think the world is against them need to get real. Sure....you can throw every red herring falacious argument out there to defend your self-indulgent habit. In the end you will suffer the consequences, as will those around you.

I have never been a smoker and I think anyone who smokes habitually must be nuts. But I think insurance companies are allowed too much leeway in controlling our behaviour. The question is where will they draw the line. Eventually every pleasurable activity that could pose any risk will be constrained by the threat of loss of insurance. With public health care quickly going down the drain, we will be increasingly at the mercy of private insurers and nobody will be ale to afford offending them.
Big Brother is waiting in the wings.

I am a smoker. I believe that my insurance premiums should be higher, the odds are that I will end up costing more money to the health care system. What we are truly discussing here is whether or not I should be allowed to work. Let's assume that I will smoke no matter what. Let's also assume that by working I pay taxes. What will preventing me from earning a living (to teach me a lesson) do to my bad habit. I will tell you that most smokers will not quit if obligated to, they will quit when ready. (1 in 4 pregnant women can't quit...and that is a much better reason to quit than my boss told me to) So, now, I smoke, I need health care, I have plenty of time to go to the doctors as well (I'm unemployed) I collect social assistance, so do my children, they no longer have a college fund, I no longer pay taxes, and you non-smokers have definately showed me! Logically, it doesn't seem to make much sense. I fully understand that smoking is a pretty bad habit, but I smoke outside, away from people (as required by law) I am hurting myself, no one around me. I take breaks at work. But if we (people...not smokers or non-smokers) allow ourselves to be treated this way that what's to say that they will keep hiring single parents (they tend to leave work early or call in sick due to their children being sick) why would they hire women for many jobs when they can hire stronger, more intelligent men (I am a woman by the way), why would they still hire anyone over the age of 30, etc... Let's stop thinking about it as a smokers versus non-smokers debate and think of what category of non-employable person you fall under (we all have a reason for not being hired...unless we are a young white straight male) and really think if this discrimination is fair. (Charge us more, make us watch horrible stop smoking commercials) but don't take away our freedom and our right to take care of ourselves, and our families if only financially!

I am a smoker, and I have no problem with companies chosing to hire only non-smokers nor with insurers charging higher premiums for risky behaviour. That is their choice. What bothers me is that there is not the reverse choice. I cannot chose to hire only smokers and allow smoking in my workplace. I cannot chose which group health provider a company uses for my particular coverage. If we really think the "nanny state" is the way to go, then let's ban alcohol from all places where minors are permitted (restaurants, sporting events, etc.) and ban all alcohol advertising while we're at it. Maybe we should prohibit anyone who possesses a driver's license from purchasing or consuming alcohol so they can't be tempted to drink-and-drive. And, speaking of driving, why is there not a total ban on cell phone use when behind the wheel? Why do I have to pay higher car insurance because idiots on cell phones are causing collisions?

to the person saying that non smokers pay for the cost of smokers here is some info for you, a smoker that smokes one pack per day will pay approx. $3000 per year in taxes, so lets say 10 percent of canadians smoke, that means out of a population of 34 million people, 3.4 million are smokers. now 3.4 million smokers at $3000 per year amounts to 10.2 billion dollars in extra taxes. there really is no information that isnt skewed one way or another ofr how much med costs are for smokers vs non smokers but if the government continues to push on smokers be prepared to make up that tax money elsewhere.

This is not about subterfuge and trying to involve non related issues, SMOKING IS LEGAL as is drinking as is driving as is eating. Alcohol kills user and victims, vehicles kill either through careless driving neglected maintenance or via their emmissions and overall impact on the enviroment, over eating causes massive financial strain on the healthcare system to say the least. So my question is why are smokers targeted, criminalised and persecuted over all other issues? Most smokers wish they had not started the habit but were tempted in to it by legalised advertising, most smokers are aware of the impact on others and do not and will not light up around those that do not smoke, surely the persecution has gone far enough, start on something else with the same extreme determination to stamp it out or would it cost to many votes?

Driving my vehicle within 1000 feet of an area that has a Tim Horton drive thru threatens my life! Do you see them banning Tim Horton's drive thru's or imposing increased car insurance rates if you drive near one?!

Wellness programs?? Most people don't even get raises let alone have wellness programs...The last time I checked my 'wellness' program fee jumped 30% because the company elected to make more profit and threw coverage onto me. This article is bogus! We pay the bulk of our plans not companies! This is just another grab for cash, another reason to make smokers feel like social rejects!

For the record the tax collected from smokers contributed to the building of the hospital and the equipment in it and when it's our turn to be laid up in a hospital we'll walk with our IV's to the smoking area with our heads high. Tally ho...it's off for a smoke I go....

What about AIDS? It is spread by people choosing not to have protected sex. Should we deny them medical benefits and jobs because of their choices? I am a non smoker, and I think this is all a bunch of crap to make smokers feel guilty enough to keep on filling the government coffers. They make bad choices, so does almost every other canadian including people with genetic histories of illness who continue to have children despite the RISKS inherent for their offspring. Do they feel guilty that their choices might cost canadian health care money, or pain and suffering for their children? Not enough to make different CHOICES. Get out of peoples lives and worry about yourself. We all pay into the system, and the distribution of benefits is not equal to all,some people are healthy, some people are not. Some pay $50,000 in taxes some pay $10,000.