Insurance Companies Treat Smokers Unfairly

With Philadelphia area smokers already up in arms over a proposed smoking ban in the city's restaurants and bars, neighboring Montgomery County has lobbed another bomb into their world. The Montgomery County proposal, however, has nothing to do with environmental factors or respecting the rights of nonsmokers. Rather, it aims only to save money by arbitrarily controlling the private lives of county employees.

The proposal would bar smokers from being hired for county jobs. Montgomery County Commissioners Chairman Jim Matthews has defended the proposal by pointing out that the county could realize considerable savings on employee health insurance premiums by hiring only nonsmokers.

Now, I don't particularly like to work around smokers. I don't like the nasty smell that clings to their hair, skin, and clothes. I don't like the way that the smell lingers behind them in elevators and other closed spaces long after they've left. I don't like running the gauntlet when I enter or exit a building where the doorway is surrounded by furiously puffing smokers. And I resent the way that their habit gives them an excuse for more frequent breaks during the workday. But refusing to hire smokers because of a personal practice that has no bearing on their work experience, education, and talents is just plain wrong.

I do not deny the fact that smoking is directly linked to an increased risk of lung cancer and heart disease. But other lifestyle choices can be just as hazardous.

In the long run, is smoking a cigarette any worse for you than eating a double cheeseburger with a side of fries? Is the damage to our lungs from smoking any worse than the damage to our livers brought about by heavy drinking? Is smoking any riskier than engaging in promiscuous unprotected sex in this age of HIV/AIDS?

Yet Montgomery County officials have expressed no interest in patrolling the lunch bags or bedrooms of prospective employees, only their ashtrays. If there is not already a law on the books forbidding this kind of arbitrary employment discrimination, then there should be.