From the medical side, arguing for smokers' rights

Jon Kole is in his fourth and final year of a combined MD and Masters of Medical Ethics program at the University of Pennsylvania.

By Jon Kole

But should smokers be prohibited from employment? Is this a just policy?

Second-hand smoke is also a significant health problem, killing an estimated 49,000 Americans a year and worsening the health of many more. The individual act of smoking can harm others in the nearby vicinity. Justifiably, the number of public spaces that tolerate smoking has dramatically declined. Employers, interested in the safety of all of their workers, are within their legal and ethical rights to prevent smoking on company property.

But what about the individuals smoking at home, alone, on their own time – and hoping to get a job during the day?

The problem is that these policies are inherently discriminatory (and, as a result, have been prohibited by 29 states, including New Jersey, and the District of Columbia). What is it about someone smoking at home that makes him or her less worthy of employment?

There are 43.8 million smokers in the U.S., many of whom, I imagine, would be ideal employees. If the federal Government had embraced a no-smokers policy in 2008, we would have a different person sitting in the Oval Office. We have numerous laws to protect those with disabilities and illnesses from stigma-based hiring practices. People who smoke deserve nothing less.

Opponents point out that smokers are different than the other protected classes because they have a choice. People don't choose to be disabled, the argument goes, but they choose to smoke. This is simply not true. Sixty nine percent of current adult smokers say they wish to quit immediately and completely, yet most continue. The average number of quit attempts prior to successful smoking cessation is more than five. Nicotine is remarkably addictive – chemically speaking, even more so than most illicit drugs.

Even if we could imagine smoking as purely a willful choice, the argument for non-hiring still falls short. If smoking employees cost employers a discreet amount more than non-smokers, the employees could be allowed to pay the difference. A number of employers (including Penn) create a set health insurance surcharge to allow smokers to choose to pay the toll of their behavioral choice. A hiring ban denies this opportunity. Policies should aim towards justice, whether or not it involves a Marlboro.

From California to Maine, Minnesota to Louisiana, a cigarette does not prevent a paycheck. We must call on our legislators in Harrisburg to join the wiser majority of the nation and prevent unjust hiring practices. Even as a non-smoking future physician imploring my patients to quit, I will fight in the defense of equality for smoking citizens. Smokers deserve fair protection under the law. And besides, I want my bacon cheeseburger.

Read more about The Public's Health.