Foolish Cat April 23rd, 2008

The attack on smoking and smokers over the last couple of decades has been vast and fierce. Venom that was once geared mainly towards the cigarette companies was, somewhere along the way, redirected towards anyone who used the product. The campaigns have painted the picture of a typical smoker as some kind of sub-human idiot with a death wish. Quite frankly, I think it has gotten way out of hand.

But lately it has reached a new level: bullying. And if there is one thing I can’t stand, it’s a bully.

During some kind of sting operation, Whirlpool caught 39 workers - who claimed they did not smoke or chew - using tobacco, apparently on company property. The non-smoking claims were made on a benefit form and would have cost the workers an extra $500 per year in premiums had they answered in the affirmative. Basically, they lied to save some money.

Now on the surface, I would imagine that most people wouldn’t have a problem with this. These people are liars and should get what they deserve. But that’s not the point. The bullying part of the equation is the fact that companies ask this question of smokers in the first place. Why?

“It’s obvious”, you say, “smokers are proven to have more health problems than non-smokers. It’s a scientific fact.” That’s true; I would not argue that point for a second. But so do obese people. Should we be allowed to ask how many pounds overweight a person is on a benefit form and adjust the premiums? I’m sure that’s not far away if it isn’t already happening. But what if a study came out that said homosexuals have more health problems than straight people? Can we ask about sexual orientation and adjust? Blacks have a shorter life-expectancy, can we nail ‘em with the $500?

“Those last examples are determined by genetics, people can’t be penalized for that”, you say. “Smoking is just a dumb choice” (even though I’m sure genetics has a lot to do with a person’s smoking tendencies and it’s just a matter of time before that gene is found). Okay, so then we can ask if people ever have unprotected sex; after all, that leads to all kinds of expensive things like pregnancy, herpes, aids, etc. And certainly we can tack on the $500 for anyone caught eating a bacon cheeseburger. I mean a bacon cheeseburger! Assuming you enjoyed life and had to choose between smoking three cigarettes a day or eating three bacon cheeseburgers a day, which would you choose?

Here’s the thing: I’m not defending smoking in general; I quit smoking almost three years ago and am thankful every day that I was able to beat the habit. But I don’t like to see people treated unfairly. And big companies know that smokers are basically indefensible and can be picked on without any fear of being sued for discrimination. Even people who believe it is unfair will rationalize the action and say it’s for their own good. Rationalization is a fallacy.

Life insurance underwriters aren’t shy about their questions, so if you really want to protect your profits, follow their lead and shake everyone down, not just the smallest kid in the schoolyard.

• The Daily Blunder
• Comments(0)