My wife works for Carter Bloodcare, it’s a blood donation resource located in Bedford near 121 and 183. I’ll just call them CBC since it’s shorter. CBC is trying to implement a new tobacco free environment policy and has produced a four page memo of the policy for all employees to sign.

At first, I was kind of unconcerned by it since a lot of companies are making similar moves toward smoke free workplaces, but then I read the memo and found something in there, along with all the other typically BLEEP, one particular thing that is above and beyond the call of any such policy.

It is in Section 5.1 that reads, “Where disputes cannot be resolved, the rights of the non-tobacco user shall be given precedence.”

If you are a non-smoker, you might agree with that statement, since you would ultimately benefit from it, but if you are an American and value our Constitution, then you recognize the horrible reality of a company undertaking policies such as this one.

To be a little more informative, let me also tell you that the policy specifically states that no employee may smoke on CBC premises, on sideway adjacent to CBC premises, across the street from CBC premises, or at nearby businesses to CBC premises.

There are four roadways that surround two businesses, CBC and a Texaco gas station. The roads are SH121 on the east, Murphy Drive on the south, Martin Drive on the west, and Bedford Road on the north.

This is all to keep people from smoking on their premises, but the last I checked, gas stations still allow smokers on property, they even have a great appreciation for the customers of one of the top selling items at any gas station, tobacco products.

But what concerns me the most is section 5.1. That sections removes the responsibility of any complaining employee if they are a non-smoker, and to be clear, many complain that the smoke from the current smoking area gets inside the building while many have noticed that it only happens when non-smokers hold the door open so they can chat with a smoker.

The non-smoker doesn’t have to be right or even have a good argument, all they have to do is refuse to resolve the situation, and they will be given precedence by default.

This is illegal, it is DISCRIMINATION, and they are going a step farther than that.

My wife was publicly ridiculed this morning in front of all of her co-workers this morning, and told she had to sign the policy right then, or be fired. The same person who told her that agreed to let her sign it on Monday having time to review it.

This is discrimination, it is unlawful, and it is immoral. It’s time we stand together to stop this kind of stuff from happening. It’s time we realize that smoking in bad for you, if you smoke, while no one can say for sure that it either is or is not bad for those you smoke around. If they have asthma, then yes, otherwise ALL studies are inconclusive.

That’s not the point though, just because you don’t smoke and I do, does not mean you have any more or less rights than I do, which policy seems to not know. What if the next policy says that management must drive a high end luxury car to keep their job? I’ve seen companies act that way, without actually making it policy.

What if we chose who received a promotion or kept their job based on skin color? Would that be any more or less wrong? It is still selectively removing protected rights from one and not another.

I have also come to the conclusion, that since they really seem to hate smokers, that we should all decline to donate our blood to CBC if we smoke, and for that reason alone. CBC Thrives on the blood we give them, yet it is a health risk to smoke and then later be around that blood as an employee of CBC? Where the hell is the logic in that?

Where is the logic in any of this?