The European Commission is not against recruiting workers who smoke or drink alcohol, but the European anti-discrimination legislation for the workplace only covers four areas: age, disability, religion and sexual orientation (The Malta Independent, 8 August). So, as smokers and alcoholics are not included in this list, employers may be tempted to discriminate against these people.

In this day and age where employees must be more and more productive, and have to remain healthy till the retirement age of 65, I do not blame employers, to a certain extent, for selecting healthy workers in the first place. However, personally, if I was an employer I would give them a chance first. So, I would rather empower them to adopt healthier life styles over a reasonable period of time, and then we see from there…

Smokers are allowed to take occasional standing breaks by going outside the working premises to smoke, whereas the rest of the employees have to continue with their work inside. It is true that smoking is an addictive habit, but it is also true that sometimes I have a craving to buy something good for my stomach! So, either smoking is completely banned during working hours, or else allow the rest (who are more health conscious) to stop for a while to go outside in order to take a healthy, nutritious snack. Fair enough!

Also, a good chunk of our social services, which after all, are sustained by our taxes, are being pumped to help a number of people who just don’t care for their general health. Now a days, medical devices and other tests exist to show that a smoker has quitted smoking, and after a reasonable period of time, such tests may have to be conducted if one is to remain fully dependent on any relevant social benefits. But what about passive smokers?

So, although admittedly not always possible, I feel that ideally, one should do his/her part as well, over a grace period of time, in order to continue demanding free medical treatment.

Health comes first and foremost, they say, but when we read about the unsustainability of our national free-for-all health system, which this year will cost the government over Lm101 million, then something has to be done!

Abroad, where health systems are primarily run on personal health insurances, such companies literally put you at a disadvantage if you are unhealthy, by demanding higher premiums.

However, on second thoughts, why should we penalize these victims of society? After all, they also pay taxes. And let us face it, tobacco and alcohol, do generate a good revenue to the government. Shouldn’t we therefore put more pressures on the actual roots of these problems? Serious doubts make me reflect why our recent anti-tobacco laws are not always honoured; and why it is so hard to legally increase the drinking age limit to 18 years. The debate, which is highly controversial and involves medical ethics, is never ending!

Carmel Micallef

Fgura