The true cost of smoke breaks

Smokers are under pressure at work. Today smoke breaks, once an accepted part of the work day are frowned upon and in some cases, even banned altogether - as Karen Krindle of Rochester, NY found to her cost.

Ms. Krindle, a paralegal, was terminated by her employer because she failed to comply with a written policy banning smoke breaks. She applied for unemployment benefits and was awarded $3,000. However the state Labour Department challenged this, claiming that Ms. Krindle had misrepresented the reasons for her dismissal. They argued that she was dismissed for misconduct - in which case she has no right to any benefits. The Appellate Division of the state Supreme Court agrees, and Ms. Krindle may be forced to pay back the $3,000 she received in benefits.

Her appeal is based on the argument that banning smoke breaks is unfair to smokers, who use them to "Re-energize and become less crabby".

But as Allen Carr pointed out, why don't non-smokers need to take breaks to make them less "crabby"? And if smoking "re-energizes" then why don't smokers have more energy than non-smokers?

Do you think that Ms. Krindle will get a sympathetic hearing in her appeal? I don't. Smokers are detested by today's society, but I have always felt this to unfair. Allen Carr once said "Smoking is the problem, not smokers", and how true that is. Most smokers got addicted to nicotine as children or young adults. How can we blame them for a mistake they made as a child?

Smokers: if you are looking for a way to quit smoking where you are not judged to be weak, selfish and stupid, but are instead treated with intelligence, dignity and respect then we'll see you at www.theeasywaytostopsmoking.com