City Contemplating Ban on Hiring Tobacco Users

News from Largo, Florida:

"In this type of economic environment, we have two hundred, three hundred people interviewing for positions. If we have equally qualified individuals, it helps the city if we hire a tobacco-free individual," said Susan Sinz, Human Resources Director for the City of Largo.

And it's not just cigarettes.

"Pipe smoking, cigar smoking, dip, chew…all that falls under that definition of tobacco."

The subject first came up before the city commission in July. Mayor Pat Gerard plans on supporting the policy when it comes up for vote in September.

"We're talking about new hires. So if somebody's a dedicated smoker or has tried to quit and they can't, well, they just can't come to work for the city," said Gerard. "Certainly we'll continue to help existing employees try to quit. We've had those kind of programs for many years. I think it's a good idea."

Hat tip: Joseph Mailander.

Comments

[SugarFree]

No one has a right to a job. Even a government job.

[Barely Suppressed Rage]

Totally agree. I can't see this as much of a story. If you want the job and you're a smoker, quit smoking. Otherwise, get a job elsewhere.

I'm sure libertarians would support a private employer who chooses to hire only non-smokers; I don't see why it should be any different just because government is doing the hiring.

[Zeb]

Libertarians ought to support the right of an employer to do so, but supporting the employer is another matter.

[Spencer Smith]

Because a private employer has the right to discriminate- the government does not. It's that simple.

[Barely Suppressed Rage]

The government can't discriminate based on certain protected classes - race, gender, religion, etc. "Smoker" is not a protected class.

See SF's post above. Show me where the right to be employed by the government derives from.

[Nick D.]

I wouldn't be so certain about that. Smoking could be considered an addiction. Addictions have granted protected class status to individuals under the ADA. The "protected class" issue is far from clear.

[Spencer Smith]

No one has the right to be employed by the government- but that's not the point here. It's also not a good argument against anyone who's got any level of intelligence at all.

The government CANNOT act in the same discriminatory ways that private industry can. They are not beholden to their shareholders. They are beholden to their citizens. Some of those citizens are smokers, drinkers, fatties, gay (homosexual sex is STILL a risky activity), sky divers, hypochondriacs, motorcycle riders,tattooed, frequent fliers, etc. The government cannot discriminate based on LEGAL risky behavior when hiring. There is NO basis for it. They have no RIGHT to do so. They are NOT a private company- they are bound to a higher standard of discriminatory practices.

[James]

No, I wouldn't support a private employer who chooses to hire only non-smokers. I respect the employer's right to discriminate, but that doesn't mean hiring only non-smokers is a sensible or appealing policy.

[Seamus]

Well, I'd support the private employer's right to hire only non-smokers, but I'd also exercise my own right to only patronize establishments that don't discriminate.

[OC]

True, but do we want governments to require this of prospective hires? Isn't that overly intrusive? Bear in mind that private employers rarely have this kind of policy, indicating that this probably has little to do with efficiency.

[SugarFree]

It's a stance on principle. Telling government who they can and can't hire is a camel's nose. The government should be hiring so few people that it won't matter if none of them were smokers.

No one has a right to a job. Businesses and government do not exist to provide jobs. It may suck on a case by case basis, but the alternative sucks far more.

[robc]

The problem is, that I think private businesses should be able to not hire blacks or women or gays or whatever if they dont want to. The government, on the other hand, shouldnt be able to discriminate like that.

[SugarFree]

I'm not unsympathetic to that argument. But I do think that it's a slippery slope with a near-vertical angle.

[Ray Ray]

Um. Nope. It's pretty black and white. Private citizens can discriminate against whomever they want because free people own the fruits of their labor and can run their own business however they see fit. The government takes from its citizens and really owns nothing, because it didn't create any of the money it collects. They should not discriminate against its citizens.

[SugarFree]

So the government owes you a job? Or do you have to want one before they have to give you one?

[Brett L]

No. The government doesn't owe me a job. It just shouldn't be able to arbitrarily discriminate against legally employable people who apply based on criteria orthagonal to the job duties.

[Psychic Octopus]

No. Private businesses can hire or refuse anyone they want because it is their business and their hiring policy. The government, though not owing a job to anyone in particular, owes it to the whole citizenry to hire exclusively based on efficiency criteria, for a better use of the citizenry's resources.

[John Thacker]

I don't think that it is in theory a slippery slope, but perhaps it is in practice I'll concede.

In theory, the difference is that government has much more room to discriminate, as it doesn't suffer the penalties that a private corporation would.

Then again, that gives some credence to the idea that union shops should not be able to discriminate either. In the South and West, and possibly elsewhere, one of the primary functions of unions was to discriminate against blacks and Chinese.

[Yearning to Breath Free]

Isn't drug addiction -- irrespective of the drug's legal status -- a protected disability?

[Tulpa]

True, and I've always said the Bill of Rights has no bearing on the employment relationship between the govt and its employees. So if govt wants to forbid its employees to have Ron Paul bumper stickers on their cars, for instance, I see no legal problem with that.

However, if I lived in that town, I would vote against any politician who supported it because it's a stupid policy. Just because you're not advocating coercion does not render you immune to criticism.

[Fucking Liberals]

We're proud to be behind this.

[Irresponsible Hater]

Could save a lot on ramps and extra large bathroom stalls if we avoided hiring crips too. We're talking new hires here, so it's OK.

[The Other Kevin]

How about including overweight people too? That would save a lot of money.

Oh, what a tangled web we weave.

[Rhywun]

But we're not done hating smokers yet. Don't worry, fatties will get their turn eventually.

[In Time Of War]

I think there's research showing fat people are already at a disadvantage when interviewing. Probably depends on if the interviewer is fat or not.

[MattJ]

Probably depends on if the interviewer is fat or not.

I really doubt that it does.

[sage]

I'm actually OK with this. I come to work and I want to see office hotties, not office behemoths.

[Lefty4Life]

Won't someone please think of the chubby chasers?!

[Barely Suppressed Rage]

So you're equating smoking with being physically disabled?

[Zeb]

Being physically disabled is more likely to affect your job performance.

[Law Student]

It depends on the job and disability but yeah. Same with fatties.

[Legate Damar]

Thanks for refusing to save us money on pensions, Largo.

[zoltan]

What about growing one's own tobacco plant, drying the leaves, sewing a tiny pouch and putting the crushed up dried leaves inside?

[wylie]

ZOLTAN IS USING TOBACCO! GET 'EM!

[Warty]

So they want to be on the hook for more pension costs, I see. Fucking life expectancies, how do they work?

Also, I can't wait for smoking to be classified as a disability under the ADA.

[Subsidize Me!]

That will come - right after erectile dysfunction.

[Bob Dole]

Bob Dole likes that benny.

[Pip]

You named your cock benny?

[Robert]

I think if someone claims to be "addicted" to it, it already is protected by the ADA.

[Pro Libertate]

Reasonable accommodation, bitch!

[Fist of Etiquette]

The City of Largo should have a ban on hiring (otherwise qualified) individuals who think it's a good idea to work for the City of Largo.

[Surgeon General]

WARNING: Smoking Causes Lung Cancer, Heart Disease, Emphysema, And May Queer Prospects Of Lucrative Public Sector Employment.

[Subsidize Me!]

I hope they're not justifying this from a productivity angle. I can't imagine tobacco-using government employees producing significantly less than tobacco-free government employees. Furthermore, the sooner these people die, the less we pay them in pension benefits (during which, they're not producing).

The smoking lamp is ON, bitches!

[prolefeed]

This might be about lowering health insurance costs for the city.

Or, more likely, it's just nanny-statists wanting to screen out people with habits they want to stamp out.

Either way, I'm OK with an employer, public or private, setting whatever conditions for hiring they desire.

[slutmonkey]

Actually they often DO produce significantly less. If you saw how many 20 minute smoke breaks the power puffers at my job take each day you'd understand why.

[Brett L]

Right. Because all time spent sitting at a desk is equally productive.

[Beagles]

When you add the smoke breaks, on top of the wasted time on the internet, etc. at the desk that everyone does, then yes, less productive.

[Subsidize Me!]

It's made up in lower pension costs for smokers. Tobacco teetotalers don't die as quickly, so we're paying those fuckers much longer to be unproductive.

[Seamus]

Well at least they're not posting to Hit and Run while they're supposed to be working.

[Psychic Octopus]

And can't that be limited by internal policies regarding the time (and times) you can leave for a break, or through penalties for exceeding a certain threshold? It would work in the private sector.

[dbcooper]

When smokers have to be registered like sex offenders whom will the law be named after?

Also, brazil nuts are a savory treat.

[Warty]

My grandma likes to loudly announce in grocery stores that they used to call Brazil nuts "nigger toes" when she was a kid. My favorite one of her racist episodes was the time that she recited a rhyme about "chinky chinky Chinaman" when we were walking across the Golden Gate bridge, surrounded by Asian people. I heart my grandma.

[dbcooper]

My grandmother would use the phrase "nothing as flash as a chink on a bike" when referencing something polished/stylish in appearance.

[John]

They were still calling them that in the 70s.

[Barely Suppressed Rage]

You used the "N" word!!

Racist.

[EscapedWestOfTheBigMuddy]

The casual racism that one still encounters in some older (these days mostly antique) folks always brings home to me just how different attitudes must have been in their days.

Modern bigotry usually either hides behind a bunch of code, or gets "I'm so not PC, if fact I'm the one whose oppressed"[*] in your face. The old stuff was just how it was...

[*] Which, of course, makes it very hard to have a honest discussion about getting to a post [group identity]al world. Isn't that just wonderful.

[Warty]

One time I was driving her around Butler, PA, where she lives. She pointed out this old building and said that her parents had called it the dago hotel, since that was where a bunch of immigrant day laborers lived. Small town old-timey racism is weird.

[mad libertarian guy]

It was in PA so it isn't racism. There is no racism outside of the south, Midwest and southwest.

Remember?

[Tulpa]

The roadapple don't fall far from the tree.

[Pope Jimbo]

My 80+ year old grandma was trying to tell me about my cousin's new girlfriend, but she couldn't remember the PC term "asian", so she blurted out, "You know, one of them slant-eyes."

She got double bonus points because my wife (who is from Korea) was standing right next to me at the time.

Like others have commented, she isn't 100% crazy racist, but that is just what she learned as a kid and she can't unlearn it now.

[Rhywun]

"Amy's Law" - her evil great uncle second-hand-smoked her to death. She's completely fictitious but hey.

[wylie]

(reference)

[Tulpa]

HOW DID YOU DO THAT???????!!!!!!!

[wylie]

Is it possible? By trying to make something look like a WoW item link, I started a whole new era of hard to read comments?

They'll be cursing me harder than threading...

[-]

Congrats, wylie. You're now worse than a mosque!

[Death Panelist]

Peter Jennings.

[Subsidize Me!]

When smokers have to be registered like sex offenders whom will the law be named after?

Probably John Wayne, hero of the halcyon days of smoking. They named an airport for him in Orange County. You can't smoke there.

[Brett L]

Yul Brynner did those "I'm dead now" commercials...

[John]

http://volokh.com/2010/08/18/o.....00-rifles/

Obama stopping the Koreans from selling 100,000 surplus M1s. What an asshole.

[Warty]

What a cocksucker. I could use a few more Garands. I'm surprised he hasn't tried to defund the CMP entirely, though.

[John]

The comments to that Volokh post are some real piles of stupid.

[Warty]

I am going to have to second the point that it's not irrational to think that old guns are more dangerous and accident-prone.

Maybe he's suffered from a lot of M1 thumb.

[Subsidize Me!]

I'm in the market for a M1 or an M14 to go with my AR15. I really like the M1, and Springfield makes some nice newer interpretations of the M14. Thoughts?

[John]

Depends on how much money you want to spend. If you have 1500 you can get some custom built M 14s that are spectacular. An M 14 is a wonderful weapon but be prepared to pay.

[Subsidize Me!]

I haven't bought any custom guns yet. As soon as my forced exile to DC is over, my gun budget is going toward a Wilson Combat 1911. But I'd be willing to wait for a well-done m14.

[Warty]

Get a CMP Garand. I love my rack grade one.

[Subsidize Me!]

Is it a PITA to get one from CMP? Are the prices worth waiting for/joining a club, etc.?

I've seen some nice M1's in local gun shops, but they're all collectible type weapons.

[Warty]

Just join the Garand Collectors' Association. It's $25 a year and you can do it all online. Then drive up to the CMP store in beautiful Port Clinton, Ohio, and be prepared to blow about $3000. Or you can mail-order everything if you want to pay a ton of shipping.

[Subsidize Me!]

This is outstanding. I feel field trip through fucking Ohio is soon in coming.

[Warty]

And the quality of the Garands is pretty good. It was $400 for a rack grade one when I bought mine in 2006, I think. Rack grade is perfectly functional, but might have some worn finish and possibly some very minor pitting. Get a collector grade one if you care about that.

[BakedPenguin]

A friend is starting a company that will include getting a Class III license. He's going to make me an officer, meaning that I will have the right to purchase and use automatic weapons.

Ha ha ha ha ha.

[Warty]

What's your address? I'm totally not going to murder you and assume your identity.

[BakedPenguin]

Oh, well so long as you're not going to murder me...

Baked Penguin
123 Fake St.
Springfield, KY. 66621-6661

[Warty]

And get an M1 carbine and a 1903 while you're at the CMP, if they still have any. And make sure to stock up on surplus ammo.

[Almanian]

Got my dad's Rem 1903 30-06 with a scope - sumbitch is older than I am by a longshot. Sniper rifles make great deer rifles, it turns out. Lovely gun.

[R C Dean]

I've got a Springfield. What a fine piece of machinery. I tricked it out with a fancy stock and an ACOG.

I don't know if they have caught up on their orders yet; when I bought mine, they were about six months behind.

If John knows where to get a custom M14 for only $1500, he knows where to get one hell of a deal.

[Warty]

I tricked it out with a fancy stock and an ACOG.

YOU MONSTER

[Warty]

Oh, never mind, you mean a Springfield M14. I thought you were admitting to bubbaizing a 1903. What a horrible thought on my part. I apologize.

[Subsidize Me!]

I have an XD-9 sub-compact as my summer carry weapon, and I'm really happy with it. I've never fired any of SA's rifles, but I ogle the M14's on their site when I'm bored.

Would you buy from them again?

I fucking love guns.

[R C Dean]

You bet. Springfield makes some quality gear.

I went with a shorter barrel on mine (the 18"), got the whole thing Robared, slapped a nice Marine tan SAGE stock on it, and mounted an ACOG on the top. Pride and joy of the collection. I get about 1 MOA groups out of it with factory ammo (Hornady TAP 165 gr.), but I'm a pretty mediocre shooter.

[John]

I haven't looked in a few years. In 03 that is what they were running. Now it appears they run about $2600.

And your Springfield (assuming it is an 1905) is nothing but a copy of my Mauser. Germans just know how to build shit.

[mad libertarian guy]

Get the real deal from Smith Enterprises.

[Hogan]

1938 Mosin Nagant. Awesome gun.

[Warty]

My 1943 Finnish Mosin might be my favorite gun.

[JD]

Is there something to this story I'm completely missing? Where is anybody getting that Obama had anything to do with this? AFAICT, all we've got is the Korea Times saying that an unnamed Korean official said that "the US" said blah blah blah, and this giant freaking game of telephone turns it into "Obama said you can't have any guns!" WTF?

[?]

There are several municipalities here in South Florida with similar hiring restrictions. Not only can you not be a smoker, you cannot have used tobacco in the past 12 months. It's perfectly OK with me for private companies to discriminate (i.e. make a choice deemed beneficial to their enterprise, however rational or wrongheaded) against smokers, but does a government, funded by all the taxpayers, have such a right? Can they exclude fatties? Atheists? Drinkers? People who watch Gene Simmons Family Jewels?

[Barely Suppressed Rage]

Yes, except for the atheists. That would be covered under the First Amendment. Smoking is not.

See SugarFree's starter post above.

[SugarFree]

To clarify, I think private employers should be perfectly free to not hire atheists. Or fatties. Or drinkers. Or the left-handed.

[Barely Suppressed Rage]

Right. Gubmint cannot discriminate based on religious beliefs, but private employers should be able to. They can't, however, due to federal legislation outlawing it.

[mad libertarian guy]

Especially when government on all levels local, state and federal insists on raping smokers with punitive taxes.

The government makes a bigger profit than big tobacco, yet they want to exclude smokers from their ranks.

Fuck them.

[Yearning to Breath Free]

"The government makes a bigger profit than big tobacco"

Big oil, too.

[hmm]

I have no problem with people hiring the type of people they want.

Government discriminating is another issue.

My question is would lying on an application about smoking a cigar with your scotch be grounds for dismissal, or starting the use after employed?

[Smooth_L]

That's the first thing I thought of too. What if you start smoking after you're hired?

[wylie]

If you start smoking after being hired, they'll dock your pay and put it into the Tobacco Health Fund (to be spent on DARE Hummers and Gold Toilet Seats for City Hall).

[?]

What if you start smoking after you're hired?

If you're discreet, they'll never know until you get sick and your health plan refuses to pay for your treatment because you've been smoking all along.

[bunkerbill]

What's next, are they going to make smokers wear brown triangles on their clothing so they can be easily identified?

[COSMO KRAMER]

Don't look at me, I'm hideous!

[Yearning to Breath Free]

I think the gross smell is already a pretty good marker.

[Slap the Enlightened!]

Interesting that under this ban, the President of the United States would be disqualified from working for the City of Largo.

[Subsidize Me!]

Thinly veiled racism, quoth the old gray lady cunt.

[Yearning to Breath Free]

There could be some truth to that given that a greater percentage of black folks smoke compared to the other races.

[GoNavy]

HaHa! I didn't think of that. I bet a dollar to a donut that the City of Largo is controlled by the Democrats too.

May I repeat: The smoking lamp is ON, bitches!

(Full-disclosure - I am a self-righteous, quitter of over 31 years that used to smoke, at the very minimum, two packs a day, possibly four packs when I had the duty. At the time we could smoke on-watch and four hours of making sure the green lights stayed green, the amber ones amber and the red ones red left a lot of time to light cigarette after cigarette. These were the days of tax-free $2 cartons purchase on over-seas home-ported ships. Damn, I wish I were 23 again, even if I still smoked)

[John]

http://newsok.com/mom-killed-c.....le/3486036

This is an interesting case in racial and appearance dynamics. Anyone remember the cute white girl in South Carolina who drown her kids and avoided the death penalty? Or Andrea Yates who did the same?

I bet the fat black woman goes to the chair. Now I think they all deserve to get the needle. But call me a cynic but I think the fat poor black woman is going to get a lot less sympathy than the middle class white women got. Middle class white women are truly a privileged class.

[Law Student]

Statistics bare your theory out unfortunately. Its funny because all the race baiters are out there talking about the tea parties and other stupid shit when real racism exists in the criminal justice system and the WOD in particular.

[Wind Rider]

Hmm. My first reaction wasn't a race thing, it was a "what the fuck is wrong with people in South Carolina that they're shoving their kids into the water in cars off boat ramps every couple of years". Does that make me a Palmetto Bigot?

[R C Dean]

I'm no employment law expert, but I know they've made it a lot easier in recent months to claim ADA protection. I'm sure they have carved out tobacco use/"addiction" as a protected disability, but I doubt it can be distinguished in any principled way from other protected addiction disabilities.

[MP]

Not to worry. Sooner or later, Nicotine addiction will be covered under ADA and the smoker vs. non-smoker wars will elevate to the next level.

[MP]

Damn. RC beat me that that much.

[Pip]

Havahd.

[Joel Mathis]

Honestly: I'm not sure how libertarians can grumble about high public salaries and runaway public pensions AND gripe about this. Guess who's on the hook for the health insurance of public employees? Hint: Same people who pay the salaries and pensions of public employees. Guess what's a really expensive drain on health costs? Treating tobacco-related diseases.

[Zeb]

Until they die. The savings on pension and healthcare from a shorter life expectancy outweigh the health costs during a smokers lifetime.

[waffles]

two rights doesn't make a wrong? Or, two wrongs doesn't make a right? Something, something's wrong here.

[Barely Suppressed Rage]

Punchline to an old somewhat racist joke: "Two Wongs don't make a white!"

[TrickyVic]

""two rights doesn't make a wrong?""

But three rights make a left.

[GoNavy]

1. The ban has nothing to do about salaries, so even mentioning it is bullshit. Shenanigans on you!

2. Smokers die earlier; therefore hiring smokes will reduce, not increase, pension costs.

I don't know of any study proving one way or the other, but I be willing to bet that the additional short term costs caused by smokers are vastly outweighed by the savings in pensions caused by the earlier demise of smokers.

Furthermore, once these petty little dictators are allowed to make hiring decisions based on non-work performance criteria, where does it stop.

(Previous disclosure statement applies)

[TrickyVic]

""Furthermore, once these petty little dictators are allowed to make hiring decisions based on non-work performance criteria, where does it stop.""

When they go out of business due to lack of productivity. Oh wait, government will throw them a bailout.

[R C Dean]

Guess what's a really expensive drain on health costs? Treating tobacco-related diseases.

I'ma gonna need a cite on whether lifetime medical expenditures for tobacco users are higher than non-tobacco users.

Its not intuitively obvious, because tobacco-related conditions tend to kill relatively quickly, without the long and expensive chronic decline phase.

[Rhywun]

"Guess what's a really expensive drain on health costs?"

Being old?

"Treating tobacco-related diseases."

"Tobacco-related" being, of course, entirely decoupled from any notion of cause and effect.

[Law Student]

Go read up a little bit and you'll learn that smokers spend much less on healthcare in the long run because they tend to die earlier.

[OC]

What Zeb said. The lifetime costs of smokers in terms of pensions and healthcare are significantly less because they are more likely to die younger. Overall, they shouldn't cost more in terms of benefits than non-smoking employees.

[Hank]

If we could just get those damn bureaucrats to quit smoking, we could save a lot of taxpayer money. Guess what's even more expensive than treating tabacco-related diseases? Paying a pension, SS, and Medicare for thirty fucking years.

I have a buddy who works for the gubmint. He's delighted to "retire" at 49 and collect 60% of his ~125K salary. I am pretty sure that if he dies from smoking "prematurely" or gets taken out by the Ground Zero Mosque Super Sleeper Cell, it will save some dough in the long run.

[wylie]

Ground Zero Mosque Super Sleeper Cell

Good band name? Discuss.

[SugarFree]

Too many letters for a marquee. You'd end up being GZMSSC. Which looks like an onomatopoeia for the sound made when you sneeze while taking a dump.

[?]

Also, random quips never, ever make good band names.

[Lefty4Life]

Good point. I'm going to say it is a good band name then.

[Lefty4Life]

Your confusion can only result from comparing "high compensation" to an arbitrary mark rather than to the market.

But ignore that and assume that health care costs (and not policy) are the problem. Is the solution really to ban tobacco users?

If we can see into the future like this, shouldn't we consider all the costs of hiring the person? Even if we exclude things that are not choice and err on the side of "not a choice" (e.g. with things like being fat), there are surely many more things we can include.

And why refuse to hire them at all? Instead, why not refuse to provide them with health care? With the assumption that they are more expensive, we can still save money and not exclude them from government work.

Then there is the fact that it won't save money at all, because it will shrink the labor pool. We'll not only be getting less bang for our buck (since we're excluding some talent), but non-smokers can then demand a premium, since the government has no choice but to hire them.

[Nick D.]

Isn't the problem then the issue of employer provided health care? Smokers should bear the costs of their choices in increased premiums, but does their smoking affect job performance? To the extent that it does, I have no problem with an employer banning smoking while on company time. However, what a person does on their own time should be their business. My thought is that they get decreased premiums by saying their workers don't smoke. Let the smokers pay higher rates rather than take away their jobs.

TOOK UR JERBS!!!

[Mr Lizard]

In other news: largo is a nothing town. They're cops even drive PT cruisers instead of imperialist approved populace suppressors

[Slippery Slope]

This sounds perfectly reasonable to me. I am looking into the future and see a similar policy for trans fat offenders, soda drinkers, alcohol users, sodium whores, and maybe even a few members of the Negroid race.

[wylie]

No Alcoholics or Niggers. A Human Resources Dream.

(i just called myself a racist!, so it's covered.)

[Yearning to Breath Free]

Those who can, do.

Those who can't get jobs in HR.

[ChrisO]

The correct answer is that the City of Largo shouldn't be hiring anybody.

[Geotpf]

Well, medical insurance costs would be lower if all/most of the employees of the city were non-tobacco users. This actually is a case of saving tax payer dollars via a somewhat creative manner.

[wylie]

please scroll up.

[Wind Rider]

So, I'm guessing that the PC position is that pot should be legal, but it's ok for nobody to hire the stoners. Plusses and minuses to all aspects of life.

[R C Dean]

No, the PC position is that pot should be legal, and you shouldn't be allowed to discriminate against pot smokers.

Because they aren't Bad People, like the cigarette smokers.

[Yearning to Breath Free]

God I hate bad people.

[TrickyVic]

The PC position is if you are doing it, you must repent via treatment.

[Lamar]

Largo is a trashy place, so they might not be able to find non-smokers.

[Chinny Chin Chin]

Since sunlight is also a carcinogen, Largo should consider hiring only vampires.

[R C Dean]

Largo should consider hiring only vampires.

These are public sector jobs, so they are hiring blood-sucking human parasites already.

[Justin]

Wow I am shocked at some of the comments. Why do people think this is ok?

So what if any of the following happened?

Not hiring if you:
Eat fast food
Have two or more drinks a week
Don't exercise
More than 10lbs overweight
Watch more than 4 hours of TV
Play video games

The point is at what point is your PERSONAL life involved in doing your job. As long as you show up and are able to perform your job duties, what you do on your time that is legal is no business of your employer, private or public.

If they want to offer programs to help people change habits, I am all for that, but saying if you do this habit, then you cannot work for us. It is going to set a really bad example.

[Nick D.]

They should be permitted to do this. However, I disagree with their decision and find it extremely intrusive. If that makes sense.

[Beagles]

The slippery slope won't go far on this issue, because there won't be anyone left to hire.

Further, if some companies do get too selective on these non performance criteria, they potentially miss out on a lot of talent that their competitors will take advantage of. The market works.

[TrickyVic]

""The point is at what point is your PERSONAL life involved in doing your job. As long as you show up and are able to perform your job duties, what you do on your time that is legal is no business of your employer, private or public.""

I agree 100%.

Some people believe the right of the employer can extend beyond the work place.

[Andrew]

UNBELIEVABLE. Tell me what country we live in again!? The Land of the FREE? (or in this case, farce) Justin above is right. Wait til they stop hiring folks cause they eat too many McNuggets...

[Justin]

People seem to think smoking is so evil and if that went away, the world would be so much better. We don't focus on what is really wrong, just what some people don't like. No I am not saying smoking is a good thing. I do enjoy a fine cigar though.

I am tired of people jumping on the anti-smoking bandwagon and saying that ANYTHING that is done to stop or restrict smoking is a great thing. People don't realize how many people are involved in things like making cigars. You have the retailers, sales people, company support staff, plus the HUGE labor force in Honduras, Nicaragua and the Dominican Republic who make cigars.

The bottom line is this: not hiring someone based on personal LEGAL habits is not right. What I do and what you do are not going to be the same. That is ok and good. Its a crazy thing called diversity. As long as you are qualified and perform your job, your free time is just that, yours.

This is not a smoking issue, but a what can an employer control about you issue. Can they dictate where you shop, what you eat, what car you drive, how you raise your kids? Look at the bigger picture of this.

[Coeus]

More than a little disappointed with most of the commentors on this one. You people do realize that that smoking is still legal and smokers pay taxes, right?

[Robbo]

How is this news? I used to live near Tampa, and the county sheriff only hires non-smokers: http://www.hcso.tampa.fl.us/Em.....tions.aspx