Florida County Bans Smokers from New Jobs

[Arbo]

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2013/09/florida-county-bans-smokers-from-new-jobs/



Smokers need not apply in one Florida county, which will soon require prospective job applicants to pass a nicotine test before starting work.The Board of County Commissioners in Flagler County, in northeast Florida, voted last month to require potential county employees to undergo testing for nicotine use and to pledge in a signed affidavit that they will remain tobacco-free throughout their employment.But the requirements have raised flags for a civil liberties group that said it is unconstitutional for the government to administer blanket tests for nicotine or drugs on any group of people.The board chairman, Nate McLaughlin, told ABC News that rising health insurance costs and Flagler County’s generally health-conscious outlook prompted the change. The county offers its employees weight-loss and smoking-cessation programs, and has a nutritionist and exercise physiologist available for staff.

So again we have government telling business who they can and can not hire? Way beyond un-Constitutional.

[jimnyc]

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2013/09/florida-county-bans-smokers-from-new-jobs/



So again we have government telling business who they can and can not hire? Way beyond un-Constitutional.


[/FONT][/COLOR][/LEFT]

Sounds like it's for county jobs only, government ran jobs. If that be the case, they do have the right to refuse employment to smokers. Many private businesses around the nation have been doing this for a long time now. Now, if the government told private businesses that they HAD to do this, then it would be an issue.

[aboutime]

Sounds like it's for county jobs only, government ran jobs. If that be the case, they do have the right to refuse employment to smokers. Many private businesses around the nation have been doing this for a long time now. Now, if the government told private businesses that they HAD to do this, then it would be an issue.



jimnyc: Wonder if Florida is also banning POT SMOKERS as well. TWO BIRDS WITH ONE STONE.

Smart thing to do.

[jimnyc]

jimnyc: Wonder if Florida is also banning POT SMOKERS as well. TWO BIRDS WITH ONE STONE.

Smart thing to do.

Well, since it's still illegal in most places, I think that's a given.

[Arbo]

When you allow government to base you getting a job on things that are not related to the job, you head down a slippery, unconstitutional slope. For next shall be the fat people, and then the ...

[aboutime]

Well, since it's still illegal in most places, I think that's a given.


Don't know about that. Seems many places on the West Coast, in states where Pot has become more available. Cigarette and cigar smoking are forbidden, but when it comes to Pot. They look the other way, and say nothing.

[fj1200]

When you allow government to base you getting a job on things that are not related to the job, you head down a slippery, unconstitutional slope. For next shall be the fat people, and then the ...

The only Constitutional issue here IMO is that a government agency is the one doing the hiring and implementing the policy. As Jim said private business has been doing it and I haven't heard of any legal issues surrounding those policies.

[Arbo]

The only Constitutional issue here IMO is that a government agency is the one doing the hiring and implementing the policy. As Jim said private business has been doing it and I haven't heard of any legal issues surrounding those policies.

I agree, private business can do such things, and do. I do not agree with them most often, but unless employees stand up for themselves it will continue. The problem is a government hiring for government positions discriminating in ways that have nothing to do with qualifications for the job.

[fj1200]

I agree, private business can do such things, and do. I do not agree with them most often, but unless employees stand up for themselves it will continue. The problem is a government hiring for government positions discriminating in ways that have nothing to do with qualifications for the job.

But it does partially have something to do with the job when looking at productivity of smokers (I'll bet there's been studies) and the HC costs of smokers down the line. I think in some respects the extra layer of Constitutional protections tossed into the mix when looking at governmental employment is ridiculous but that would be an ideal reasoning for the government not being in that "business" in the first place where possible.

[Arbo]

But it does partially have something to do with the job when looking at productivity of smokers (I'll bet there's been studies) and the HC costs of smokers down the line. I think in some respects the extra layer of Constitutional protections tossed into the mix when looking at governmental employment is ridiculous but that would be an ideal reasoning for the government not being in that "business" in the first place where possible.

It is that slippery slope, because next is the 'productivity' of fat and out of shape people, and those that drink and come in hung over, and the list goes on.

[fj1200]

It is that slippery slope, because next is the 'productivity' of fat and out of shape people, and those that drink and come in hung over, and the list goes on.

Well I think there's plenty of rationale for discriminating against drunk and hung over but I only demand that I am the one that gets to draw the line. :poke: