States that won't hire people that consume tobacco products.

[Puros Y Vino]

Not cool.

Not hiring smokers crosses privacy line

It probably has more to do with cigarettes but the net as usual is cast wide.

Is your home state on the list?

[cigcars]

Kentucky is a tobacco cash crop state, so thankfully No!

[rfenst]

There is a clear relationship between increased health care costs and absence from work- in those who smoke cigarettes. Both increase the cost of labor and health insurance. Even though I love smoking cigars, I have no problem with any company no hiring cigarette (and other tobacco users).

[ptrthgr8]

I think a privately owned company ought to be able to hire whoever it's damned well pleased to hire. There's too much gov't intrusion in business anyhow. And if a business doesn't want to hire the best candidate simply because that person is X, then that company ought to be allowed to not hire the best candidate for the job because they don't want to. End of story.

Cheers,

~ Greg ~

Sent from my HTC Thunderbolt using Tapatalk 2.

[pjansen]

I think a privately owned company ought to be able to hire whoever it's damned well pleased to hire. There's too much gov't intrusion in business anyhow. And if a business doesn't want to hire the best candidate simply because that person is X, then that company ought to be allowed to not hire the best candidate for the job because they don't want to. End of story.

Cheers,

~ Greg ~

Sent from my HTC Thunderbolt using Tapatalk 2.

x2 Couldnt agree more.

[Puros Y Vino]

There is a clear relationship between increased health care costs and absence from work- in those who smoke cigarettes. Both increase the cost of labor and health insurance. Even though I love smoking cigars, I have no problem with any company no hiring cigarette (and other tobacco users).

Yeah,but it wouldn't stop at cigarettes only now would it?

[Cletus]

My state is not on the list but I have had an interview with a company that had a no-smoking policy while at the office. Since I don't smoke at work this would not have stopped me from accepting a job with this company if it were offered.

[rfenst]

Yeah,but it wouldn't stop at cigarettes only now would it?

Probably not. but I am not concerned about "the slippery slope" either. As long as the reasoning doesn't violate a fundamental right, I have no problem letting a business exclude from employment whoever it wants.

[rfenst]

I think a privately owned company ought to be able to hire whoever it's damned well pleased to hire. There's too much gov't intrusion in business anyhow.

Ironically, this is an instance of government NOT involving itself in a business matter!

[Fuzz]

Whilst I do see the benefits of this, it can be a form of discrimination. What's to stop this from spreading to other habits or undesirable qualities? It always starts out small; a little tax here, a minor restriction there, and before long we're marginalised and restricted up the wazoo.

[TexAg]

At the the nuclear reactor facility on the Texas A&M campus, they randomly blood test people for nicotine content. If you put down that you are a non-smoker and you have nicotine in your blood stream, they fire you on the spot for commiting fraud. The scary thing is, you can absorb nicotine from hanging out in a smoky bar in the community.

[CanuckSARTech]

Interesting, especially with the nicotine in the blood thing.

A number of years back, after my wife and I got married, and before our son was born, we got things all set up with wills, Power-Of-Attorney's, and life insurance. As part of the life insurance process, Erin and I both had to get a full doctor's physical done, and then to submit to blood tests (can't remember if urine tests were part of it also, but yes, I'm 90% sure). Part of the questionaire included about smoking. I said no, because the question was specifically along the lines of, "Do you smoke approximately one pack of cigarettes per day, or alternatively use chewing tobacco?" There was nothing about pipe or cigar smoking. So, it didn't even cross my mind. I said no. But I also divulged to her that I was indeed a former cigarette smoker (about a pack a day for 10 years, fully quitting about 4 years prior to this test and questionaire). The insurance company's nurse left, and about two weeks later I got the approval in the mail for fairly big money insurance, whole life (not term insurance), as a non-smoker.

Anywho, here's the interesting part....

I called my agent when I received the paperwork in the mail a few weeks later, explaining the above, and said I wanted to correct what I felt was my mistake in the questionaire about non-smoking (I didn't want any issues down the road with pay-out refusals due to this). That's when my agent said that he knew, and understood - hey, I have a specific rider on my homeowners insurance for my cigar collection, and he knows the value and content and whatnot (and it costs me a little confidence on the side that he doesn't tell my wife! ). He knows I smoke cigars, and put it down on his end. But, when the bloodwork came back, the amount of nicotine in my blood was so minimal, that it was lower than most people are complete non-smokers, but have to deal with occasional secondhand-smoke from a workplace or family members. Basically, he had put me down as what I had relayed to him before, of a general average of 3-5 cigars per week. He said that this specific insurance company's policy (like a good neighbour....) was that for a cigar smoker, you were only classified as a smoker if you were consuming 10-12 cigars per week on average (and/or 2 per day), and that you specifically described inhaling them, and that your nicotine levels were comparable with a "normal" cigarette smoker.

He said that they (the insurance company) understood that there is a very different uniqueness to those that smoke fine cigars, compared to those that smoke cigarettes, pipes, or consume chewing tobacco. While there's still risks, cigar smokers have next to no payout issues, therefore "normal" non-smoking rates.

Its just funny how one of the largest insurance companies around can make that admission/acknowledgement, but anti-tobacco groups continue with the vitriol and mis-information to suit their own needs.

On a similar note to that, a local municipality around here are looking at implementing a full tobacco ban from area parks and recreation sites. The info on the news stated that they are fighting for this to include cigarettes, pipes, cigars, and chewing tobacco, to "stop the health concerns of others, concerned with second-hand-smoke, from enjoying our parks", etc. Ummm....as much as I don't like it....how much second-hand-smoke does chewing tobacco release???

[Orion21]

I represent a very large insurance company as a General Agent and have been a wealth manager for almost a dozen years. MOST, not all, insurance companies separate out cigars from other tobacco products. My company will allow one cigar a week and not ding you as a smoker. The companies that do not, focus on term insurance and since one unexpected claim kills profits they don't have as liberal a view.

Related to Franks' OP, I can see why States would do this. Most state workers have very generous retirement packages that include pensions and healthcare. When a State projects out the future costs of these benefits having a bunch of smokers on the payroll scares the heck out of them. I agree cigars are very different than other tobacco products, if used in moderation, but it's too big a problem for the people writing these policies to figure this out. Like term insurance companies they just lump all tobacco in the same group.

[PigFish]

I think a privately owned company ought to be able to hire whoever it's damned well pleased to hire. There's too much gov't intrusion in business anyhow. And if a business doesn't want to hire the best candidate simply because that person is X, then that company ought to be allowed to not hire the best candidate for the job because they don't want to. End of story.

Cheers,

~ Greg ~

Sent from my HTC Thunderbolt using Tapatalk 2.

There is a world of difference between government behavior as in "under the law," and private company behavior. This statement is dead on!

It does make me wonder however if a company said we don't want to hire an employee with AID's whether it would be met with the same acceptance. I doubt it. In the eye of government then, there are protected classes of people. If an employee said that they did not wish to hire women due to the cost of pregnancy and their healthcare costs, or loss of work as a result would it be acceptable?

I think companies should not be compelled to hire whom they don't want to hire! I don't care what they base it on. The best companies will hire the best people regardless of bias and that will help them become better companies. Those that discriminate should be allowed by law to experiment with their own companies as they see fit.

Great post Greg! -the Pig

[Orion21]

The best companies will hire the best people regardless of bias and that will help them become better companies. Those that discriminate should be allowed by law to experiment with their own companies as they see fit.

Great post Greg! -the Pig

Exactly right! But the post is about States and I don't think they are in the business of attracting top talent.

[canadianbeaver]

Agree that companies should hire as they see fit, but what about beers at lunch, or if I take meds for the clap after a weekend in Vegas and it makes me woozy? What happens in Vegas does not always stay in Vegas LOL.

My point is, non-smoking on the job and second hand smoke is one thing. Totally get it. But in the blood stream? So many other things can be in there that a vampire should be waiting at the front door on a daily basis if they want to control that one.

[PigFish]

Exactly right! But the post is about States and I don't think they are in the business of attracting top talent.

The list is actually comprised of states that allow the private companies to discriminate against smokers. My point while outside of the original post has me speculating on other "high risk" activities would fair.

If there are anti discrimination laws, then all should be protected, that was my point. Also that private property should be controlled by those whom own it, not by government fiat.

Cheers, -the Pig

[PigFish]

Agree that companies should hire as they see fit, but what about beers at lunch, or if I take meds for the clap after a weekend in Vegas and it makes me woozy? What happens in Vegas does not always stay in Vegas LOL.

My point is, non-smoking on the job and second hand smoke is one thing. Totally get it. But in the blood stream? So many other things can be in there that a vampire should be waiting at the front door on a daily basis if they want to control that one.

This is controlled by firing people, or it should be. If employers were not in fear of the law in firing then they would actually be able to better experiment with employees. And that means in context, to hire the risky ones. The problem as I see it, is as always, the problems of government intervention. What we have done with all the laws is made a class of people who are less than good employees with an attorney on speed dial rich by abusing the law and private companies. These laws protect lawyer income and little else.