Sheriff Won't Hire Smokers

San Mateo Daily Journal ^ | March 1, 2004 | Dana Yates

[at bay]

Rising worker’s compensation and health care cost is prompting San Mateo County Sheriff Don Horsley to put a ban on hiring smokers.

“If your lifestyle contributes to a disability, I’m sorry about that. But I don’t think the taxpayers should pay.” said Horsley.

Since smoking is known to cause numerous health problems, Horsley said the decision to not hire smokers is an economical move that could save the county a lot of money in workers’ compensation costs each year.

The idea came to him after the Sheriff’s Department had to settle a $90,000 workers’ compensation claim with a retired employee. The retiree developed lung cancer…..

[at bay]

This on the same page where other officials are going to REQUIRE the inclusion of fruit juice in the pop machines at school so the kids that don't drink up all the soda are going to be stuck with---yup--fruit juice!

Oh the injustice of it all!

[thoughtomator]

Homosexuality is proven to be a more dangerous and medically costly habit. Can the Sheriff discriminate on that basis as well?

[John Thornton]

What's next? A comprehensive donut ban?

[Conspiracy Guy]

Good, maybe he won't arrest me for the same reason. PUFF.

CG

[JoJo Gunn]

Working link:

http://www.smdailyjournal.org/article.cfm?issue=03-04-04&storyID=28654

[freekitty]

Pure Discrimination.

[squidly]

That's it, if you eat bacon we can't hire you. Contributes to heart disease.

[hattend]

Homosexuality is proven to be a more dangerous and medically costly habit. Can the Sheriff discriminate on that basis as well?

That was my first thought.

[thoughtomator]

My second thought was how well this fits the definition of fascism... a different set of laws applied to a class of people based on a superficial characteristic.

[capitan_refugio]

You can legally discriminate ("to make a disctinction in favor of or against a person on the basis of the group or class to which the person belongs, rather than according to merit"), as long as it is not done to a person of a "protected" class.

I believe "sexual orientation" may be a "protected class" these days. If you are white, male, fat, conservative, or a smoker ... you're screwed.

[swarthyguy]

Sounds in line with today's Amerikaka.

Next, no fat cops or drinkers.

[thoughtomator]

The creation of a "protected class" is the very definition of fascism. Scary, isn't it?

[ApplegateRanch]

Butts out for health reasons; b*8tF888ing okay, despite higher (& higher cost) health risks.

Depends on which butt user you prefere not to offend, I guess; not which costs taxpayers more in the end.

[at bay]

"Next, no fat cops or drinkers."

There already weight restrictions, bub, and I doubt if you have a drinking problem you're gonna make new hire.

[capitan_refugio]

And to think I left out "heterosexual."

[swarthyguy]

Typical shortsighted stupidity, as if a drinker automatically means a drinking problem.

Shows your mindsight, Hubba Bubbba.

[Elle Bee]

Homosexuality is proven to be a more dangerous and medically costly habit. Can the Sheriff discriminate on that basis as well?

It’s Okay For a Cop (the New Key West Police Chief) To Have sex With a Minor (17 yr old boy)

.

[Cultural Jihad]

Smokers are free to seek employment at privately-owned security services which might not care that they smoke.

[SheLion]

It’s Okay For a Cop (the New Key West Police Chief) To Have sex With a Minor (17 yr old boy)

OH YES! BUT MY GAWD! HE BETTER NOT SMOKE!