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…..

[CSM]

"I once was the purchasing Mgr. of one of our plants and I used to visit the little kingdoms of you psuedo wannabe's and my greatest pleasure was to ask for an ashtray after viewing a "no-smoking" sign. Funny how you anal-retentive nico-nazi's would bend over backwards to accomodate my smoking while at the same time telling your employees they could not smoke. LOL!"

I am a buyer of about a half billion dollars of "product". Once on a tour of a supplier's plant they told me it was a non smoking facility. I asked if that was due to the potential danger caused by mfg. chemicals. After their answer was no, it was a policy of the non-smoking anti owner, I informed them that their potential PO's would reflect their "zero" tolerance policy!

[CSM]

"I asked if I could sit in it, sure was the reply. Once inside I was able to confirm the car is driven by a smoker. The stink gives it away. No second interview for that person."

Immoral lying is acceptable to root out participation in a legal habit! I guess immorality is acceptable as long as it is in the name of rooting out the demon tobacco users!

[CSM]

"I was merely pointing out that smoking is immoral, a sin."

Now a mere mortal can make personal judgements with more accuracy than the Holy Spirit. I submit that weather it is a sin or not is up to the personal guidance received by the Holy Spirit, not by guidance imparted by "realpatriot71".

[CSM]

"You can't be seriously touting one of the "benefits" of smoking as killing mold. In general, things that are toxic to lower life forms are also not healthy for humans. Otherwise we might all be drinking Roundup cocktails."

Gabz, And there it is! (who made the call?)

[Stone Mountain]

In the real world, smokers [...] are generally (as a proportion of the population) less whiny about everything in general.

Why do you believe this? Just curious...

[NCLaw441]

I think you are correct. Whether it makes good sense to eliminate smokers from the hiring pool, I don't know. There are a lot of good people who smoke. As a matter of law, though, private employers have the same rights as employees as to who they will work with. Just as a prospective employee cannot be made to apply with a particular employer, employers as a general matter don't have to accept anyone they don't want, for any reason or no reason, as long as it is not an illegal reason, such as race, gender, age, etc. (the list grows, and some states add weight, sexual orientation, and other "classes" to the list). Smoking is not a protected class, and given the current atmosphere, is not likely ever to be one. To be honest, I would be reluctant to hire a smoker if I had to be exposed to his/her smoke. Just a personal preference. I wouldn't hire a liberal either, all things being equal, although that might be a disability, requiring me to hire him/her.

[realpatriot71]

The smoker is paying for their own choice.

LOL! Really? What do most people pay for insurance premiums? About $200-300/month for good health insurance coverage - more for kids and the wife - so at most $500 a month. 500 x 12 = $6000/year - that still less than one day in the hospital. Just paying taxes is NOT paying your "fair share" since smoking related health issues cost more per premium per smoker, than the non-smoker.

However, you have given in to the socialist mindset. As a result of these socialistic tax practices, we now have the ability to dictate personal behaviour. Your dream comes true.

I'm not trying to dictate anything - enjoy your smokes - just don't ask me to help with your healthcare. If you have your own insurance then I've got no problem with you or your smokes

Once again, please change your monikor. Real patriots support personal freedom and less government. Obviously, you are in opposition.

Kiss my ass - I have not advocating stopping your "personal freedom," nor have I increased the size of government. If anything I'm proposing making igovernment smaller. Don't hire public servants who smoke - less health problems - less paper work, etc.

[realpatriot71]

Any government intrusion onto liberty or personal behaviour is done with the barrel of a gun! The only power the government has is with threats of enforcement, always aided by the use of guns! I would expect any "realpatriot" to know that!

Know what? When the JBT's kick down your door and arrest you for smoking cigarettes get back to me. I don't have to support the consequences of bad habits. It's like fat people trying to sue McD's - no sympathy from me.

[realpatriot71]

Now a mere mortal can make personal judgements with more accuracy than the Holy Spirit. I submit that weather it is a sin or not is up to the personal guidance received by the Holy Spirit, not by guidance imparted by "realpatriot71".

It's your temple, treat it how you will, but remember we will give account to God for every careless action and word.

[moonman]

I agree. My wife and I joined fellow FReepers on a cruise out of Miami 2 years ago and I'd wager 90% of us were smokers. I never seen a gathering with that high of percentage, even in smoking allowed bars.

[Gabz]

Thanks, I thought so.

As to smokers being a "protected class" I agree that where there are already no provisions that won't change anytime soon, but there are some provisions in some areas. For example in the State of Delaware state employees may not be hired/fired based upon their use of tobacco products.

Unlike private employeers, the state may not advertise "smokers need not apply." While off the top of my head I don't remember which, I do recall that several other states have done the same thing and extended it to private employers with the exception of certain types of organizations such as hospitals and the Lung Association and Cancer Society.

[Gabz]

My wife and I joined fellow FReepers on a cruise out of Miami 2 years ago and I'd wager 90% of us were smokers.

I joined a group of FReepers at CPAC this past January and had the same reaction. And those FReepers that weren't smokers were not of the whiny anti-smoker types seen elsewhere.

[Madame Dufarge]

Smokers are risk takers, and risk takers aren't generally given to whining.

[CSM]

"LOL! Really? What do most people pay for insurance premiums?"

I addressed this issue. The premiums are higher for smokers. Significantly higher, and if they are dishonest they lose coverage. I didn't say "just paying taxes". Take a hooked on phonics class.

"I'm not trying to dictate anything - enjoy your smokes - just don't ask me to help with your healthcare. If you have your own insurance then I've got no problem with you or your smokes"

That is so nice of you to allow me to make personal decisions and to take responsibility for myself. If you truly feel this way, the consumption tax support you espouse wouldn't be so evidently the opposit of this statement.

"Kiss my ass - I have not advocating stopping your "personal freedom," nor have I increased the size of government. If anything I'm proposing making igovernment smaller. Don't hire public servants who smoke - less health problems - less paper work, etc."

While supporting consumption taxes, or at minnimum being indifferent to them, in one thread then supporting eliminating applicants who consume the taxable items from the job pool in this thread you show yourself to be indifferent (at minnimum) to government growth and personal liberty infringements. Your logic is skewed, any tax is growth of government, any infringement on personal behaviour by government is growth of government.

"Know what? When the JBT's kick down your door and arrest you for smoking cigarettes get back to me."

How does that go? When they came for the Jews, I didn't fight, when they came for me there was no one left to fight. Once again, the only power the government has is with the barrell of a gun! Try not paying a parking ticket, what will happen? First a warrant will be issued, then the police will try to apprehend you. If you run, the barrell of a gun will be used, either by threat or by its intended purpose!

"It's your temple, treat it how you will, but remember we will give account to God for every careless action and word."

Your judgemental attitude is why I personally draw a MAJOR distinction between being a christian and being a church goer. Human beings are not in a position to judge other human beings with the eyes of God. Many forget that and think themselves spiritually "superior" to the rest of us.

[realpatriot71]

I addressed this issue. The premiums are higher for smokers. Significantly higher, and if they are dishonest they lose coverage. I didn't say "just paying taxes". Take a hooked on phonics class.

AND who pays the premiums of public servants? And the higher premiums of said civil servant smokers? Magic gnomes?

If you truly feel this way, the consumption tax support you espouse wouldn't be so evidently the opposit of this statement.

Wrong. You have no gaurantee to "reasonable prices" on bad habits. You want to smoke - fine - pay for it.

When they came for the Jews, I didn't fight, when they came for me there was no one left to fight.

Surely you're not equating the Holocaust with a sales tax on cigarettes, right?

Your judgemental attitude is why I personally draw a MAJOR distinction between being a christian and being a church goer. Human beings are not in a position to judge other human beings with the eyes of God. Many forget that and think themselves spiritually "superior" to the rest of us.

I'm not judging you, merely pointing out that the body is the Temple of the Holy Spirit - God - hurting the Temnple of God is a sin - a spade's a spade - God judges, not me. I'm just pointing out His word. It's not my fault the body if the Temple of the Holy Ghost. If this "gores your ox" you can take it up with the "Big Guy". I am "spiritually superior" to NO MAN. In fact, if I am least in Everlasting, it would not surprise me.

[Stone Mountain]

In the real world, smokers [...] are generally (as a proportion of the population) less whiny about everything in general. [...] Smokers are risk takers, and risk takers aren't generally given to whining.

Does this also hold true for skydivers, heroin users, and people who speed on the highway?

[CSM]

"AND who pays the premiums of public servants? And the higher premiums of said civil servant smokers? Magic gnomes?"

Your lack of knowledge regarding compensation packages is showing. The smoker pays the higher premium. Every compensation package offers a minnimum level of coverage that is paid by the employer, any cost above that will result in less pay. By your same logic, we should ensure that they not hire people with wives or children. The cost born by the government for these higher premiums is funded by tax payers. Tax payers shouldn't be forced to bear the cost of these choices.

"Wrong. You have no gaurantee to "reasonable prices" on bad habits. You want to smoke - fine - pay for it."

Now do you advocate price dictation by the government? I do have a right to "reasonable prices" for any product that is privately manufactured and privately sold to consumers. The consumer decides what is "reasonable". Where in the constitution do we not limit the govnernment? Where do we give them the authority to "control" the prices of products they deem to be "not good behaviour"?

"Surely you're not equating the Holocaust with a sales tax on cigarettes, right?"

You are either very simple minded or you are purposefully ignoring the oft quoted writing. I excerpted it. If you need the full text I will search for it and provide it. It is often used when discussing the, "it doesn't affect me so why should I care?" crowd of which you are a member.

[swarthyguy]

Merci Beaucoup.

America - Hypochondriac Nation.

All praise the American Taliban!

A weekend excursion to some favorite watering holes was scary; people are staying home, not in cities like Boston, but in peripheral places like Salem, MA where 4-5 people sitting at bars at 10:30 pm on a Saturday night.

[swarthyguy]

Notice the glee in the reverse class bashing.

May these professionals get their jobs outsourced to India.

[Mears]

Yep,the productivity of smokers sucks.

Look at FDR and Churchill,slackers,both and them, and God knows how we won the war with all those nasty GI's puffing away.

I don't know why I wasn't fired for being a smoker,they promoted me instead.

It's a puzzlement.