Is this going too far?

This is matter of addiction. Plain and simple. I smoke, I know the risks and I know the law. I also know that you can't discriminate based on medical, mental, or physical characteristics as long as the canidate can do the work. With that being said, addiction is a mental condition. Logically if the county refuses to hire someone that is a smoker then they would also reject someone with OCD. Because it is a mental disorder. Addicts can't control the addiction there for a law suite should be file. No one has the right to say that this is fair. I have OCD and I am clinically depressed, if I was turned down for a job based on that I would sue and take as much as I could get from them.

Tell Steve there's nothing simple about it! I like the way he turned that sentence around. He's not telling the public they can't smoke, true statememt. But, that's twisty wording 'we're not saying you can't smoke, we're saying if you smoke you can't work for us.' I think not. What's he going to do? Test me for it? I'll tell him its second hand smoke. If he catches me smoking, I'll use the same trick that I used in high school. 'I'm only holding it for_ ' Has anyone ever heard the story of the frog and the boiling water? Throw a frog into boiling water and if he can, he'll jump right out. But put the frog in cold water and heat it up slowly, he'll never notice the temperature until it's too late. Humans aren't frogs, but the water beneath us has been heating up slowly. Let's see, seatbelts, car seats, smoking, habeus corpus_ pay attention America.

Hi emerald...I really do think this is the way things are going to go. I believe it's well documented that smokers have a higher rate of sick days than workers who do not smoke. I can imagine that any company would prefer not to employ anyone with an addiction and believe it or not, smokers are addicts If they don't get their regular hit of nicotine they do not perform well. The fact is that smoking costs a community money. I can see this happening more and more where-by anything that risks the production or financial viability of a company will be eradicated, not necessarily outright but these problems will be gotten around somehow. Take maternity leave for example. If small business were forced to pay for paid maternity leave, you can bet your bottom dollar they would stop hiring women capable of giving birth. And I think that's fair. The Australian gov't in this area isn't even prepared to foot the bill for paid maternity leave and is passing the buck to the public.

I can see the right lawyer having a field day with this one. Of course it will eliminate probably about 60% + of the best qualified applicants in the area so they'll be doing a lot of hiring from out of county and/or hiring inadequate people and service will diminish. There are more smokers than non-slokers in the world, it's a fact. I am a non-smoker and have been for 15+ years but I won't qualify!

That's going waaayyy too far. I can understand an anti-smoking campaign not wanting smokers on payroll, but that's still discrimination. I have seen no valid reason to prohibit smokers for working for that county. I can see if they prohibited smoking on the premises, but while you're on breaks, you ought to be able to leave to smoke, or smoke when you're on your own time. That's just ridiculous. Blessed Be

A government agency is doing this? This is discrimination at it's most basic level. I hope the county is sued beyond reasonable doubt. I do not smoke, but have no problems with others doing so. At least it was Florida, home of the stupid laws. My personal opinion is that your employer cannot state what you can and cannot do when you are not on their property, ie at work. What you do in your personal life is exactly that, personal. You make a good point, what will they come up with next? You can't have more than 1 soft drink because your blood sugar will be high? I'll be interested to see what becomes of this case. Thanks for posting it.

WOW! That does seem to be taking it a little far I think. Im not a smoker anymore, but I did smoke (and to be honost wouldnt mind lighting one up every now and then *sigh*) But I know if people started doing that around here, there would be A LOT of places who would not have very many employees. Most of the people I know smoke.

i guess employers have all the right to impose whatever standard qualifications they want for an employee to be hired in their company..theyre fortunate though while some malls in our place dont accept applicants who are not a member of an INK(iglesia ni Kristo)...it just sad to note that some are force to succumb to employers qualifications standard that are questionably unfair just to be accepted!!

I am torn about this. I don't smoke but, my dad does and I have worked with people who do. One benefit is that no one will get ticked off by seeing their fellow co-workers that smoke, take eight 5 to 15 minute breaks a day to have a smoke. Add that to their one hour lunch break, smokers take as much as 3 hours break from their jobs every single day. How fair is that to the non-smokers who only get the 60 minutes they are legally allowed to have for lunch every day? That creates stress and hard feelings inside an office environment. Believe me! I have seen how ticked off people get when they watch their co-workers taking up to 3 hours of breaks to smoke. Also, it is a good way to motivate people to stop smoking in order to get what might be their dream job. And, it is ensuring that that companies employees are healthier. Smokers tend to get lung related illnesses like colds and bronchitis more often (sometimes, not all the time) than non-smokers. So, by not allowing smokers to work for the company, they might be cutting back on sick days they would normally see a lot of from their employees. On the other hand, it is a form of discrimination and, I don't know how well this will fair for those county companies. I worked for a company that wouldn't hire people who smoked. But, people just lied about it and would go take their smoke breaks in an area that they couldn't be seen! But, given that they will be tested, that creates an entirely different situation. I am not sure how violating it is to be tested for substance that is not illegal. That is a violation, in my opinion, of your personal rights. So, as you can see...I am torn about this! I can see the upsides and the downsides of it.

Far as companies,employers or such not hiring someone due to a person smoking could be considered discrimination, but now a days it is even getting hard just to walk down a busy street without someone complaining about second had smoke. Yes they say second hand smoke cause health issues for some, but does it? I quit smoking in 1999 and quit for 5yrs, but in 2005 I started back up again, it's very hard to go any where now a days where you can't smoke or even be 3 - 9 ft away from the walk way of a building. When I did not smoke smelling second had smoke was aweful and I was very,very anti about anyone smoking around me. In this country it seems it is getting hard to be allowed to do anything anymore, they already banned texting on the phone while driving what's next.