It's a legal product though. It's like not hiring someone because they drive a car, or watch TV or go onto the Net..
Fluff wrote:
Well, its been found that smokers cost a business more than non-smokers, primarily in more sick days but also higher health costs and lower productivity.
Then ban cigarettes if it's so bad for you.
Burt wrote:
It's legal to be an alcoholic, but you wouldn't hire one would you? Reckon you need a better grievance than the legality.
If it didn't affect their work, I'd havce no problem hiring one. I'm not meaning a few more sick days or things like that, but poorer quality of work, inability to function at work, wether they are on time or not.
As far as I know, you cannot discriminate on hiring a person who drinks. If so, then why allow discrimination of people who smoke? The health aspect is not really relevant. Many sports, hobbies and normal work/living practices are just as dangerous if not more so. Like driving a car, you have a 1/3000 chance of dying on the roads in a year everytime you get behind the wheel.