• Because they are slowly killing there co workers

    OK. So I know it sounds like a big statement but let me ask you this. Would you let your kids around things that could kill them? Yeah I didn't think so either. After they smoke then that person has the smoke and nicotine from there cigarette onto there cloth's which means that everyone who smells that person will be smelling the nicotine and dieing.

  • Because they could give employees second-hand smoke

    They could give people second-hand smoke because you get smoke in your lungs and your life will get shorter if you inhale smoke plus on the downside, you could hire more smokers and that will violate the health law against smoking inside buildings and that could be a 3 year misdemeanor to crime.

  • Yes if they are nicotine infused

    Smokers should be denied jobs only if they are nicotine infused products like cigarattes, Cigars, Etc. Smokers that smoke other stuff though like weed and crack cocaine should be allowed because those are the real homies. They will probably make all the coworkers hate their job less thus improving the work environment and productivity. In conclusion smokers that smoke nicotine should be denied because they are nasty and will bring down the whole work environment, But smokers who smoke things like marijuana and crack should be promoted because they will bring the workplace up in productivity.

  • Smoking isn't THAT deadly.

    Just because someone smokes doesn't mean they should not be around other people. Smoking, contrary to what many anti-smokers are suggesting, isn't extremely harmful. It's just regular harmful. And I imagine being 12 inches away from the smoker isn't as harmful as being the smoker. Now, saying they don't deserve a job is just another level of horrible!

  • The choice to choose and the difference between smell and Second-Hand smoking

    For one, the smell of nicotine, while unpleasant, is not fatal.
    One could make the analogy of smokers to homosexuals.
    Should homosexuals be denied an occupation for being gay? I'd think not.
    The choice of free will is the choice of the smokers, despite the consequences they can make those decisions. To take away the occupation for the choices they make is unwise, considering the scale of this one is nothing compared to others.

  • It isn't like the smoker is a rabid raccoon.

    They're still a person look for a job, like anyone else. It's just absurd to deny someone a job just because they smoke. Unless unfit to work because of smoking, the employee should still be able to work for a job to earn profit. I mean the person still has to survive in society and all that.
    The concern about harm to co-workers can be easily solved by placing policies that restrict smoking in the work environment.
    (This is in no way of encouraging smoking; smoke is bad for you and shouldn't be in your breathing holes.)

  • They are the Same As Us, They Just Smoke

    I don't think that smokers should be denied jobs because they are the exact same as us. They need food, water, shelter, and humans to survive. You can't stereotype someone just because of their choices of what they do and don't do in life. They still need to make a living and just because they have a lighter and a cigarette, doesn't mean that they should be denied jobs. I personally don't smoke but I still don't believe that they should be denied jobs.

  • Smokers should not be denied jobs

    Why deny a smoker a job? They have rights, and should be helped to quit smoking, and not denied jobs. They have rights. Why deny them jobs, if you could just not allow them to smoke at work? It is so worthless to limit workers, and deny them their rights.

  • Free Enterprise Decision.

    The function of government is not to dictate the qualifications of one to work. I feel very strongly in the decision of an employer to determine who they wish to hire and who they do not. If the government begins to decide that a smoker cannot work, they will soon be granted the right to dictate who can and cannot work on more arbitrary standards.

    If an employer makes the private decision to prohibit smokers from working for their company, that's their choice.

  • Not at all

    Smoking is bad for your health- we should ban smoking at work because of second hand smoke. However, what an employees does in their own time is of no business to a boss unless it's illegal, very immoral, impairs their ability to do the job and so on. Smoking is one of these.

  • Only if They Don't Smoke at Work

    It is true that smoking is very harmful to people and the environment. Non-smokers who are regularly exposed to people smoking tend to live for than time than non-smokers who aren't regularly exposed to people smoking. As well as that, Tobacco control found out that smoking releases 10 times as much air pollution as diesel car exhaust. Smokers should also be able to have jobs. However, they should get fired if they smoke in their workplace.

  • Hell to the no

    I've smoked like a chimney since I was 3 years old, I practically came out of the womb with a pack of Newport's. After 90 years of smoking i'm perfectly god damn fine, and I don't care what any of you god damn gay lovin millennial pussies have to say about it. Any who wants to tell me I can't smoke, can come to my house and I can burn you with the shitty Marlboro's I bought at my local Walmart. Yeet yeet.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
JonHouser says2017-05-04T13:22:13.347
I believe that employment should be strictly an agreement between the employer and the employee. The government should not be involved in that agreement in any way. So if an employer desires to hire employees who do not smoke because it interferes with the operation of that business, then that is exactly what that employer should do. And no one should have any say in that decision. If a potential employee doesn't like that decision, he has the right not to work for, or do any other business with, that company. But he should not have the ability to win any kind of lawsuit against that company based on not being offered a job with that company. (He has the right to sue, but he should not be able to win based on this topic.)

I believe that smoking shows an extreme lack of proper decision making skills, and represents the proclivity to other forms of damaging behavior that could negatively impact my company. It is a form of risk management to not employee smokers and other drug addicts.

Decisions have consequences. The decision to smoke may result in the consequence that certain jobs are not open to you.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.