Fema Employment

Home > Government Employment Information > Government Employment Knowledge Base > Should smokers be prevented from being hired for employment in public service by the government?

Should smokers be prevented from being hired for employment in public service by the government?

If so, why? If not, why? It is a step in order to stop smoking, no?

Public Comments

  1. no, that is prejudism personified, who are you to to dicatate if a person smokes or not, it is banished from the workplace, dont see you have a valid arguement
  2. and waterboarded too..McBush in 08 for more war and tax cuts
  3. well, since the government taxes and sells cigarettes, no. STOP SMOKING BY STOP SELLING IT, D'UH!
  4. We need 90% less government, by any means possible.
  5. No, I would personally consider it to be discriminatory or a breach of rights. People have been told what to do more than enough with this. if it carries on, people are just going to get sick of it and lie. Also, how would it be enforced? Would a non smoker be fired if they then chose to start smoking?
  6. no way you're discriminating just because someone smokes. It isn;t there fault the government decided to sell a product so highly addictive that it's near impossible to stop the habit.
  7. When the Government bans cigarettes from sale then maybe yes. Up until that time which is decades away then they have no right to stop anyone while is is legal to smoke.
  8. No, they should not. Some of the best employees are smokers. What the government needs to do since they are always stepping in people's business, is make cigarettes illegal. That would do some good.
  9. They are already not allowed to smoke in public places so what are you saying? that they shouldn't be employed because they smoke out of public places? Give the smokers a break. The anti smoking brigade have already got what they wanted. Now leave the smokers alone.
  10. no that's discrimination at it's worse, what an employee does on their own time is their choice. and their breaks are their own time!!!!!
  11. Interesting point that you make. As a smoke-free person for 1 year and 12 days, 8 hours and 52 minutes, I think this is something to consider as smokers do cost more to insure, are sick more (as a general rule) take more and longer breaks to leave to smoke, and one study, over 30 years ago when smokers could smoke at their desks they/we were shown to be less efficient (I believe it too). First problem is that smokers vote and there are still a lot of them. The tobacco co's have gazillions of $ to give to Pols - second problem. I'd say the first step is to make them pay for their insurance, no subsidies from Uncle Sam - and maybe pay them 10% less than non-smokers - Problems will then be that Uncle Sam will hire the Nicotine Nazis to police this issue. This will not stop anyone from smoking though - People only quit when their minds are ready. It's a very difficult thing to do. I really like this idea and will continue to mull it over. I keep thinking and wondering how the Pols would play this to the cameras (worse thing we ever did was put cameras in Congress)
  12. No, that's discrimination. It is not illegal to smoke, and before these past few years, it was very common to smoke just about everywhere. Granted, I quit smoking last summer (I'm still not thrilled about it), but I can't expect others who still smoke to just "quit" becuz I had to. And does anyone realize what smokers have "purchased" in the past 40 yrs becuz of the taxes on smokes? I know we have the Huskers stadium becuz of smokers. Regardless. Smoking is not against the law. Not like crack or heroine. It doesn't cause goofy behavior, impair judgement, or make someone see double. It's an addiction that was initially aided by the gov't, and now we have addicted smokers. There is no valid reason to refuse employment to a smoker.
  13. Who is making all the money = the government,they will never totally ban it because they would stand to lose billions of dollars.
  14. How would this work? You would just say at the Interview that you did not smoke, eh? You can't smoke inside public buildings now anyway.
  15. No this would be discrimination, smokers have rights just as much as non smokers.
  16. No. It is not illegal to smoke. The UK.government take millions in tax from tobacco sales. This appears to be an extremely stupid suggestion. How many members of the armed forces in the UK.enjoy a smoke? How will you maintain the manning level if you dismiss/discharge those members of government services who legally smoke?
Powered by Yahoo! Answers