# Employers hiring only non-smokers

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/employers-hiring-only-non-smokers/219846>\
**Category:** Great Debates\
**Created:** [December 18, 2003, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/employers-hiring-only-non-smokers/219846 "2003-12-18T20:57:06Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 3\
**Page:** 3

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spectre_of_pithecanthropus/32/12343_2.png) [@Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spectre_of_Pithecanthropus)\
**Post date:** [December 30, 2003, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/employers-hiring-only-non-smokers/219846/41 "2003-12-30T18:17:08Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Gary Kumquat \*  
> \*\*Unfortunately, some studies would suggest it does have a direct influence on job performance:
> 
> [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1524684.stm](http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1524684.stm)  
> Now when presented with this sort of claim, isn’t it inevitable that employers will start to screen out smokers at the interview stage? \*\*

They undoubtedly will do so, but that’s not the only way that adjustments can be made. Your figures show that smokers take a couple more sick days annually, on average. If the employer uses the PTO system, as so many do nowadays, that just means you have two less days off to use otherwise.

Now on-the-job smoking breaks I can see as directly affecting performance for obvious reasons, but that’s not really what we’re discussing here.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\
**Post date:** [December 30, 2003, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/employers-hiring-only-non-smokers/219846/42 "2003-12-30T19:03:30Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Spectre of Pithecanthropus \*  
> \*\*My understanding of libertarianism (and I might be off base) is that within reason, the rights of the individual are paramount. This requires not only that the government keep its hands out of one’s private lives, but that private entities such as employers are also prevented from doing so.  
> If the Acme Corporation can take a quasi governmental role in enforcing such things as drug laws, or if it can go farther than the state in prohibiting off hours behaviors, then how does that achieve a libertarian ideal? You just have the bully on the block running people’s lives. \*\*

You forget that the owner of the company is as much an individual as the employee, and thus has the same right to be free (as possible) from Government interferance as the employee does.

Not being a hard-core libertarian, I agree that the employer has a responsibilty to keep a “safe” workplace- within reason, of course. And, I agree that an employee must be protected from Racial bigotry, thus I don’t agree that the “rights of the employer” extends to “not hiring blacks”.

However, I agree that if the employer makes demands that the emplyee feels are unreasonable, the employee has every right to leave and find employement elsewhere.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spectre_of_pithecanthropus/32/12343_2.png) [@Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spectre_of_Pithecanthropus)\
**Post date:** [December 30, 2003, 9:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/employers-hiring-only-non-smokers/219846/43 "2003-12-30T21:57:14Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by DrDeth \*  
> \*\*You forget that the owner of the company is as much an individual as the employee, and thus has the same right to be free (as possible) from Government interferance as the employee does.  
> \*\*

I take your point, but hold that this notion almost invariably gives the company immensely more lattitude than it does the individual employee. After all, if you work for General Motors and quit, nothing very earthshaking is going to happen to GM. On the other hand, if that job you had lined up before you quit falls through, then the effect on you and your family could be devastating. Does libertarianism allow for one person, in this case the CEO or owner of the company, to have such far reaching power over so many others? Always keep in mind that I’m objecting to the regulation of off-hours behavior, and not workplace rules.

[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/employers-hiring-only-non-smokers/219846.md?page=2)