This is very odd, but the Tampa Tribune reports that a number of cities are now refusing to hire anyone who smokes. The reasoning apparently is that smokers will cause increased costs as far as insurance premiums, health costs, etc.
At least in Florida this is legal for the moment. In 1996 the Florida Supreme Court ruled that North Miami had a right to ban the hiring of smokers.
What I don’t understand is how it could possibly be consistent for it to be legal not to hire smokers because they might impose increased health risks while at the same time making it illegal to refuse to hire people who have genetic defects which make them more prone to cancer or other life threatening — and expensive — ailments.
The obvious difference might be that one is genetic while one is a behavior which can be controlled by an individual. But if the only relevant criteria is whether or not a discriminatory practice saves money in health care expenses and lost time due to illness, then the distinction between genetic traits and bad habits doesn’t see particularly relevant.
I wonder how far cities will try to take this. Will fat people be the next to get the boot (since obese people clearly present the same problems as smokers)? Why not go even further and start excluding people who engage in dangerous or extreme sports or activities?