Is it constitutional to ban smokers from working?

The democrats hate the cigarette companies, but want the money through taxes.

 

Can you cite and recite the Constitutional amendment that enumerates your de jure right to smoke tobacco on the job?

Take your time; I have all day.

 

Funny, I had a sales call with someone at RJ Reynolds right there in tobacco land. The campus and buildings were like a palace, just dripping with money. Interestingly enough - you walk in the lobby and the guard / receptionist had a lit cigarette in an ashtray - right there in the lobby..... Walking through the palace there were breakrooms where there were walled shelves full of cigarettes, you can smell smoke everywhere..kind of made me sick to my stomach. Ha - but what was right next door to the palace?? A huge cemetery.....very fitting.

 

Short answer: Almost certainly yes.There's some ambiguity the way the question is worded. I assume you mean banning smokers from working while smoking on the job. There are two provisions in the U.S. Constitution protecting us from having our "life, liberty and property" taken away from us by government without due process of law: the due process clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. In both cases, "due Process of law" means without fair procedures and without a rational basis. Just what procedures are required and what process is due depends on the activity involved, and the courts tend to defer to the legislature's determinations, so long as there is a rational basis for the restriction. The "Rational basis" test, used for most restrictions on our liberties, requires; (1) "a legitimate government interest" (in the case of the feds, one related to powers delegated to the federal government, whether express or implied, by the Constitution; in the case of a state or law, one related to public "health, safety, welfare or morals" and (2) a rational connection between the statute's/ordinance's means and goals--i.e., reason to think restricting the practice would lead to the benefit the legislators intended. . Health would be the basis where smoking is concerned. The legislature would have to consider the evidence related to the dangers of smoking to the smoker and to others from second hand smoke. The courts will give that the benefit of the doubt. In cases where racial or gender determination are involved, the courts apply stricter tests, but that doesn't apply here. It would be harder for the feds than the states to do this, but considering the expansive reading courts have given to the commerce clause. I wouldn't put it past them.
Rational Basis Test
https://www.virginialawreview.org/sites/virginialawreview.org/files/Nachbar_Online.pdf
https://www.nyulawreview.org/wp-con...YULawReview-90-6-Note-Holoszyc-Pimentel_1.pdf
http://ndlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Eyer-08.pdf

Now if either the feds or the states are trying to ban folks who only smoke off the job from working, that would be another matter. The government would have a harder time showing the rational connection between their work and a legitimate health interest. And of course a private employer can set any conditions for employment (s)he wants, so long as they're non-discriminatory against a protected class like women and minorities. An employer might conclude smokers would be drawing more sick leave, or be less productive on the job, or might have smelly clothes, or have weak character manifested by their addiction. DISCLAIMER. I'm not qualified to give legal advice. You'll need to hire a lawyer for that!

 

Looking from the UK you need to also ban gun owners and alcohol drinkers and overweight people.

 

But we are no longer a colony.

 

Touche'

 

If you continue to smoke cigarettes today, it's a sure sign that smoking causes brain damage with lack of comprehension of cause and effect. A $100 a pack tax wouldn't even touch what smoking's health care costs are. People quit every day for good and nobody ever says "gee, I was I was smoking again, I felt so much better..."

 

There wouldn’t be a France to speak French in if it wasn’t for US.

 

The government is also considering a ban on menthol cigarettes (a couple of states already have). The reasoning is the menthol cuts the harshness, and they believe most smokers start off with menthols. No clue if that's true, as I do not smoke. But my wife does, and will NOT be happy if the ban happens. She smokes menthol lights most of the time. (She's the only smoker I know who smokes menthols, though.)

 

Instead of banning cigarettes maybe the US should ban guns, half the country running around thinking they are John Wayne is a recipe for disaster.
Smokers hurt themselves, gunmen hurt others.

 

Nope, smokers end up hurting everybody - from second hand smoke to you and I paying for their smoking related diseases. My father in law smoked Camels since he was 14. He died a miserable lingering painful tortuous death from lung cancer at 60 - it's such a miserable addiction, that poor bastard continued to smoke with a half a lung out and almost dying from the surgery. So, what's the difference between the tobacco companies and heroin dealers?

 

I do not give a damn about either party.

 

Bet he didnt rob or kill for a pack of cigs.

 

This is a 2012 thread which has gone off the rails. Closing to further replies.