Phil Marx points us to this bill introduced in the Indiana Senate, which would permit "an employer to consider tobacco use by job applicants in the hiring process." Indiana is one of about 30 states that have so-called "smokers' rights" laws (here is a roundup and critique), and this would amend and weaken our statute, by taking out all references to "prospective" employees. Here, for example:
Sec. 1. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b), an employer may not:
(1) require, as a condition of employment, an employee or prospective employee to refrain from using; or
(2) discriminate against an employee with respect to:
(A) the employee's compensation and benefits; or
(B) terms and conditions of employment;
based on the employee's use of;
tobacco products outside the course of the employee's or prospective employee's employment.
(b) An employer may implement financial incentives:
(1) intended to reduce tobacco use; and
(2) related to employee health benefits provided by the employer.
It appears that the intent is to continue preventing companies from requiring employees not to smoke (when they're away from company property) but allow them to make "not smoking" a condition of employment. I can't say I care for this intrusion into individual behavior, but companies have always had the right to decide whom they want to hire under what conditions. And this isn't exactly new. When my brother got a job in Texas years ago, it was with a company that wouldn't hire smokers.
The proposed smoking bans -- both the new statewide one and the toughening-up one in Indianapolis -- are getting all the attention these days, but this seems to me a much bigger deal. It's one thing to regulate behavior in public spaces. Punishing people for what they do in private is on a whole different level. regulating behavior in public.
