>Smoking plants and carrying weapons represent health and safety concerns for the people surrounding them.

you do believe that the government's caring about your health is the reason why ganja is outlawed?

I hope I speak for all of us when I say that this is not a discussion we can productively have on HN.

The "dreads" issue is at least marginally interesting to HN, if only to send loud-and-clear the message of "DON'T MENTION SOMEONE'S HAIR AS A HIRING CRITERIA".

yeah it went so well the last time it happened; keep ridiculing. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1641042

The article says it's for reasons of hygiene, coming into close contact with people.

In other words, "people who practice Rastafarianism are usually not hygienic; just look at their hair". You can see how this isn't going to play well for them in court.

I've many friends with dreads and with the best will in the world, something you wash every few months if that, doesn't meet normally accepted standards of hygiene. That's true of whites with dreads as well, so it's not racist.

Having a standard that says "employee hair must be clean, neatly arranged, and safe for physical work" would probably have been fine. That's not what happened here. This candidate offered to conceal his hair and was told he had to cut it.

I have friends and professional colleagues with dreads and will tell you that none of them are unhygienic. Is it harder for them to keep their hair clean than it is for me? I don't know, because that's none of my business.

If you were managing, say, a catering business, then it would be your job to know.

If you were managing, say, a high-end restaurant kitchen, you might end up on ICA and judging Top Chef despite your dreads:

http://www.worldhum.com/travel-blog/item/interview-govind-ar...

You're just not going to get anywhere with this argument. There's nothing inherently wrong with dreadlocks.