What have you been smoking?annefan said:I'm not arguing anything cbg. I stated that it's Disconcerting to see the company using RISING HEALTH CARE COSTS as a reason for the change. Nobody argued that the company is not within its rights to deny smoking on their grounds. You see the difference? It is fine for the insurance company to refuse to insure those who intentionally use substances that harm the body. They do it every day. No one is crossed about that. I've offered an opinion, not an argument. I will repeat, it is within the rights of the employee to find work elsewhere if he doesn't like the regulation. However, it is still dangerous territory when smoking protesters want to anhilate smokers. The other poster's reasoning is foolish and THAT I took issue with. If anyone thinks that reversing laws to prohibit smoking by anyone is going to be enacted, they are foolish thinkers. The consequences of such a change would alter freedom. And it will NOT make people quit. If smoking were made illegal, people would still find a way to do it. It's just not all this simple.
The employer doesn't have to have ANY reason to set a non-smoking policy, that they may want to limit health care costs is a valid reason as you have pointed out, no doubt there are others.
I once knew a man who smoked at work, in Berkeley Ca, when they first instituted non-smoking policies, he didn't object, he and his friends spent a lot of time on the balconey smoking. Later his daughter began working at a store in another county, where the owner decided not to stock tobacco products, he though this was great. Several years later he died of lung cancer.