Once a ban start on anything, it usually starts w/ something that society as a whole veiws to be unfit/unhealthy/unmoral/unwhatever. But that is the beginning. Once you start banning things, then it'* a snow ball effect that beginns to grow rapidly untill it includes the things i mentioned before. In a world searching for total peace, total utopia, etc,..the veiw is star trek like in that we are a global community shed of our personal freedoms for the common goal of society. It manifest a one wold religion, as not to upset the non-believers etc. It effects the dress and mannerisms of individuals, ie uniforms, so that NO one stands out. IT GOES ON AND ON. THE GOVERMENT WATCHES THESE COMPANIES GET BY W/ THESE BANS, THEN THEY GROW TO COMMUNITIES AND CITIES, THEN STATES, THEN THE COUNTRY, THEN THE WORLD. Whew,..call me a conspiricy theorist,..but I'm telling you,..all our personal freedoms are at jeopardy, including hot rodding! I figured that would get some ones attention.

It starts small and grows,..remember NEW WORLD ORDER, that wasn't a dream.

Okay, I know I'll get reamed for saying this, but I can see where the companies are coming from.
As a former security guard, I had lots of time to observe the behavior of the office workers in our building.
There actually is a marked difference between smokers and non-smokers.
I noticed that the people I knew to be smokers were, in general, more likely to be irritable as the day went on. As a security guard, I was often on the sharp end of such irritability.
Seeing that our building was mostly occupied by the customer-service centers of a phone company and a major bank, I can only think that such irritability would impact negatively on customer satisfaction.
There was also a problem, in that the building I worked in had no way to set up an outdoor smoking area, and smokers generally congregated near the entrance. This meant that, during break-times, you had to walk through a crowd of people and a cloud of smoke to get to the entrance to the building. You CANNOT tell me that this makes the tenant of the building look good.
Finally, while it IS discriminatory to refuse to hire smokers, it must be remembered that smoking is PURELY the choice of the individual. It is not, as some would claim, a "way of life".
The U.*. Constitution protects us from discrimintation based on issues of race, gender, religion, age, physical make-up(height/weight/appearance), and physical/mental handicap (in cases where "reasonable accomadation" can be made, and the handicap doesn't actually preclude DOING the work), it does NOT protect against discrimination based upon the choice of an individual to use mood altering substances(which as any honest smoker will tell you, nicotine IS.).
I agree that what you do in your own home is your own business, but who a company hires is LITERALLY their own.

I will add that Columbus is enacting it'* ban on smoking in indoor public spaces and I do disagree with it. I believe that it is up to the business to decide whether to allow smoking, and up to customers to decide whether they patronize establishments that do or do not allow it.

I didn't read the article (sorry, lazy...) but I've heard a bit about this debate. I think that as long as its a pre employment agreement, then the employee has to follow through, or risk getting fired. As an idea, I have to say that a company should be able to require that employees be non smokers, especially in cases where job performance is somewhat or totally contingent on physical ability. No one can deny that long term smoking has harmful physical effect (lung capasity issues, etc...), and to require that an employee should not participate in an activity that knowingly and definatly hampers this physical ability (ie: smoking) should be to the disgression of the employer.

In idaho, like many states, you can get fired with NO REASON.

On an offtopic note

316.191 Racing on highways.--

(1) As used in this section, the term:

(a) "Drag race" is defined as the operation of two or more vehicles from a point side by side at accelerating speeds in a competitive attempt to outdistance each other, or the operation of one or more vehicles over a common selected course, from the same point to the same point, for the purpose of comparing the relative speeds or power of acceleration of such vehicle or vehicles within a certain distance or time limit.

(b) "Racing" is defined as the use of one or more vehicles in an attempt to outgain, outdistance, or prevent another vehicle from passing, to arrive at a given destination ahead of another vehicle or vehicles, or to test the physical stamina or endurance of drivers over long-distance driving routes.

(2)(a) A person may not drive any vehicle, including any motorcycle, in any race; speed competition or contest; drag race or acceleration contest; test of physical endurance; exhibition of speed or acceleration; or for the purpose of making a speed record on any highway, roadway, or parking lot, and a person may not in any manner participate in, coordinate, facilitate, or collect moneys at any location for any such race; ride as a passenger in; or purposefully cause the movement of traffic to slow or stop for, any such race, competition, contest, test, or exhibition. Any person who violates this paragraph commits a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in *. 775.082 or *. 775.083. Any person who violates this paragraph shall pay a fine of not less than $250 and not more than $500, and the department shall revoke the driver license of a person so convicted for 1 year. A hearing may be requested pursuant to *. 322.271.

(b) Any person who violates paragraph (a) within 5 years after the date of a prior violation that resulted in a conviction for a violation of this subsection commits a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in *. 775.082 or *. 775.083, and shall pay a fine of not less than $500 and not more than $1,000. The department shall also revoke the driver license of that person for 2 years. A hearing may be requested pursuant to *. 322.271.

(c) In any case charging a violation of paragraph (a), the court shall be provided a copy of the driving record of the person charged and may obtain any records from any other source to determine if one or more prior convictions of the person for violation of paragraph (a) have occurred within 5 years prior to the charged offense.

(3) Whenever a law enforcement officer determines that a person was engaged in a drag race or race, as described in subsection (1), the officer may immediately arrest and take such person into custody. The court may enter an order of impoundment or immobilization as a condition of incarceration or probation. Within 7 business days after the date the court issues the order of impoundment or immobilization, the clerk of the court must send notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, to the registered owner of the vehicle, if the registered owner is a person other than the defendant, and to each person of record claiming a lien against the vehicle.

(a) Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, the impounding agency shall release a motor vehicle under the conditions provided in *. 316.193(6)(e), (f), (g), and (h), if the owner or agent presents a valid driver license at the time of pickup of the vehicle.

(b) All costs and fees for the impoundment or immobilization, including the cost of notification, must be paid by the owner of the vehicle or, if the vehicle is leased or rented, by the person leasing or renting the vehicle, unless the impoundment or immobilization order is dismissed. All provisions of *. 713.78 shall apply.

(4) This section does not apply to licensed or duly authorized racetracks, drag strips, or other designated areas set aside by proper authorities for such purposes.

this is for Florida.. and so therefore.. anything that remotely seems like a street race you would be screwed more then you are if you were drinkin and driving.. Humm.. sounds like.. when "people with too much power gone wild.."

I understand the wholoe thing about not smoking n the buildign but to make you not smoke or else is going too far.

with or without cause, huh

Most low-wage jobs are like that, it'* called at-will employment. It also means that you can quit without notice.
One interesting note is that, while they can fire you for no reason, if they DO give you a reason and it is discriminatory, you can still sue them.

Of those, as many as 14 quit smoking before the policy went into place. Weyco offered them smoking cessation help, Climes said.

"That is absolutely a victory," Climes said.


hmmm, methinks corporations are trying to control a bit too much of our lives....

whats next, saturated fats?!?!

Companies offering health plans are on the decline anyways, and those that are offering are raising premiums. Why not offer a premuim discount for passing a physical and nicotine test instead?

Anyone read that? I'm not saying you can believe more than half of what lawyers say, but I don't think he just made that up.

'Nuff said. If you can prove that workers are LESS productive, I am pretty sure you can fire them.