Well I feel smoking has become a moral issue because measures against it have been taken to extreme levels considering the actual risk of cancer and heart disease caused by second hand smoke. There are so many other factors that can also possibly harm yourself and others, but you don't really imagine putting similar constraints on eating Burger King, listening to your iPod while you drive, staying up late watching silly youtube videos instead of getting an adequate amount of sleep, taking on a highly stressing workload, or rejecting someone and hurting their feelings.

Obviously the company is free to enact such a policy if it chooses, I still think it's dumb. Even dumber though is a state enacted ban on indoor smoking in restaurants and bars and the like. If a bar allows smoking then they'll have to deal with the lost revenue of people who don't want to be exposed to smoke. If a bar doesn't allow smoking, then they'll have to deal with the lost revenue of people who want to smoke. If you don't approve of a restaurant that allows smoking, you let the owner know, and you vote with your money, but you don't get the government to step in for you.

I apologize in advance to smokers.

Smoking is a health hazard to both the smoker and others. I agree, the outside ban is pushing it, but the inside ban is already enforced in a lot of buildings. Sure, the company has a right to set its rules on its property (assuming that the rules were not in violation of any law), but I think a more reasonable rule would be the following:

Smokers may smoke outside in a designated area, like a courtyard, with a time policy similar to bathroom use to prevent smokers from chain smoking all day.

But eating at Burger King only hurts me. Second hand smoke hurts others. If you can't drive and listen to music safely, I'd support you being banned from doing so. I would support a ban on the use of cell-phones while driving, too. You don't have the right to hurt others. Smoke in your house, in private, or somewhere away from others. I like TMW's idea of a designated smoking area. We have designated pooping areas because of the health risks associated with that. In fact, I think we should treat smoking as pooping. Only do it in certain areas, don't do it in public, realize that as much as you enjoy pooping, everyone else doesn't enjoy your pooping.

"So should my employer tell me what kind of food to eat, what kind of car to drive, where to live, what lifestyle activities I should engage in....like skydiving, whether I have unprotected sex...jeez, I can go on!"

All those things are off-work. You can smoke off-work. Okay? If I was an employer I would want my company to have a good image.

Speaking of smoking, there's a commercial on the TV right now that says children are twice as likely to smoke if their parents are. Media is putting a damper on smoking. It's invading the workforce. You better be able to deal with it before it's illegal in all public places.

Right on Stukus. That's a great analogy. +1

I eat at the hospital cafeteria. I am overweight. Should the hospital tell me what I should eat? How I should eat? Should my employment be based on that? My hospital also recently put a BMI maximum for all new employees. So while I still have a job and do a good job...I could not be a new hire for the same company that I now work for.

I don't smoke but I will stand up for those who do because it is a slippery slope that will erode our individual liberties.

but i don't think you can compare smoking with eating.

Your food doesn't hurt other people, though. If you ate something that gave off poisonous smoke, it'd be different. You can kill yourself for all society cares, but you shouldn't hurt others. If you're going to compare smoking to other activities, though, it should be other activities that are harmful to others and yourself. I don't want people to have the liberty to poison others. You certainly have the liberty to poison yourself, though. I support that.

I don't quite get the BMI Maximum, though. Are you sure this is a real hospital and not like, Grey's Anatomy hospital? Cuz then I'd understand. But that's ridiculous. What are they worried about?

Spell of wheels, as far as the BMI thing goes.... they can have requirements if your health/BMI can cost them money. Like for insurance purposes. Why would they pay for a higher risk premium?

I mean, how extreme is your workplace BMI requirements? I had to put up with that in the Navy, and honestly, I knew a fat bastard who was the best technician ever..... but since he couldn't keep his mitts off the cheesy bacon fries, he was a 15 year first class, and was never going to make chief.

Your job can require certain things. If you don't like that, you're free to pick a different job.

We are an Employer Based Health Insured organization....ie we are self insured. We don't have designated smoking areas...we used to but not anymore. Employees are sent to smoking cessation classes...or they sneak smoke breaks in their vehicle or stand on the curb directly adjacent to the campus.

If you think employers want a good image with no smoking, why could you not believe they would want an good image with low BMI employees? It's the natural next step...it's the step after smoking and BMI you have to wonder about and where will employers stop while THEY look out for the employees best interest.

Has the Navy banned smoking yet on military bases? Does our military NOT care about servicemen? Also, thanks for serving. My son just got out of the Air Force.

And he learned to smoke in the military.

I agree that the military has away to go with smoking regs, but that does not change the fact that they or any org has the right to band smoking on their place of operations including grounds around the building, and when on duty. As for image, I guess dress codes were the first step on that slope.

Why does it matter if someone smokes and damages their health.
As far as i am aware, we ALL dies of something- and the majoirty die from heart disease, cancer and the like, whether or not they smoke.
So claiming it's bad for your health is just a joke.
How many of you eat junk food and are obese? overweight?

Zeno said : 'Cigarette smoke does not give you "instant cancer." ' - the evidence shows cancer cells have about 2 - 5 million mutations over normal cells, (talking about lung cancer here) so you can estimate that every cigarette causes 2-5 mutations in some cell in your lungs.

Now MOST mutations are harmless, many more cause the cell to die (and a health neighbour replaces the missing cell) but the rare one will kill you.

Spell of Wheels, what about my liberty to poop anywhere I want? That's infringed on, too. Do you have an argument against unregulated pooping that I couldn't apply to cigarettes if I changed "pathogens" to "carcinogens?"

Well...you can certainly take any argument to its most absurd level. My initial response was to the idea that it takes an employer to know what is good for people. My response to you is that my employer is probably not the most qualified to make the decision whether I should poop in public or not. Proper sanitation is always a problem when large groups of people congregate. I once found a bum squatting behind some dumpsters one day one day. It was certainly horrifying and sad at the same time....as he was breaking a social norm. My guess is that he had a need and did his best to hide what could. But I am not here to defend bums or smoking. I am appalled with the notion that an employer knows best for its employees. Employer do what they do for the bottom line....regardless of your personal liberty. We have safer working conditions now then 100 years ago because it is cheaper to be safe than be sued. Remember those old black and white movies of guys building the Empire State building with not a single one of them wearing a harness. Employers did care then how many men died building the damn thing....they did it the cheapest way. Health costs are what is driving this. And that will be the reason for the next thing that gets "outlawed". So whatever that next thing that comes after obesity in the name of health....you can justify that with your poop example too. Eventually we can all die from nothing.

Just this morning there was a news article on a hospital that will no longer hire smokers
.
http://articles.mcall.com/2010-03-29/news/all-cnsmoking_1_smokers-nicotine-hospital-health-network

You will get a nicotine test before you get hired.

Thanks for that DJ. I am going to go read it. Welcome to 1984....where some people are more equal than others.

Oh geez. Don't encourage him. I don't quite see the point of a nicotine test, but companies certainly have the right to give drug tests for employees.

I also like how Spell's conclusion comes before he even reads the article, as he himself admits.

Spell your missing the point. It's not if it is better for the employe, but if it's better for the employer. If none smokers make better employes, and if the same is for those with near normal BMIs, than an employer has the right to pick a none smoker or a person under a max BMI. Keeping medical insurance cost down is their business.

mel & Spell of Wheels: you are ignoring the rights of non-smokers to breathe non-smoke air.
However I do agree that a special smoking area would be preferred.

@Spell Using your logic we should not have seatbelt, or helmet, laws. At least than we would have more donors to replace the hearts, lungs of smokers.

@Warsprite- We shouldn't (not for adults anyways). It is not the government's responsibility to make common sense decisions for everyone. But I think that this situation is different, because it is a private company with private property, and they can enforce any rules that they want.

Someone mentioned that the insurance is cheaper if they adopt this policy, and that makes perfect business sense. If they are able to cut down on costs while also creating more production (smokers take longer breaks) then why would any company not do this? -Also not sure what company you work for, but it might have something to do with the image that they give off? If they are more open to the public, then getting rid of all the cigarette butts near entrances and the smell of smoke could be a PR move.-

I stated that I didn't read the article just for full disclosure. I have read it and it is no surprise. Employment is denied until a negative nicotine result is achieved. Current workers are grandfathered. All very expected and exact to my situation. We began curbing smoking a decade ago. BMI is next. Which lifestyle habit will be next? I don't know. But God help you if you are on the wrong side of it. Also as disclosure, I do use smokeless tobacco and I am under the same rules as cigarette smokers and would also be denied employment by St. Lukes because I would test positive. So my rights are infringed even though I do not infringe on the rights of non smokers. Also a couple of years ago our city outlawed smoking in public places. We owned an 8 liner game room which was predominantly visited by smokers. After the law was enacted we had to force our majority of clientele to smoke 12 feet from the front door entrance. We soon went out of business. I am not missing the argument that it lowers cost and makes a society that many people want....but it forces the will of the majority against the minority. So we just keep going in limiting differences until we all become the same. Just terrible.

I am against seatbelt and helmet laws. It's terribly paternalistic.

I wear a seatbelt and have never been on a motorcycle...but we dont need these laws. I wear a seatbelt because it makes sense for me but any adult should make their own decisions. I have problem keeping child laws in place such as age limit for purchasing products and child safety seats...but certainly adults can make their own decisions.

@spell of wheels- Can't you get a permit or something to allow smoking in your establishment? ... maybe not.

I would agree that a situation like your example is wrong, but only because it is the government getting involved. If a Diner wants to make a their place smoke-free then they should be allowed to, and I think that they would get a lot of non-smoking customers who don't want to tear up when eating out. But they should also have the option to allow smoking if they want (maybe make them put out a sign so the customer knows that there may be smoking inside). The way things are going now, the government should just make it illegal to smoke if they are going to make so many laws regulating it. As a non-smoker, I would be against this, but it appears that that will be the ultimate outcome.