[WestVirginiaRebel]

There's a way for people to be one hundred per cent healthy, with no illness or disease.

It's called nonexistence.

[gubamyster]

You're going to love this one.

[RetiredArmy]

Dead.

[mnehring]

So,
What if this test gives a false reading because the person visits smoke filled environments, even if they don't smoke.
Also,
Do they count cigars or pipes as smoking?

[k2blader]

It's a private company. There is nothing wrong with this.

[Bacon Man]

Yea but just try to prove to someone that you don't exist. I've never been able to pull it off.

[Lexington Green]

Only slaves will submit to such tyranny ....

[Tamar1973]

Hey, at least the company will be able to keep its healthcare costs down. Cancer, emphysema, etc are expensive diseases to treat.

[SAR]

Let's see what happens when they fire the fat people who don't lose weight. No, wait, that will never happen. Nevermind.

[randog]

Great idea! Now they ought to go after those that engage in risky sex (gay men), those that are fat, those that engage in risky sports like mountain climbing, skiing, etc.

[MisterRepublican]

"Company founder Howard Weyers has said the anti-smoking rule was designed to shield the firm from high health care costs. "I don't want to pay for the results of smoking," he said."

Imagine if he had used the same logic (high health care costs) to fire homosexuals. I wonder how much HIV/AIDS and other diseases, which affect homosexuals at higher rates than heterosexuals, increase the cost of health care.

[RetiredArmy]

But, you know, no matter how many people scream, kick and throw a fit, in the end only one thing matters. This company belongs to someone. That "someone" has the right, as owner and money maker of said company, to set rules, regulations and policy for the employees he/she hires. Of course, the law says you cannot discriminate, but it says because of race, color, religion, origin, etc. It says nothing about smoking, liking NASCAR, hating football, being a runner, playing poker, etc. So, if the owner determines that he does not want smokers on his payroll, it is his company and he can make those decisions. You may not like it, but you can go work somewhere else then. You have that choice, to work some where else. He has the right to expect lower medical costs, fewer health issues, etc., because he does not employ smokers. He can do that with his overweights also. Until that is the democrats get overweight officially listed as a "disease." Then he can't. But, since the democrats hate smoking and only like smoking because it has more victims, thus can sue the big tobacco companies for billions (their trial lawyer mafia that is), then they probably are going to get in a snit over it and some trial lawyer will represent these people in a class action suit and sue the company into bankruptcy.

[rockabyebaby]

Where's the ACLU on this? Where do we draw the line?? Smoking, drinking, eating? What next? Sex?

[YOUGOTIT]

I think they should fire all people who are democrats. Or who support the ACLU. If they want to have smoke free employees there is nothing wrong with it. As long as others can hire and fire who they want as long as it is not race related.

[eclectic]

Smoke-nazis strike

[DCPatriot]

They weren't fired for smoking.

They were fired for refusing to test for smoking.

An important distinction, IMO.

[Squantos]

Frog legs'll be ready in a while ! Ya'll want salt on em too ?

[ScottM1968]

Private companies ought to be able to do this with any sort of liability.

For that matter, I believe sexual orientation ought to be allowed to be discriminated against, along with political party preference and virtually any other criteria one could desire.

Why should the NAACP be required to have 60+ percent of their employees be white simply because whites make up a large amount of the population? Why should a church be required to hire homosexuals or pedophiles when they find that repulsive? If religion and race allow for discrimination, why not everything else that an employer might find undesirable?

Liberals love allowing people to make a "choice." Why not extend that to employers?

[Radix]

I have never smoked a cigarette in my life. I had a sibling die due to what is believed to be a smoking related illness. Still, I am no smoking Nazi.

I do not think that smokers should be suing tobacco companies, nor should local governments be dictating to restaurants and such smoking policies. If a company wants to eliminate smoking then that is their prerogative.

[Pilsner]

Why do I get the impression that the potential drop in health claims is going to be offset by a rise in costs in the legal department? Sometimes in life you gotta ask "(1) What am I trying to accomplish, and (2) does this action help me accomplish it?" Unless the answer to question one is "Get a whole lot of publicity and place the company in the eye of a national controversy" then the answer to question two is "No."

[Rutles4Ever]

Can a company require sterilization to prevent added healthcare costs to cover new pregnancies?