[Tabi Katz]

Employees must submit to random tests that detect if someone has smoked. They must also agree to searches of briefcases, purses or other belongings if company officials suspect tobacco or other banned substances have been brought on-site

The key here is that people are told in advance that this is a condition of employment. As long as they are, I don't see a problem with it.

I have to agree with John Stossel: People have a right to smoke, companies can hire and fire whom they please, and employees can accept or refuse the terms of employment.

Nurse Bloomberg, our wonderful mayor, was way out of line in telling companies they may not allow smoking on their premises. But the other side of that token is the company's right to make personnel decisions, even if they're made on the basis of something completely inane, such as smoking, tanning, or wearing red on Sundays. Must there be a law for everything?

[Gabz]

I agree with you.

Back in the early 90s I was fighting to get this practice prohibitted in Delaware......now I'm on the other side of the issue.........for the exact same reason I opposed the smoking ban in Delaware - too much government interference in business.

[SheLion]

The key here is that people are told in advance that this is a condition of employment. As long as they are, I don't see a problem with it.

It is definitely the right of the employer to set his own rules.  However, what about his long term employee's that are close to pension that smoke, do not want to quit, or can't quit.

Is this another way for the employer to fire the old timer in order to avoid paying the pension?  I think he should have grand fathered this new condition of employment.  He has made it very miserable for a lot of his people.

[uglybiker]

...or wearing red on Sundays.

As long as they don't make me wear green on Thursdays.

[GraceCoolidge]

I have to agree with John Stossel: People have a right to smoke, companies can hire and fire whom they please, and employees can accept or refuse the terms of employment.

I agree, so long as the rules are the same across the board. I don't think, however, that is the case. Everytime I see these stories on the "health cost" justification for firing smokers, I think: okay, then what about the company that fires all gay men? Seems to me there is a health cost risk associated with that lifestyle. It just seems to me if the rule is that the company can hire/fire who it wants, then you have to apply that rule universally. But woe to the company that announces its intention to fire gay men, women of childbearing age, the obese, or any ethnic group that has a statistically higher incidence of any particular illness. Somehow I don't think the "health cost" line is going to fly in those cases....

[Tench_Coxe]

"The key here is that people are told in advance that this is a condition of employment. As long as they are, I don't see a problem with it."

And if they're black? Or Christian? Or engage in shooting sports? There is a point at which the argument you make falls flat on its face.