so ur saying that there is no such thing as religious discrimination, and a dozen other types of discrimination.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discrimination

I agree, though I won't be as "verbal" about it. I can see no smoking while working, or only in certain areas as we have to do here. The smokers get to stand out in the freezing weather, but it'* our choice.

But to fire an employee for doing something legal? On thier own time? Not even at the work place? That'* a crock!! There is absolutely no way to justify that legally. Period. Let the lawsuits fly!!

No, that'* not what I am saying. Religion is one of the legal exceptions, as many people consider themselves born into a religion or ethnicity and cannot change that... consider it to be in the "etc." field of my original post. And the common dictionary definition of "discrimination" has nothing to do with my argument; I'm referring to the legal definition.

I'm sure the lawsuits will fly, but they will likely have no legally-required outcome (i.e. hiring back all the smokers that quit under duress or were fired).

I give props to the company, for actually caring about their employees' health!

Health clearly isn't the primary motive for this action. It'* all about money...as stated several times in the article.

BTW, point well taken regarding discrimination. I still believe that these actions will make their way through the judicial system.

Yea that'* a crock of ****. What ever happened to individual freedom and the pursuit of happiness. What one does on thier own time in thier own home, is NO ONES godamn business!

True, that cannot be denied. But at least better health is a side effect! It'* easy for me personally to be supportive of the decision, because I believe cigarette addiction is a true epidemic that is often ignored with the argument that people should be able to do whatever they want.

As far as money motivation goes, continued societal acceptance of smoking will be more expensive for all of us... since it has been proven to cause countless other diseases that must be treated and paid for by health insurance, all our health costs will continue to rise in the years to come. I can understand the company'* point of view in that regard, and am whole-heartedly in favor of discouraging smoking.

I see your point,..but what about sex. With the rise of aids and the rising cost associated w/ it along w/ the countless other std'*, and the over population issues, maybe they should look into banning sex.
While were at obesity is of great concern to the rising costs of health care. May be should fire all fat people.
Well then we have to include alcohol/drugs....even the legal ones. isn't caffien a drug? ok there goes the coffee/ tea.
see how ridiculus this is when one puts thier own distaste for smoking aside and actually looks at the big picture.

How bout productivity?. Now that people need to go outside for a smoking break, they expect to get paid for it. Now in my office, coffee breaks and smoke breaks are paid. Add it up though. An office of 1000 employees and 35% smoke, thats 350 people taking 5-10 mins, 3-5 times a work day. That adds up to a tremendous amount of production hours lost each day.

Its up to the discretion of the employer. If the government can outlaw smoking in public places an employer has every right to outlaw smoking on their premises. Or you lose your job.

Yeah, I'm not into getting paid for my breaks, I don't think that should be done. And hey, If they want to ban smoking on their premises, Go for it. It'* their business and they can project whatever image they prefer. Personally at work I am only allowed to smoke out behind the building in a little courtyard out of view of the public, That'* all well and good. But testing to see if people smoked at all, i.e. in their own home, is just wrong.

I agree with you 100%