wrote in message
oups.com...

In the case of employers telling employees that they cannot smoke if
they are employed there, the issue is healthcare costs. In every
instance I am aware of, when companies do this, they are paying for
the employees health insurance. Their rational is that if the
employees do not smoke, it lowers their cost for health insurance. On
that basis, it would seem the argument does have validity. I guess
they could offer an alternative, which is if you want to smoke, you're
going to pay the increased cost for your health insurance yourself.



But where do you stop? If you are fat you are fired? If you are skinny you
are fired? If you scuba dive you are fired? If you skydive you are fired?
All lead to higher health care costs.