I just found this alarming article

[gekko]

I absolutely agree, but in this specific case smoking is a completely legal choice which does not have any adverse impact on work performance.

Not quite. Smoking may not have a direct and immediate impact on the quality of an employee's performace, however, this is not the whole story. For long term employment, a smoker is more likely to have health problems and therefore will require more benefits from the health benefits to be payed out. Long term, smokers cost the company money.

It's an interesting question -- at what point should your employer (or the government, for that matter) have the right to step in and dictate behavior that only directly impacts the individual. Think smoking in your home versus smoking in a hospital waiting room. The latter obviously impacts more than just the individual, so most people don't have a problem with banning smoking from this kind of public place. The former is much more difficult -- whose business is it if I don't want to eat healthy or exercise? Whose business is it if I smoke or don't look both ways before crossing the street?

However, given than smoking (and since it's been brought up, obesity and the like) is directly linked to long-term health risks, when the money involved is not only your own, it's no longer only a matter of personal freedom. If your smoking means I have to pay more money in taxes (where public health care exists, as here in Canada) or health insurance, it's my business now, too -- even if you're smoking on your own time.

The only difficult part I foresee is where the line has to be drawn (i.e. not eating 100% of the recommended vitamins every day? smoking? obesity? not wearing a hat when it's too cold? being born into a family with higher than average risks of heart disease?). I suppose this is simply one of the inherent problems with health care -- it naturally favours the sick; it doesn't actually encourage being healthy.

gekko