2. Being against smoking does not make one a nazi, although you seem to have an affinity for such an argument. You’ve made it before, from looking back through the archives. However, I could believe that opposing communism is important without being a nazi, even though the nazi’s were anti-communist. It’s a specious argument. If, on the other hand, I use the power of the government to prevent you from smoking, I would be acting in an authoritarian manner.

3. The officers/directors of Scott’s are hypocrites, which reinforces the “cost of health insurance” argument, rather than detracting from it.

4. I suspect that these companies are getting breaks on the cost of health insurance for these policies. This argues for getting employers out of the business of purchasing insurance, but it doesn’t invalidate the position these companies are taking.

5. Obesity has nearly achieved disability status. Attempting to do something about it policy wise would probably be challenged under ADA or a discrimination lawsuit. That doesn’t mean I think it’s right, just the reality of the legal landscape.

Bottom line? Get companies out of the business of purchasing health insurance and get government out of the business of intervening in private employment contracts and you will solve the problem.

My dispute is specifically with Scotts – Miracle gro not voluntary contracts. Scotts contract is discriminatory, disingenuous, and disrespectful. Their policy of not hiring non-smokers lacks common sense and is nothing more than a Smoking Nazi tactic.
If Scotts wants only non-smokers working for them, the sensible thing to do would be to give urine tests BEFORE HIRING – not after.
Scotts claims that this new policy is due to health costs of smoking is simply baloney. There health risks associated with obesity, unhealthy eating, motorcycles, sky diving, playing sports, unprotected same-sex sex and a million and one other things. Besides, second-hand smoke is supposed health risk, why not hire people that are never exposed to that health risk. On a side note, Weyco in Michigan is fining employees that don’t smoke $1,000. if their spouse smokes. The truth is, smokers are an easy target and Scotts is being dishonest and dishonorable.
Scotts arbitrarily and unilaterally is requiring employees hired before this new policy to quit smoking within a year. This is using the power of the paycheck to force, yes, I said force, employees to give up their privacy, and sovereignty outside the workplace. Scotts one-sided decision is a breach of contract to these employees that were hired before this new policy.

In doing a little research I found out that one of the VPs at Scotts is a cigar smoker and is not subject to the policy (he gave an interview to a site dedicated to SC employment laws) and that one of the Board Members of Scotts is the CEO of R.J. Reynolds (a cigarette manufacturer).

I agree that you don’t have a right to a job. However, to get hired for a job with the requirement that you give up your privacy and property rights seems un-American, immoral and unethical to me – regardless if it is voluntary. Thankfully, many states agree that lifestyle discrimination is illegal.

On the bright and ironic side, any non-smoking employee of Scotts that gets cancer will have a great case against them because of the dangerous and harmful chemicals they use in their lawn care business.

That said, I brought up the military because it was the easy comparison, regardless of whether private or public. There are plenty of private sector contracts where your behavior outside the workplace is an issue. For example, Eric, the founder of The Liberty Papers, had to agree not to write publicly in a personal capacity as part of the terms of his employment. I understand that he is an officer of the company he currently works for. By your definitions he is agreeing to voluntary slavery?

I don’t see anything voluntary as a form of slavery. I see conscription as a form of slavery, but voluntary military service is not. Justify your claim that voluntarily agreeing to a contract that provides for control of your life outside your workplace is a form of slavery.

On the bright side, it is encouraging that you see the military as a form of slavery, and yes, I would ask anyone joining the military this question: What in the hell are you thinking?

Yes, but only on the company’s time, not on your own time. I suppose if you were a slave the master’s demand would need to be met. However, we are guaranteed the right of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and a reasonable person would conclude that it is an individual’s right, not trumped by an employment contract, to put cigarette smoke or trans fats into one’s body.

So, do you think an employment contract mandating whether you can smoke, or not, is reasonable and fair?

That was my question. What happened to the smokers that were hired before this policy change? I highly doubt if they would have agreed to such a drastic change, one that included interference in their private lives. The argument that they don’t have a right to a job goes out the window if the company arbitrarily and unilaterally makes a 180 degree turn.

Btw, I have nothing against reasonable and fair voluntary contracts.

P.S. we make discriminatory choices all the time. The question is not whether a contract is discriminatory, they all are. If I choose to hire you over someone less qualified, I have made a choice that involves discrimination. The question is whether the choices made were ethical, or not. Changing a contract without negotiation isn’t ethical, to most people.

Additionally, I like to hear your take on the voluntary contract discussed here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6fkkdoDOIJM&mode=related&search=