I was going to say that...hire only qualified employees. In this (future) case, "non-smoker" COULD BECOME a job requirement. Basically, if you smoke you're not qualified. People who are afraid of heights don't apply for a job to build sky scrapers. The future has arrived, they're discriminating as I type. If these types of practices continue and they probably will, might as well change the old red, white and blue to all red.
Take the fight for $15/hr minimum wage for instance. If I were a business owner and the Govt demanded I pay my employees $15/hr I would re-write all of my job descriptions and make it a requirement that anyone without a high school diploma/GED does not meet my minimum educational requirements. That's not discrimination if it's a qualification requirement. Different topic.
One of the internships I was went through had a minimum requirement of an Associate's degree. This is a legit job qualification. Don't have one? The individual doesn't qualify. Whether a person uses tobacco products or not has nothing to do with job qualification. Either way would be discrimination.
Employers are always trying to keep costs down so profit remains steady or grows. That only makes sense from a business point. If 1 employee smokes everyone's premium goes up. It would only make sense they would want non-smokers. They sure do, so that gives them every right to discriminate, right? We'll see how you feel about this topic when they decide to not hire people that drink in order to save money. Have you seen the latest studies on alcohol consumption and its effect on one's health? That one is probably next.
Smoking is a choice. A self-inflicted addiction. I know. I smoked for 18 years, but I quit (the first time I tried) back on March 1 , 1990, coming up on 28 years. Congratulations to you, that's good.