Leaving the election behind for a moment, here's (http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/business/2874644) an article discussing a recent corporate trend: adding non-smoker to the list of qualifications for work. Some companies are going this route, and the article suggests the practice is growing.

For myself, while I can see why a company may prefer to higher non-smokers, this does seem an extreme tactic (especially nicotene testing) with questionable ramifications (e.g., basing hiring on weight). Thoughts?

You can't see why I'd hire a non-smoker? Maybe you haven't seen the hours a day the smokers in my building waste standing outside, chained to their cigarettes, rain or shine.

Maybe because it's a disgusting habbit, and we'd prefer our employees not smell like an ashtray when they're giving a presentation or meeting potential customer/client.

Outside of weight as a disibility, you're free to hire or fire on any non-protected class of citizens (Title VII, ADA, etc). I could hire only Coke drinkers and fire all Pepsi drinkers if I wanted.

I bet the smokers could sue and win on that one.

For myself, while I can see why a company may prefer to higher non-smokersYou can't see why I'd hire a non-smoker?Hmm... ;)
Personally I think it's a good idea but then again I am against all forms of drugs.

I generally find that non smokers are more productive, don't take the 2 15 minute breaks alotted per day, and don't spend 2 hours packing a fucking box of smokes before the 15 minute break instead of working.

I am the only non smoker in my department. When they go out to smoke, I usually either stay at my desk working(surfing the web) or I go grab a soda and return to my desk.

If I owned a company, I would definately prefer an employee who didn't smoke for reasons already listed.

why a company may prefer to higher non-smokers,Bold added by me. It is always nice to catch Thormir in a typo.

Anyhow, on Topic:
I wonder if they will go after those who dip/chew next.

are dip/chewers taking a huge alotment out of their day to take a dipping or chewing break?

Appearance is a big reason why people don't get hired for jobs, and I can see smoking as an extension of ones appearance. I don't see it being that bad.

My company is tobacco free..curb to curb. I love it..nothing sucked worse than having to work next to a chain smoking feind who thought it was his right to do so. Nasty fucking habit.

I bet the smokers could sue and win on that one.Smokers aren't a protect class of worker. Good luck.

Under FEDERAL law, the following are protected classes (and only apply to companies with 15 or more employees):

Race
Color
National origin
Sex (includes pregnancy-related conditions)
Religion
Retaliation (for opposing unlawful employment practices, for filing a complaint, for testifying about olations or possible violations)
Age (40 and older in companies with 20+ employees)
Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (in companies with 50+ employees)
Americans with Disabilities Act
Association with protected class
A number of states/counties/cities have additional protected classes, such as:

Marital Status
Juvinile Records
Sexual Orientation
Now, before you ask, some states/counties/cities include the following as a protected class:

Use of lawful tobacco products on off-duty hours
Long story short, if you don't live in Oregon (or another state that makes you a protected class of worker because you're a nicotine addict) you're boned. Get a new job, addict.

A simple enough defense is the sick hours used and health care costs of the smokers vs. non-smokers. There can be many other arguments tossed up about time needed for smoke breaks, odor, negative impact on the business having to have a smoking area that does not affect non-smokers with second hand smoke, etc. But, the real nitty gritty regarding smokers and the workplace is going to be tied to healthcare costs and worker productivity/sick leave.

Insurers are also targetting smokers for higher premiums, so an employer paying premiums is going to want to pay the smaller one.

A much simpler defense is, "I don't like smokers, and they're not a protected class of workers, so fuck them straight in the goat-ass."

I think the basic fact is that if its not illegal for an entire STATE to declare itself a non-smoking section, and if cities and counties and townships accross the country are slowly following this trend (and lets face it folks, we aren't talking about backcountry Texas or Oklahoma here ... these types of cituations are most likely happening in urban centers.

If Hooters can only hire chicks with big boobs and if the Gap can only hire 18-24 year olds, I'm sure corporate companies won't have any problems.

we aren't talking about backcountry Texas or Oklahoma here ...
Sooooo.... backcountry Texas and Oklahoma are havens for cigarette puffing, nicotine addicted candidates for lung transplants?

That would be backcountry North Carolina, Gandaar ;). When last I visited my parents there (early '90s) it was still very much tobacco country...

Regards,
Nydia

Even in RTP, which is the most urban, educated area of North Carolina- there are still quite a few smokers.