system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
CMV: It's ok for employers to discriminate against smokers

Sorry if this is a repeat but I couldn't find a similar post, so...

I think employers should be able to discriminate against smokers in some situations. For instance jobs that require physical fitness testing (cops, military, etc.) should be allowed to ask if you smoke and incorporate that into their decision to hire you. Not that they'll never hire a smoker, but that it should be allowed to be part of the decision. Similarly employees shouldn't get special treatment for smoke breaks. If the employee makes a special agreement as part of their contract, that's fine, but employers shouldn't need to give smokers extra breaks for smoking. If they want to give all employees those breaks or allow smokers to take lunch time to smoke breaks, that's fine, but it's up to the employer. If an employer does't allow a smoker to take breaks outside of the normal, designated, non-smoker break times, the employer isn't doing any wrong (legally and morally).

&#x200B;

Edit: There's some redundancy in responses to I'm going to try to address them all here. If I missed your response in this edit, feel free to let me know.

Extra smoke breaks: most people seem to think smokers shouldn't deserve extra breaks and there was just some confusion on what entailed extra breaks or whether it even happened. So seemingly  there's not much of an argument smokers should get extra smoke breaks that nonsmokers don't have.

Not allowing smoking on the premises: I hadn't thought about that, but it's a good point. If there's a medical reason or even if the employer just thinks it's a bad look for the company, employers should be allowed to say no smoking on the premises. And if there is an employer that wants to say you can't come in smelling like nicotine at all because of medical reasons/allergies I think that's fine.  I assume that's a very small minority of companies, but if an employer wants to create a medically safe place for allergies that's fair. 

Discrimination based on personal preferences: I don't condone this though I do recognize it happens. If an employer doesn't want to hire a smoker because they think the smoker is lazy or bad or whatever, that shouldn't be allowed (though it's hard to prove and does happen for other things like obesity and probably happens for smoking)

What constitutes smoking or being a smoker: This is up to the employer and they can define it however they want. I understand it's not a binary of your either a pack a day or never, but employers can determine the definition for themselves.

Other factors: There are definitely other factors that can be discriminated against and are discriminated against. A lot of people have brought up weight and that is something used to discriminate. Jobs like police, military and even flight attendants all have BMI requirements. But this isn't an askreddit on what should be allowed to be discriminated against or a cmv: all discrimination is acceptable, so I'm not going to try to make a comprehensive list on what factors should or shouldn't be discriminatable factors. I'm just saying employers should be allowed to discriminate based on smoking. And I don't mean because the interviewer doesn't like smokers personally or saying no smokers ever (except for medical reasons), but rather employers should be allowed to incorporate that into their decision to hire and can weigh it against the applicant

Wait until it effects their job: Most jobs don't have a binary on job effectiveness. So you can't just say they're doing their job or they're not. It's about job effectiveness and an employer wants the most effective employee so it's fair to hold things that could effect the employees ability to do their job against them. I know there are other factors, but in my experience interviewers usually try to get a complete picture to determine total effectiveness. Plus for many jobs it's much harder to fire someone than not hire them, so waiting until they can't do the job is a risk. Lastly medical premiums won't just go away if someone's good at their job. So even a model employee who's a smoker may not be hired because the employer doesn't want the added insurance premium and I think that's fair. I'd moved several times in a few years so I'd moved jobs several times and an employer was a little hesitant to hire me because they thought I might leave quickly. That's in no way addressing my ability to do the job, they just didn't want to waste money/time training me just to have me leave when they could have an employee who more likely stay. So if there were two equally qualified employees and the employer chose the one more likely to stay, that's fair. If there's two equally qualified employees and one will have added insurance premiums it's fair to take the one without premiums.
gpt
If something isn’t directly affecting their ability to do the job, it shouldn’t be legal to inquire about. Why should people be forced to give any company information that isn’t important to the position?