The Michigan-based company Weyco, gave its staff a stark ultimatum at the end of last year - either stop smoking completely on 1 January or leave their jobs.

If the firm survives a potential legal challenge, it could set a precedent but opponents say it is a violation of workers' rights to indulge whatever habits they choose to when they are off-duty.

Should firms, healthcare or otherwise, be allowed to introduce a no smoking policy? Is it a violation of workers' rights? If you smoke, would you quit to keep your job? Send us your views.

This debate is now closed. Thank you for your comments.

The following comments reflect the balance of opinion we received:

It is still discrimination Ian, UK Expat

Sounds like the film "Gattica" where you cannot get a job unless your genetic makeup is excellent. We've had discrimination on race - now we're into non traditional discrimination - weight, habits, morals, thought patterns, leisure activities! It is still discrimination, it doesn't value the diversity or freedom of the individual
Ian, UK Expat

I don't like smoking but I'm disgusted that an employer thinks it has the right to dictate what people do at home like this. Is this freedom? No it's not.
Matt Taylor, Reading

"I am a hardcore atheist and fully believe that any contact with religious organizations is harmful to a person's mental health. Since this negatively affects performance at work I am going to fire any worker spotted at church. Just for good measure I will also have unscheduled searches to see if they have bibles hidden in their homes." OK, back to reality. There are clear guidelines of what employees are allowed to do outside work; it is called the law. Your employees are not breaking any laws by smoking (not yet anyway). The employer on the other hand is legally on very thin ice. Get real!
Robert Arisz, Amsterdam

Smokers are the first ones to bring colds and the flu to work Lori, Dallas, TX

Smoking is a lousy, filthy habit that kills people and causes undue hardship on their loved ones, including their children. I work with several smokers and the one thing I've observed about smokers, is that they are the first ones to bring colds and the flu to work. These nasty contagious viral infections spread at the office like wildfire. It's pretty obvious their immune system has been weakened.
Lori, Dallas, TX

Please do not stereotype this as "Corporate Control". First, it is a health related company. Second, employment contracts are "at will", meaning either side can void them as they choose. I think the better approach, since it seems that the company's main concern is health care cost, is to charge a higher premium to the employees and then discount for those who do not smoke. This would attain their goal of reducing health costs for risky behaviour, and still allow someone who does choose to smoke, the ability to help pay what it actually may cost the health insurance company cover charges for ailments due to smoking.
Dan, Royal Oak, MI, USA

I have never smoked in my life, I detest the stinking habit, and I sympathise with companies whose workers spend most of their time on smoking breaks, but this action cannot be allowed to stand. This is the first step down a very steep and slippery slope.
Barry, Peterborough, UK

A clear example of American capitalism gone mad Jose, Paris, France

A clear example of American capitalism gone mad, those who advocate a minimal state in the name of 'freedom' are sometimes oblivious to the fact that the void left by the state is then rapidly occupied by unelected private companies. And though there can be some accountability (don't buy this company's product) it is not a 'one man one vote' system. Will the company be monitoring if people are having unsafe sex next? (which could be deemed to be more dangerous than smoking).
Jose, Paris, France

This whole thing is just a scam the company has devised to make money from the insurance its employees pay. If the goal was to help the employee's health then they could just offer insurance discounts to the employees who do not smoke.
Vera H, Greece

Doubtless the company provides private health care insurance for its employees as part of the package. I'd start by withdrawing that rather than sacking them.
Peter, Nottingham

Just keep tightening the screws fellas. Unbelievable!
Tom, Portsmouth, UK

If my boss wants to tell me what to do 24 hours a day, he'd better pay me for all of those hours Bill, Leicester, UK

This an absolute disgrace. If you are employed for 8 hours a day, what goes on in the remaining 16 is none of your employer's business. If my boss wants to tell me what to do 24 hours a day, he'd better pay me for all of those hours.
Bill, Leicester, UK

As a smoker I am happy to abide by any laws regarding where I can smoke. This is ridiculous though. Would the people standing up for this company have done so if the people involved were HIV+, or had a communicable disease. Why not sack someone with flu, they could sneeze on me and give me the same. By the way, we pay more tax than the pious non-smokers and I have private healthcare which I pay for so it is my choice.
Jon, Durban, South Africa

I am an avid non-smoker, and I could understand a company having different health coverage options for smokers and non-smokers, but I believe that the company has no right to tell people what to do away from the office if it does not substantially affect the business.
Lars Higham, West Lebanon, NH, USA

Let's tone down the "police state" rhetoric. We are not talking about a national policy, but rather whether a company whose principal function is to promote health care has the right to hire only healthy people. Can't a modelling agency hire only beautiful people? Of course they can, just as they can fire any employee who gets fat. The fact is that smoking is incompatible with the job at this particular company. No one has a god-given right to work there if they do not meet the standards of the job.
Hank, Las Vegas USA

I have never smoked and absolutely loathe it but I would never work for a company which carried out such a test - working for them must be hell.
Rob, UK

Enough is known about the serious side effects of smoking (to smokers and passive smokers alike), that people who continue with this foul habit must surely be weak-willed, weak-kneed, or just plain stupid. If I was a company president, I certainly would not want such people on my staff. Bravo to the Weyco company, and any other which follows its lead!
Jimfg, Nagoya, Japan

I'm fed up of people having a go at smokers for harming themselves and the environment Dave, UK

I'm fed up of people having a go at smokers for harming themselves and the environment. If there is anyone who hasn't ever used salt or caffeine or alcohol or fat or a car then maybe you can point the finger, but most people have used these things and they damage your health as well as well as the environment. And as for 'paying for this filthy habit' the amount of tax we pay on cigarettes each year would more then pay for any hospital bills we may have to pay later in life. It's strange the country that is fighting all over the world for freedom and you don't have freedom in your own country.
Dave, UK

An interesting point is that people presume that smoking costs the insurance companies more. Not so. When people smoke, they generally die younger. When you are dead, you are not costing anything. When people live to a very old age, they cost a huge amount of money. Not to mention the fact that all of the tax money generated through smoking, if everyone quit, you would be paying far more in taxes.
Scott Cheadle, Brit in Zurich

Nicotine is not the only thing. Smoking also brings two major benefits that are never mentioned: people feel better because of the increase in flow of lymph. They also benefit from the alkaline effect on the saliva. These are also factors that make it harder to stop smoking.
JT, London, UK

I love reading all the self-righteous comments from certain people as they proclaim that smokers should not be able to work. Would these same people be so firm in their standpoint if an obesity clause was introduced? That kills far more people from heart disease in the US. How about a clause banning any workers from owning a car that has in excess of a 1 litre engine due to the toxins engines produce? Make no mistake, Weyco's stance is not moral, it is monetary. I doubt that all the free publicity will counterbalance the lawsuits though.
Dan, Hampton, UK

Let's see...There are two obvious ways to encourage change here: Penalize employees for unhealthy behaviour away from work due to risk of increasing health care costs, versus establishing incentives for employees who proactively engage in a healthful lifestyle. Since most of their employees were not smokers, it looks to me like Weyco's just out to enhance its bottom line - pious and smarmy PR flackery aside. It's always cheaper to punish a few than reward many.
Jim, Los Angeles; USA

This is sick.... This is Orwell's predictions coming true....They have no right to tell anyone what to do at home. Absurd and twisted.
Craig, New Ipswich USA

Where will it end? Katherine, Los Angeles, USA

I'm willing to bet the company has a coffee maker. Caffeine is also unhealthy for you. So are the chemicals in our food and the radiation of the microwave. The air that we breathe, even in a smoke-free environment, isn't exactly good for us either. Where will it end?
Katherine, Los Angeles, USA

Forcing someone to quit their job because they refuse to stop smoking in their private life is against individual freedom to choose. If companies are worried smokers cost more to insure why not simply make them pay for their own higher insurance premiums?
Norman Lowe, British Expat in the Middle East

Wow, that's very scary. Here in Europe we are celebrating the 60th "anniversary" of the liberation of those horrible camps, in which, people were exterminated because they were not considered "pure". They started like that, no Jews in theatre or anywhere they could annoy the "good" people. They shouldn't have resigned, it gave reason to the company. You must fight for your rights...
Jason, France

I would never work for a company who tested for that. I will not smoke in restaurants and pubs if it is banned. I will not smoke in the office if it is banned. I will not smoke in the home of a non smoking friend. However, what I do in my own home is my own business. I fear the type of society that doesn't let its citizens have a moment's peace. Isn't that a police state?
Sarah, Brussels, Belgium

Smokers are not productive workers Jim, Dubai, UAE

Smokers are not productive workers. They are either out smoking, going to or from the smoke area or they are thinking about going for a smoke.
Jim, Dubai, UAE

An employment contract specifies different limitations, and these are subject to approval from both parties prior to employment. A non-smoking policy in my view is possible. Besides, no one has the right to intoxicate anyone else.
Andree Dayer, Geneva, Switzerland

To Andree Dayer: no one is intoxicating anyone else. People will be fired for smoking privately (by themselves without anyone else present even) in their own home.
Matthew, San Jose, CA, USA

Smokers should not be allowed to work. They pose a lot of danger. It is not professional to smoke.
Gilsey Eyiah-Sampson, Accra, Ghana

America is a strange place, we proclaim we're for freedom but we always have to create an underdog to stomp on.
Marvin Bote, Houston, USA

I don't smoke, I don't drink, but I do go out with friends who do both. As sitting with them for a night out is the equivalent of smoking a pack of cigarettes, would I be fired due to the impact on my health?
Jane, Newcastle, UK

I wonder if people who use nicotine patches will flunk the test? Curt Clay, San Diego, CA., USA

As a Public Health Nurse I've spent considerable time trying to help people quit smoking, but never thought of simply having them lose their jobs as an incentive to do so. I wonder if people who use nicotine patches will flunk the test? The people who have these problems suffer the consequences regardless, and now we take their jobs? Right now I can tell you the names of two cardiac surgeons who smoke, but are not confronted because they are a large part of hospital income.
Curt Clay, San Diego, CA., USA

Utter nonsense. Smoking is unhealthy indeed, but it is only one of many unhealthy things that people choose to do, like not exercising or eating burgers. The logical extension of this is a world where the company you work for can determine every aspect of your behaviour away from the office (what you eat, how much you exercise, when you go to bed, what kind of underwear you wear in cold weather etc) The only allowable reasons for being sacked should be incompetence and/or dishonesty. You private life is just that - private.
Max Sommers, Athens, Greece

Those who do not wear seat belts have higher car insurance, so why not have smokers pay the higher premiums? Too bad the entire staff did not quit over this act.
Robert McLaughlin, Angelus Oaks, CA

I hope that this anti-smoking stand of the Weyco owner stands up in court Karl, Toronto

As a Canadian who lived and worked in the US for a number of years, I appreciate the American corporate ability to enforce drug testing and I hope that this anti-smoking stand of the Weyco owner stands up in court. Smoking is not a healthy practice. If a company wishes to employ the healthiest people it can, I applaud the action. We need to de-normalize smoking as acceptable. In Canada there are even some family doctors who will not accept smokers as patients.

I say, if a person is stupid enough to deliberately injure their health, they deserve all negative consequences they encounter as a result of their choice. Just because people have the right to choose an action does not mean that they are devoid of any responsibility for their choices. For far too long people have equated the 'my rights' stand as an exemption from 'consequences'. Weyco's attempt at 'consequences' is wonderful!
Karl, Toronto, Canada

Employers should stick to what affects people's ability to do their job properly. We elect people to represent us in moderating our society, not some unelected business suit who's outlook reflects only him/herself and a small group of executives.
Charles, London

That policy will not survive a court challenge. You might not agree with smoking however it's legal and has no affect on one's ability to do their job. How can this company think that regulating off hours behaviour will be upheld?
James, NY, USA

This sets an extremely dangerous precedent, what is next? James, San Francisco

This sets an extremely dangerous precedent, what is next? Get fired because you enjoy sky diving (a moderately dangerous activity), get fired because you don't exercise, get fired because you watch too much TV? While I dislike smoking, and applaud the company for helping people to quit, I don't see any way that the company can fire people for participating in a legal activity!
James, San Francisco, USA

It is always good to discover that your employer is not only interested in the work you do for them but also assisting you to protect and preserve what you can do best. As a healthcare organisation, they are supposed to be pacesetters. I support them. May be it is part of their core values and we are all aware how smoking cigarettes could be dangerous to one's health.
Paul

I'm tired of subsidizing the outcome of this filthy habit Rob G, Kansas City, USA

Firing may be a bit extreme, however I agree with the policy as smoking impacts insurance premiums and overall healthcare costs paid by non-smokers. I'm tired of subsidizing the outcome of this filthy habit.
Rob G, Kansas City, USA

Just curious - whom works for who? I wholeheartedly applaud the company. If the employees want to kill themselves with their smoking, they'd best not do it on the company's (or on my insurance company's) dime!
Matt, Topton, North Carolina, USA

Why stop here? Soda causes tooth decay. We should fire all employees drinking soda because they raise the cost of dental care.
Joseph Wojciechowski, New Jersey, USA

Living in Canada we get daily reminders of how lucky we are to live north of the US border. Regular unscheduled drug tests for all employees, non-mandatory benefits, and a ridiculously low minimum wage clearly illustrate that the USA is not the land of the free. Canadians would revolt over this type of corporate control.
Christopher Borycheski, Toronto, Canada