This is the real question our society should be struggling with. How pedantic and prejudiced should we get about what people have to pay for their freedoms? If it's legal, should people be financially discriminated against? Is a statistical basis really reasonable to use as the basis for individual discrimination? It seems the courts have decided it is not when it comes to things like predictive policing (at leaning that way). But it seems in civil issues, if you can show a correlation, you can legally say "fuck you". Of course that only works if is not a protected class, which perhaps increases the illustration of the irony.

Have you ever been around cigarette smoker when you have a cold? I don't think you quite understand how much smoking/vaping is saying fuck you to those around you.

There are plenty of activities that are as bad or worse than simply being around a smoker (while they are not smoking).

What I'm getting is that you don't like something and think it should be fine to discriminate against those individuals. If this is the paradigm we're going for, then let us also discriminate on politics, clothing choices, speech accents, etc. Why should we employ people who we don't agree with?

> Of course the logical next question would be, “why just smoking?”

This is not a logical question because anybody w/ half a brain knows the answer: It’s just smoking because decades of legislation, media coverage, cultural change, demonization, ostracization, etc.

The next logical question is how they define smoker, and how they enforce it.

It’s self reported. We have to check a checkbox during open enrollment.

I assume there is a heavy penalty if they find out a person lied, but I don’t smoke, so I never paid much attention to it.

There might be blurry lines at the margins, but it's a simple enough concept.

A person that puts one end of something in their mouth and while the other end is on fire.