Humana is the latest addition in a growing list of employers who refuse to hire workers who smoke or use tobacco products.

In an announcement,Humana said that as of today,it will no longer hire workers in Arizona who smoke or use other tobacco products. The ban will be enforced by testing new employees for nicotine use during a pre-employment urine drug screen.

Banning tobacco for its new employees is not new for Humana –they implemented a similar ban in Ohio two years ago. Unlike the Arizona ban,the Ohio ban didn’t test employees for nicotine use. But Humana said that their efforts have worked nonetheless –78% of Humana’s Ohio employees report being tobacco-free.

Testing for nicotine use is not new in Arizona,either. A new health plan in Maricopa County required employees to submit saliva samples to be tested for nicotine. Testing negative for nicotine means saving almost $500 on insurance premiums relative to those who test positive or refuse to take the test.

Legal experts say nothing under Arizona state law prohibits employers from not hiring smokers. However,in Kentucky (Humana’s headquarters), smokers have been declared a “protected class”under state law. According to the American Lung Association, 29 states and the District of Columbia consider smokers a protected class.

I think we can all agree that tobacco use is bad for you. But for me, the jury is still out on refusing to hire someone because of tobacco use. Those in favor of banning smokers from employment argue that the practice increases worker productivity,reduces healthcare costs,and encourages healthier living. Others argue that these kinds of bans are discriminatory hiring practices,plain and simple. An op-ed piece in the Des Moines Register said that these kinds of policies are “stepping over the line by making jobs contingent on whether people test positive or negative for a substance that is legal to buy and use.”

Others are thinking about the “slippery slope”argument. Dr. Michael Siegel, a professor at Boston University School of Public Health, is a tobacco-control advocate. But he and co-author Brian Houle, of the University of Washington,fear that refusing to hire smokers may lead to the adoption of other selective employment practices, such as not hiring people who are overweight or who have high cholesterol.

What do you think? Are smokers less productive? Should organizations have the right to refuse to hire people whose lifestyles are in conflict with company policy? What about the “slippery slope”camp –do they have a valid argument, or are they just blowing smoke?