What's the problem with Weyco, Inc., firing employees for smoking off the job? This is nothing new and it's barely newsworthy. A column in "USA Today" from Feb. 8th claims at least 6,000 employers refuse to hire smokers.

In case you missed it, Weyco, a medical benefits company in Michigan, fired six employees when they discovered they were smoking away from work, on their own time at home or elsewhere. Weyco says it is trying to lower health care costs and improve employee health in general.

All of a sudden people are wondering if a company has the right to dictate what their employees do when they are not at work. What will be next, they ask. Fast food junkies? Too much fat and cholesterol in those Big Mac's! Spend too much time in front of the television or computer and not enough time exercising? Sorry, we only hire physically fit people!

The National Organization for Women has preached for years that a woman has the "right to choose" what to do with her body. NOW, of course, applies this mainly to the right to choose an abortion without government interference.

But I like the concept of an absolute right to choose. Indeed, why should an employer be able to forbid an employee from smoking in their off hours? Or having a couple glasses of wine? A beer or three? Or smoking a little pot now and again?

Pre-employment drug and alcohol screening has been common for years. This practice, to the best of my knowledge, has gone unchallenged. It's only logical that employers would expand this screening to include any off-duty behaviour they deem unacceptable. When you willingly give up one right for the so-called greater good, why complain when even more rights are taken away?