[Zenbit_UX]

> "Slippery slope" is a really weak argument, anyway.

The slippery slope is the only argument here. Testing for legal and somewhat socially tolerated substances is an encroachment of civil liberties.

> Those don't really seem comparable to me.

Neither would marijuana and tobacco smoking to someone in the 1950s.

[coldpie]

> Testing for legal and somewhat socially tolerated substances is an encroachment of civil liberties.

I don't agree. The government isn't involved here at all, so no civil liberties are being encroached. On the contrary, requiring that companies hire people even if they smoke is an encroachment on the company owners' civil liberties. For something as clearly optional and harmful both to the smoker and their coworkers, I don't think being a smoker is worthy of having protected class status.

You are free to smoke; they are free to not hire you for smoking; and you are free to not work for them due to their policies. This seems like a fine situation to me.

[dsfyu404ed]

>The government isn't involved here at all, so no civil liberties are being encroached.

The government is legally bound to respect your civil liberties.

Every other entity is just bound by their conscience and the consequences of their actions (we still live in a free-ish society after all). While what Uhaul is doing it not illegal it is still highly disagreeable from a civil liberties and employee rights standpoint.

Legal does not imply morally sound and vise versa.

[coldpie]

Why do the company owners' civil liberties matter less than the employees'?

[anoncake]

Being able to give someone else orders, in this case telling them they aren't allowed to smoke, isn't freedom. It's the opposite.