We all know smoking is a disgusting, unhealthy and unnecessary habit. But should smokers pay more for their employer-sponsored health insurance?

The Tribune Company, which owns major newspapers including the Los Angeles Times and the Chicago Tribune, says "Yes"-- and they are not alone.

The media conglomerate is drawing fire from its unionized employees for imposing a $100 monthly fee on workers (and their covered family members) who smoke. Company officials say it is a necessary cost-containment effort, as they pay the lion's share of insurance coverage.

Union leaders say the fee is just an additional (and contract-forbidden) premium, and it could lead the company down the proverbial slippery slope. A writer at the South Florida Sun-Sentinel posted this in a blog item:

"Will there be fees for alcohol use? Eating fast food? Having high cholesterol? Not adhering to proper weight/body mass guidelines?" he wrote, in part. "The other thing that gets me is that there’s no reward for not being a smoker. If the company imposed a surcharge on smokers and then gave a proportionate break to all the non-smokers I could maybe be a little more positive about the whole thing. Instead, everyone’s premiums, deductibles, co-pays and out-of-pocket maximums are going up next year...

My two cents:

1. It's a fact that smokers are much more likely to deal with chronic and expensive health conditions, as well as endanger the health of those around them. I think it is fair to ask them to pay more for insurance.

2. Smoking is a choice; eating is, obviously, necessary for survival. So while obesity and diabetes and high cholesterol are very real problems, healthy and nutritious food isn't equally affordable or accessible to everyone, thanks in part to misguided government policies and subsidies. So penalizing poor people for eating off the dollar menu at McDonald's isn't a valid comparison.

The health care situation in this country is an undeniable mess, but I am grateful to my employers for offering me and my family insurance. If not for them, I would be uninsurable, thanks to a burst appendix and the emergency surgery that followed 9 years ago.

I do agree with the writer quoted above that rewarding non-smokers makes more sense than just penalizing those who light up. My former employer (another major newspaper company) had a "Wellness Rewards Program" that refunded us up to two months of insurance premiums for doing simple things like getting dental check-ups, regular Pap smears and flu shots; exercising regularly; and not smoking or at least trying to quit.

What do you think? Is it fair to penalize smokers? Is it too Big Brother-ish? And am I the only one who gets irrationally angry when I see some troglodyte tossing a butt out their car window and using the world as their personal ashtray? (In case you're wondering...yes, I believe that my personal feelings toward smoking color my view on the health insurance issue.)

Discuss...and take the poll!