Surcharge for Smoking?

As was discussed in my previous post, regarding SCHIP funding, the proposal was to draw monies from an increased Cigarette tax to help defray costs for the maintenance of SCHIP. Now, to clarify, I am no smoking enthusiast, nor is my wife, but as I mentioned in class, I am a fiend for personal liberties, as defined by the Constitution of the United States. What this is all circling around is a penalty for being a smoker, implemented by employers. Why? "Smokers cost more to insure" or "Smokers make other employees uncomfortable" and such. While it can be agreed in relative consensus that smoking is unhealthy, it is a choice that a person has made. In that light, and no other, is what protects tobacco, alcohol and other "questionable" material. As it is right now, there are certain establishments and towns that enforce certain ordinances and regulations regarding smoking patrons - either permitting it or denying it in that establishment. Or, alternatively, the smoker is only permitted to smoke in certain designated zones, like 20 feet from the doorway. However, artificially increasing the cost of health insurance, similar to how the Harrison legislation artificially increased the cost of marijuana, makes the coverage or activity essentially impossible. What is being circled around is the notion that those who use the said products are human too. While taxes are implemented by governments around the world on a plethora of items like gasoline, cigarettes and alcohol, it is not permissible for a business entity to assume that kind of power, and essentially tax their employee. That employee is harming themself, and nobody else; studies have not made a cogent argument describing how much second-hand smoke causes illness. That person who smokes may be the most intellegent person in the company, but due to some policy (which goes against the freedom of choice), that person is given a smaller salary, while a person who does not smoke, but is an idiot, is given a untaxed salary. The argument that a person can always pick a different employer is the same as the above, wherein if "the activity is too expensive, then do not do it" - it is making an artifical decision for the citizen. This is something expressly prohibited by the Constitution.