Well that was a long winded way of avoiding the point(s) of the author
of this post. The post had nothing outlawing risk. The post was
about the freedom of an employer, of a high tech job, in a mission
critical situation, to make sure the employees working for him, her
(them) competed for that position by not bringing to work the
associated habits and problems normally associated with smokers.

And Joe Pags acts like a stubborn mule because he does not like to be
proven wrong? Hey Joe, beer is legal. Does your boss let you drink
beer on the job? Why not? You can buy your own breath tester, you
can drink, what, six ounces of beer an hour and not get drunk, so why
don't we see people walking around with cans of Budweiser?

Joe Pags, I hate to say it, sounded like an union thug today, hey, I
have a RIGHT to that job, don't you DARE deny me employment, why
smoking is legal? And that's the problem with unions, you get a
popular idea, and the union acts as a buffer between accountability
between the citizen and the politician? Your life sucks? The
politician can say, its the union's fault, hang in there a few more
years, things will get better?

That's why they love unions? I take the same position as the author
of this post, we should grand father out tobacco products, those who
can't buy it now, should not be able to in the future, because we know
it is an addictive drug with harmful effects that are preventable. If
you are already hooked to tobacco, I would say they should still be
able to work there (in the hospital), since they have contributed to
the success of that organization, and if you are hooked to cigarettes
and are in medical school, investing your time and money, there should
be some wiggle room in there too before you would change your policy
like that.

Tobacco is also supported for one simple reason, it gets girls to try
things they wouldn't normally do? They figure if they let their guard
down for a cigarette, they'll let something else down too? Well, you
folks opened the can of worms by bringing up the subject, not me?
While I can support a hospital avoiding smokers as employees, in
reality it really comes down to the workers. I might own or run the
hospital, it might be my (our) money, and while I might have a legal
right to ask employees to compete for those positions in my
organization, I have to have the numbers to make it work. In some
towns it might be a good idea, but bad timing?

The sad part of this arguement is that if you smoke, you'll close a
lot of doors. They will smell it on the interview, somebody will
check your car while you are being interviewed, or you might work for
a couple weeks and then get laid off? Hospitals are high stress
environments sometimes, and it just seems odd that people would even
want to smoke, after watching people get sick from it. People that
work in hospitals demand the best pay, well, are they earning it, if
they demand cigarette breaks, or get sick later down the road?

Every time you walk outside to smoke a cigarette, you expose yourself
to more germs, more avenues for airborne disease to attach itself to
your clothes, and you go walking back into rooms full of sick people?
Some people smoke for years and something else happens to them (or
they bank on that thought when starting to smoke) but the sad fact of
the matter is that lung disease is one of the most painful ways you
can become sick?

How bout a beer, Mr. Mojo?

Enjoy the weekend........

Joe Pags still rocks, he just can't roll on this subject? Hey, I
make mistakes too, you guys already know I can't spell? LOL.

He was standing in the hole, waiting for something to develop
and ........looking forward to that moment this weekend?

LOL. (wink!)