On Jan 22, 7:15*am, MagneticEnergy wrote:
I was listening to Joe Paggs this morning, who I love to listen to,
but who is as stubborn as a mule (in a good way) about the issues,
talk about a hospital denying employment to people that smoke, try to
spin the issue as some kind of debate about liberty.

This issue has nothing to do with liberty of citizens, this has to do
with the ability of a company to have the liberty to experience its
employees being competitive. To boil this down really quick, most
medical professions require a certain amount of continuing education
on a yearly basis, and many hospitals pay for that expense.

Why should they invest in you, as an employee, if they know 15 years
from now you the chances of you going to become unreliable, and sick,
because of smoking? Why can't the employer just say, hey, you don't
have a right to a job, you've got to compete for it?

And frankly, I've heard the argument before, and it makes me sick, is
that Tobacco will NEVER be outlawed because there is too much tax
money involved. REALLY? *I take great offense to that, especially when
the federal government is building God Blessed turtle crossings in
Florida.

If Americans can NOT suck up and pay a few hundred dollars in taxes
every year, then you are a bunch of wimps, you are a bunch of sissies,
a bunch of girlie men, how are you going to survive? *Farmers can grow
corn or soy instead?

Here's my thoughts, GRANDFATHER OUT TOBACCO. * The kids that can't buy
it now, can't in the future. *Cut out your pork barrel projects, and
you won't need the extra taxes?

Being that this is the most powerful *keyboard in the world, the most
smacketh downeth erectus among us, you've got to ask yourself a
question, do you feel lucky?

Well do you want to think *--- of junk?

Luv ya like a brother Paggs -- I disagree with ya.

I'm not a smoker and I don't like to be around smokers. Yet I am
astounded at the amount of grief smokers get. No doubt smoking is bad
for you. About a third of smokers die of some smoking-related illness.
Second-hand smoke also poses a threat to bystanders. But don't MOST of
the things we do pose a threat to bystanders? My late grandmother once
broke her hip walking through a park. A guy who was involved in a game
of touch football ran into her by accident, causing her to fall. Do we
outlaw walks in the park? Touch football?

And what about fatty foods? Sharp objects? Poisonous substances? Skis?
Roller skates? If we're going to make a list of all the things we do
or products we use that are potentially harmful to ourselves and
others, you'd better settle in and get comfortable because pretty much
everything will be on that list. And yet, for some reason, people save
up all their wrath for smokers. At the very mention of smoking,
tempers flare and rationality goes straight out the window.

I just don't get it. Is it because tobacco companies spent so much
time and money trying to deceive everyone about the potential ill
effects of tobacco use? Suppose that in 1962 or so, tobacco companies
had simply fessed up and said that tobacco use might well give you
cancer in the long term and poses various additional health risks. If
this had happened, my guess is that we'd all still be smoking and
would view the health risks associated with tobacco as akin to the
health risks associated with alcohol or fat or sodium or exposure to
the sun. Or maybe I'm wrong, but there has to be some explanation of
why people's reaction to one set of risks are so disproportionate to
their reactions to other risks.

What's especially fascinating right now is the absolute rage many
people are venting at the idea of electronic cigarettes...despite the
fact that the latter contain no tobacco whatsoever!