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.

Wake up; it's already 7:26 in the morning here. The damn regime can't
even keep CRACK - never was legal anywhere in America, requiring
ingredients not grown in America - from being easily available to any
slum teenager who wants it within the hour. How well - in that
context - do you think same regime would do at banning tobacco that my
grandfather grew for roll-your-own cigs in his Pittsburgh backyard?

http://www.Internet-Gun-Show.com - your source for hard-to-find stuff!

On Jan 22, 12:32*pm, " wrote:
Wake up; it's already 7:26 in the morning here. *The damn regime can't
even keep CRACK - never was legal anywhere in America, requiring
ingredients not grown in America - from being easily available to any
slum teenager who wants it within the hour. *How well - in that
context - do you think same regime would do at banning tobacco that my
grandfather grew for roll-your-own cigs in his Pittsburgh backyard?

http://www.Internet-Gun-Show.com- your source for hard-to-find stuff!

I would tend to think that making it easy, making it legal for people
to smoke, encourages them to experiment with the habit when they might
not if it was not legal. I am an ex-smoker. And they already make
smokers miserable by forcing them to go outside, etc. If you work in
a hospital, you probably have to go down several flights of stairs,
security concerns, or the possible notion you might over look
something on a patient chart just because all you have been thinking
about for the last 30 minutes is having a cigarrette. You smoked your
cigarrette on break, the doctor is wonder where the hell you are, and
did you wash your hands?

(in addition to my other arguments). And they are already doing this
in the military (why invest a million dollars worth of training if
some idiot is going to light up on the battle field?).

I wouldn't want the government to allow the sale of dangerous drugs
(but it does it anyways), and really the only way to get people not to
smoke is to make them compete for jobs? Smoking is something that
sneaks up on you, and to make it worse, it is a drug that also opens
your airways. The damage is hidden or delayed for years, until one
day you start coughing up blood.

If you call that liberty, well, I think it is something worth the
effort to prevent from happening.

On Jan 22, 12:32*pm, " wrote:
Wake up; it's already 7:26 in the morning here. *The damn regime can't
even keep CRACK - never was legal anywhere in America, requiring
ingredients not grown in America - from being easily available to any
slum teenager who wants it within the hour. *How well - in that
context - do you think same regime would do at banning tobacco that my
grandfather grew for roll-your-own cigs in his Pittsburgh backyard?

http://www.Internet-Gun-Show.com- your source for hard-to-find stuff!

If President Obama smokes, why, we wouldn't want to change the laws
would we?

LOL. HA HA HA HA HA HAH AH HA HA COUFGH COUGH COUGH HA HA HA
HAHA HA HA!

Ooops, almost forgot, some who have been blessed by God may not
experience the effects of tobacco, since the supernatural powers of
God would protect them?

Ooooops there it is!

Have a nice day!


"And they shall take up serpents......."

Copy of my email:

Hi Joe Paggs! (wink). Sorry bout dat! I apologize for spelling your
name wrong. Love your show, you do a lot of good.

Ooops, almost forgot, some who have been blessed by God may not
experience the effects of tobacco, since the supernatural powers of
God would protect them?

Ooooops there it is!

Have a nice day!

"And they shall take up serpents......."
I think you see my point, you are just choosing to spin it because
tobacco is legal. I don't dwell on the issue, I throw it out it there
occasionally because people have to want to stop smoking. I'm not a
power trip person.

Maybe your show would be a little more interesting if you took
questions from people that tried different methods to stop smoking,
for instance I said to my self, when I was a little kid, I didn't need
to smoke and I was happy. After smoking for years, I wanted to be
like that kid again. When I wanted a cigarrette, I drank hot
chocolate (it was winter time) until one day I finally quit. And
again, if a nurse smokes, I would allow them to keep smoking as an
employer, I would grandfather out or weed out new employees from being
smokers simply as a leadership role in the community.



--
Have a nice day!

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!

On Jan 22, 10:13*am, wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 06:45:51 -0800 (PST), Steve
wrote:

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.

It's not about the smoker per se, stevie

It's about those around the smoker that have to suck in the
poisons exhaled.

You don't like to read past the first few lines of a post, do you?

On Jan 22, 10:13*am, wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 06:45:51 -0800 (PST), Steve
wrote:



However, when the smoker contracts the large variety of diseases
related to lungs, cancer, and other maladies---guess who pays the
cost?

Answer: The same people who pay the bill when someone falls, has high
blood pressure, is injured in a car accident, gets food poisoning,
breaks a collar bone, etc.

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!)