Greg,

>>To top this off. There is initiative coming up on the ballet this fall to band smoking EVERYWHERE in Washington State that is not the citizen’s private dwelling. (Looking for an article about this...)<

And what's wrong with that? California has similar non-smoking laws ... it was a rude-awakening to me to move here from California and have to remember that not every restaurant has no-smoking policies. Non-smoking sections in a restaurant just don't cut it.

I'm certainly voting for that initiative!!!

~~Bonnie



>>I'll probably get flamed for this - but I can't say I totally disagree.
>>
>>Heavy and even moderate smokers are more likely to develop health problems from smoking. You can't disagree that health costs would be different if people would stop lighting up. Yes, that's not the only reason for health costs.
>>
>>Yes, I realize the slippery slope argument that was identified in the article...refusing to hire people who aren't the ideal weight, etc.
>>
>>But from where I sit, purchasing health care (either in full or in part) is a contract where you agree to maintain good general health habits and they agree to cover you when you're sick/injured. Sucking on a pack of cigarettes a day seems counter to that.
>>
>>Kevin
>
>I don't necessarily disagree with the article. What I do disagree with is the principle of the act. If this goes through, it opens the door to other kinds of discriminations. "Because, local gangs wear the color purple, then ANYONE caught with even a SMUG of purple, WILL BE terminated on the spot." or, "I can't hire you, because Jane has a problem with blondes." Or, even better, "I'm sorry, but you look too Arabic. What would my customers think?"
>
>Where would end.
>
>To top this off. There is initiative coming up on the ballet this fall to band smoking EVERYWHERE in Washington State that is not the citizen’s private dwelling. (Looking for an article about this...)
>
>[SET RANT OFF]