Michael McFadden indeed does us proud 
And if you don't mind, since at least this is a post about the errant ways of the anti-smokers -- particularly their use of "the ends justify the means"-- this seems the place to deposit this example. I was pleasantly surprised to see ethics raise its head in response to it:
ON ETHICS
Prescribed lying: Doctor had no business telling tale
by Randy Cohen
NY Times - Sept. 17, 2006
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/1...r=1&
oref=slogin
Q: My mother, a dermatologist, told me (without revealing confidential information) that a young teenager who smoked cigarettes came to her office with acne. My mother advised her that the acne would not clear up until she stopped smoking. In truth, only the prescription medication was needed. My mother said that she was only trying to improve the health of her patient. Was she right?
NAME WITHHELD
A: She was wrong. Doctors may not lie to patients, even for their own good. Your mother's intent was honorable, her insight impressive — teenage acne anxiety, a force for good! — but her actions insupportable.
Informed consent, central to the doctor-patient relationship, requires honest doctors. A patient (or, in the case of a minor, a parent or guardian) can agree to a course of treatment with only a real understanding of it — impossible if a doctor simply makes things up. (Take this pill, and you'll get a pony!) A doctor's lie robs a patient of autonomy and undermines her trust, not only in this doctor but in all doctors. Such deceit is explicitly forbidden by the American Medical Association's Principles of Medical Ethics, which state that a physician must "be honest in all professional interactions." (Even withholding information, thinking it's for the patient's own good — a practice common enough to have a name, "therapeutic privilege" — is discouraged by the AMA.)
What's more, this was a particularly unnecessary lie. In addition to the whole horribly-painful-fatal-disease thing, there are many anti-cigarette arguments with real teenage appeal. Smoking is bad for your skin (if not a cause of acne), and who wants to look like a softball mitt on prom night? Smoking reduces your sexual vitality. Smoking makes you stink.
It can be difficult to persuade a young person to act prudently, but this adolescent will be a patient from time to time for the rest of her life. By being honest with her now, your mother can help her become a good ally in her own health care.
Excerpts from Lockheed's Code of Ethics:
All employees want and deserve a workplace where they feel respected, satisfied, and appreciated. As a global enterprise, we respect cultural diversity and recognize that the various countries in which we do business may have different legal provisions pertaining to the workplace. As such, we will adhere to the limitations specified by law in all of our locations, and further, we will not tolerate harassment or discrimination of any kind — especially involving age, sex, ancestry, color, disability, national origin, race, religion, United States military veteran’s status, sexual orientation, marital status, or family structure.
...our executives and management personnel assume special responsibility for fostering a work environment that is free from the fear of retribution and will bring out the best in all of us.
Looks like Lockheed is violating their own code of ethics........but then considering they are one of the Military's biggest contractors, I'm not surprised in the least. This fits right in with the "environmentally friendly" weapons that kill.
There is a joke about Military Intelligence being an oxymoron....apparently they it's no joke.
"Smoking is bad for your skin and who wants to look like a softball mitt on prom night?"
Isn't this also a lie? Lauren Bacall and Marlena Dietrich never looked like baseball mitts and Brittany certainly doesn't.
Also almost all the returning troops fromm WWII smoked and they seem to have been sexually vital enough to father the baby boom!
Isn't this also a lie? Lauren Bacall and Marlena Dietrich never looked like baseball mitts and Brittany certainly doesn't.
And I certainly don't look like a baseball mitt. Where do they get this crap from? The only people I can honestly say that look that way, are those that have worshipped the sun all their lives, during the worst times of the day, and they don't look that way until they hit their 60's or 70's.
Also almost all the returning troops fromm WWII smoked and they seem to have been sexually vital enough to father the baby boom!
As I keep saying, IF all this crap were true, then please explain all us baby boomers..........hehehehehe
http://www.valueoptions.com/spot...pages/
costs.htm
The Costs of Overweight and Obesity
Overweight and obesity have a dramatic impact on the health of employees and the organizational bottom line. The costs associated with overweight and obesity are astounding.
General Statistics
* Nearly 65 percent of adults in the United States are overweight or obese. ( 2003 Chartbook on Trends in the Health of Americans , Centers for Disease Control and Prevention National Center for Health Statistics)
* Obesity is a greater trigger for health problems and health care spending than are smoking or drinking: Individuals who are obese have 30 percent to 50 percent more chronic medical problems than those who smoke or drink heavily. (“The Effects of Obesity, Smoking, and Drinking on Medical Problems and Costs,” Journal of Health Affairs , March/April 2002)
Business Impact
* The total cost of obesity to U.S companies is estimated at $13 billion per year: $8 billion in health care costs; $2.4 billion in paid sick leave, $1.8 billion in life insurance and $1 billion in disability insurance. (Prevention Makes Common Cents: Estimated Economic Costs of Obesity to U.S. Businesses, Department of Health and Human Services, 2003 )
* Obesity accounts for approximately 9.1 percent of total annual medical care expenditures. (“National Medical Spending Attributable to Overweight and Obesity: How Much and Who’s Paying?” Health Affairs, Web Exclusive, 2003 ).
* Obesity is associated with 30 million lost work days, 239 million restricted activity days, 90 million bed days and 63 million physician visits. (“Current Estimates of the Economic Costs of Obesity in the United States,” Obesity Research, 1998
* Obese individuals have higher health care utilization rates:
o 36% increase in inpatient and outpatient spending
o 77% increase in medication spending
o 48% increase in health care expenditures over $5,000
o 11% increase in annual health care costs
(“Health Risks and Behavior: The Impact on Medical Costs,” Control Data
Corporation, 1987)
****So we should encourage employers to discriminate, not hire and fire fat people? Is this not a lifestyle choice and a habit costing them even more than a person who smokes?
Great point Gilster. Thanks for adding that data and this on-the-mark perspective into the discussion.
Interesting and well said Mr McFadden. Hopefully more people will become aware of this practice now.
As for discrimination, well simple, when they find out they no longer have the talent to keep thier business going and when they find out the costs were not related to smoking, then they will change their minds, as the Florida police did.
People who smoke need to have long memories.
Many people who smoke are real talented - approx 89.37% some study I read said.
west
----
If a private employer chooses to make such a bad business decision as to eliminate up to 25% of a prospective labor pool, and it is legal in that state (such as Delaware and Maryland) so be it. I won't do business with them or apply for a job there. But I only feel that way in regard to private employers.
When it comes to taxpayer funded entities, such as government, they are not within their rights to do it. Unless of course they plan on eliminating the cash cow known as tobacco taxes, which of course they will never do.
And I takemy position on taxpayer funded entities one step further. Taxpayer funded entities, such as the anti-smoker cartel should be stripped of their tax-free status and taxpayer funded funding if they insist on promoting such discriminatory practices. As a tax payer I find it offensive my tax dollars are going to fund this nonsense, and as a smoker, I truly resent these people padding their pockets with my hard earned money while at the same time encouraging business to deny me the ability to make said money.
Congratulations to Michael McFadden for having the guts and brains to execute such a strong response.
I'd also like to add to Mr McFadden's point by mentioning that I read about studies referenced in the comments of a few posts back about how smoking helps improve concentration--so for jobs that require small periods of intense concentration(i.e. automobile repair or consulting for projects with short deadlines,) wouldn't it make financial sense for companies to get their workers to smoke? Therefore they are in their rights to require...
Thanks also to Gilster for providing that information--I'd be upset to see discrimination against the obese and overweight. I'm not, and I'm grateful for that, but I understand that it and smoking can be passed down from parents--part behavioral, part biological, which is unfair.
One thing that amuses me about the article advising telling teens "Smoking reduces your sexual vitality" is that we also are, in the interests of General Public Health, supposed to tell teens not to fool around, or put themselves in situations where sex might be easier. I don't know if this columnist has ever given such advice about abstinence. But if it's not right to lie to a patient, isn't it also a little iffy to dangle a carrot of something you told them was wrong anyway?
Also I think the immediacy argument here gets this columnist, who is certainly more reasonable than the anti-smoking groups(ie don't lie about effects that aren't there) in a bit of semantic hot water, because he advises saying "this'll happen" without saying how long it'll take--many years instead of, oh, a couple(especially as a youth, when consumption is less--wish I had figures to verify this,) or maybe a few months.
Which is a sin of omission vs. an outright untruth. But it's better than what smokers usually get.
Prejudicial Rest of the Story Author Michael Siegel Accuses Makes Baseless Accusations - Blog Reader Sets the Record Straight
I understand the problems associated with discriminatory hiring practices. I think the criticism of such organizations is fair. This is an issue that needs to be addressed in some form another. Clearly, employers have a right to set their own hiring practices, but this right must be balanced with fundamental fairness.
That said, I think it can be too easy to jump to conclusions. In the current post, Smoke Free Maryland is described as a supporter of allowing smokers to be fired. I don't see evidence that supports this conclusion.
Here are the posted quotes:
"The wider bans are 'the wave of the future,'
This is an observation, not a statement of support.
"she had not heard about any companies in Maryland going so far as to not hire smokers."
Another observation.
"For many employers, this makes sense,' Appler said. '‘They are concerned about the message they send to employees, customers and the general public.'"
This is an explanation as to why an organization would consider not hiring people who smoke on the job. Again, no statement about whether they support firing smokers.
There is nothing in any of these statements that states whether they support such practices or not. A search of their site reveals no statement on the issue.
I am not arguing that Smoke Free Maryland does NOT support firing smokers. I am just pointing out that there is no direct evidence that they do in the quotes posted in this article.
To assume they support firing smokers simply because they did not speak out against the issue, is prejudicial and unfair.
Interestingly, this prejudice is precisely what the critics of these hiring practices are complaining about.
Benefits such as health insurance are offered as an incentive to attract and keep employees. It seems ironic that an incentive used to get and keep employees is also used to get rid of them.
It's also ironic that charitable groups whose missions are to help people are at the forefront of trying to make some people's lives miserable.
Pablo wrote:
"To assume they support firing smokers simply because they did not speak out against the issue, is prejudicial and unfair."
From the article:
"Members of the coalition, which formed in 1993, include the Maryland State Medical Society — or MedChi — American Cancer Society, American Heart Association and American Lung Association."
Several of those groups have their own non-hiring of smokers policy IIRC.
Pablo is correct in pointing out the Mike Siegel misrepresented comments and quotes attributed to Kari Appler when he claimed that "the Smoke Free Maryland Coalition of Baltimore has publicly supported policies that discriminate against smokers in employment."
Mike also wrote:
"Thank goodness that long-time Rest of the Story commenter Michael McFadden came to the rescue and put the Smoke Free Coalition in its place."
I also find it hypocritical that Mike Siegel (who advocates smokefree indoor workplace laws for all workers and who has criticized ventilation systems for failing to adequately reduce tobacco smoke pollution) conveniently failed to acknowledge (in his blog positing) that the Maryland Gazette article also included the following comment and quote attributed to McFadden:
"But McFadden disputed that, saying restaurants and other businesses with ‘‘decent” ventilation systems should have no problems keeping secondhand smoke away from nonsmokers.
and
‘‘Smoking decisions in individual businesses should be based on the needs and desires of their customers and workers,” McFadden said.
I think it's time that anti-smoking advocates learn to call a spade a spade. It is very clear that the smoke-free coalition in Maryland was making a statement that was supportive of these policies. I'm not arguing that they are encouraging the policies, but their statement is clearly a supportive one, talking about how the policies make sense for employers and help them to send a message to their employees and the public. I would note that this is the coalition's language. It is THEIR interpretation that there is a message to be sent to the public.
Let's change the targeted group and see how the coalition's statement sounds, and whether or not it seems supportive of discrminatory policies:
"A number of employers nationwide are refusing to hire African-Americans, stating that they can save health care costs because African-Americans tend to have higher obesity and diabetes rates. Kari Appler, executive director of the Smoke Free Maryland Coalition of Baltimore said she had not heard about any companies in Maryland going so far as to not African-Americans. "For many employers, not hiring African Americans makes sense,' Appler said. '‘They are concerned about the message they send to employees, customers and the general public, so it makes sense not to hire African Americans.'"
Now tell me with a straight face that these comments are not being supportive, rather than condemning, discriminatory employment policies against African Americans.
Sorry, I don't buy the argument. It's time to wake up and realize that anti-smoking groups are complacent in, and supportive of, these discriminatory policies. Pretending that they are just standing at the fringes making technically correct but value-free comments is only hurting our cause. Ultimately, it's condoning a major discriminatory action against a large segment of the population.
Bill-
In what possible way does pointing out Michael McFadden's comments about ventilation or smoking bans invalidate my arguement about discriminatory employment policies against smokers. You obviously hate the guy and my quoting him pisses you off, but if those quotes aren't relevant to the discussion at hand, then why should I quote them. Do you think I should quote your supportive comments about the smokeless tobacco industry, which kills thousands of Americans each year, any time I address one of your comments? Or can we start to actually deal with the issues, and put aside personal attacks once and for all?
Good job Michael M. (and Michael S. too)!
Good news today on the nanny state front; the WHO reversed its longstanding opposition to anti-malarial DDT spraying in Africa. Nice to see a piece of sanity finally emerge from Geneva.
And the bad news; Spain has now banned models with a BMI below 18 from being allow to participate in fashion shows, and the nanny statists in the UK would like London to follow suit. While I'm not a big fan of the rail-thin fashion model, I am absolutely opposed to the state being allowed to use someone's BMI to limit their employment. For that matter, I question whether BMI is even a good indicator of fitness to begin with. Does it really make sense to judge the height and weight of an eighteen year old woman and an eighty year old man on the same scale?
Bill,
This testing conducted by a local health department proved the ventilation option not only works, but protects employees and patrons up to 500 times safer than OSHA regulations for secondhand smoke require.
http://
cleanairquality.blogspot....egislation.html
And lately I'm partial to the ACS test results:
http://cleanairquality.blogspot....st-
results.html
But, then again I know a lot of "you" folks have to "schill" for the pharma money you accepted.
http://cleanairquality.blogspot....ng-bans-
in.html
Mike wrote:
"I think it's time that anti-smoking advocates learn to call a spade a spade. It is very clear that the smoke-free coalition in Maryland was making a statement that was supportive of these policies."
I agree that its time to call a spade a spade, which is precisely why I pointed out Mike's misrepresentation of the Maryland Gazette article's comment and quote attributed to Kari Appler.
The article never stated that the Smokefree Maryland coalition
"has publicly supported policies that discriminate against smokers in employment," as Mike has claimed.
Although I realized 25 years ago that drug free hiring policies were the wave of the future (whereby many employers discriminate against marijuana and other illegal drug users), that doesn't mean I support those policies.
And while many employers (that have strict drug free hiring policies and drug testing of employees) truly believe that drug free hiring policies make sense and that they send a sensible message to employees customers and the public, writing that doesn't mean that I support those policies.
That said, although I don't support
most drug free hiring and firing policies, I still support the right of employers to implement drug free hiring and firing policies.
Somewhat similarly, various tobacco control organizations and advocates may not necessarily support smokefree hiring (or firing) policies, but still support the right of employers to implement those policies.
Mike also wrote:
"In what possible way does pointing out Michael McFadden's comments about ventilation or smoking bans invalidate my arguement about discriminatory employment policies against smokers. You obviously hate the guy and my quoting him pisses you off, but if those quotes aren't relevant to the discussion at hand, then why should I quote them."
I don't hate McFadden (yet another misrepresentation), but I find it hypocritical that Mike wrote "Thank goodness that long-time Rest of the Story commenter Michael McFadden came to the rescue and put the Smoke Free Coalition in its place" when McFadden is quoted in the article asserting opinions with which Mike Siegel disagrees.
To praise McFadden's quotes in an article (that included quotes that Mike disagrees with) appears inconsistent to me.
Just calling a spade a spade.
Bill,
Stating The wider bans are ‘‘the wave of the future,” said Kari Appler and NOT going on to state that they were going too far, tells me that the "wave of the future" is being condoned. But that's just me.
What a frightening article.
Have to hold my nose and agree with Mr Bill. After reading that article I certainly wouldn't headline my commentary as you did.
Mine would be more to the tune of
BE AFRAID, BE VERY AFRAID.
"HEALTHIST" POLICIES GAINING EVEN MORE GROUND IN CORPORATE AMERICA.
Anti-tobacco gains have indeed led to the "slippery slope" and morphed into the next fascist phase of "Wellness Campaigns".
shudder
This is the part of the piece that scares me.
Part of overall package
For Lockheed, the more comprehensive smoking ban is part of an overall package of recent improvements to the company’s health and wellness policies, said spokesman Thomas Greer. Those include greater awareness campaigns about the need for cholesterol and blood pressure checks, free onsite flu vaccinations, re-evaluating vending machine food and appointing a corporate medical director to oversee the efforts, he said.
Protecting employees’ health and helping contain medical costs are the primary drivers behind the wider smoking ban, Greer said. The company’s spends about $800 million annually on medical expenses, a total that could reach $1.5 billion by 2010 and $3 billion by 2017 at the current rate, he said.
Folks - it's high time we start really lobbying to get employers OUT of the business of providing health insurance. Do really want your employer to be dictating your lifestyle based on Big Pharma backed research and paradigms?
I don't.
BTW - my employer has indeed adopted this misguided "wellness program" BS.
marcus wrote:
"This testing conducted by a local health department proved the ventilation option not only works, but protects employees and patrons up to 500 times safer than OSHA regulations for secondhand smoke require."
Regarding the ACS study: We don't even know if the ventilation systems were turned on at any of the venues they checked. I don't think they even checked. LOL
I'm quite sure I've read during the course of his studies that Repace finds some businesses running reduced ventilation rates to save money.
Bill writes: "To praise McFadden's quotes in an article (that included quotes that Mike disagrees with) appears inconsistent to me."
If that's true, then it would be inconsistent of me to ever praise Bill, because there are things that I disagree with him about. In fact, there's virtually no one who I could ever praise because there are always going to be some disagreements.
I stand by my earlier statement. I think that Bill is just pissed off by my praise for someone he views as an opponent.
I also fully agree with Lynda. The quote is, in my view, clearly condoning these discriminatory policies.
But you know what? It really doesn't matter. We, as anti-smoking groups, should be condemning these policies. Even if all we were doing was standing around silently, I think we would be doing the public a great disservice. We spurred these policies on. Now it's time to put an end to them.
michael siegel states:
We spurred these policies on. Now it's time to put an end to them.
well stated dr. siegel. and you couldn't be more correct.
I'm quite sure I've read during the course of his studies that Repace finds some businesses running reduced ventilation rates to save money. -James Austin
I've found the same thing over my 15 years.
BTW speaking of ventilation:
http://cleanairquality.blogspot....hen-and-
it.html
http://cleanairquality.blogspot....hen-and-
it.html
If you're operating a smoke-easy and need to remove tobacco smoke from the air, or would simply like to improve the air quality in your government forced smoke-free establishment please contact us here:
We're not only discreet, our systems are performance guaranteed to meet or exceed OSHA regulations for secondhand smoke.
----------------
ROFL
Might as well have some fun.....huh?
Plus, it keeps them wondering..
BTW I have been to a couple smoke-easies here in the Twin Cities myself. It's kind of fun to thumb your nose at such stupid and un-enforceable ordinances anyway.
Gilster--
Wow. Put that in a letter to the editor and send it to the newspaper that published the original article. Then hold a copy and similarly send it out every time in the future (and alas there'll be many) that these articles appear. It's a blistering and beautifully unarguable comeback.
Same idea, Stephan-
"Smoking is bad for your skin and who wants to look like a softball mitt on prom night?"
Isn't this also a lie? Lauren Bacall and Marlena Dietrich never looked like baseball mitts and Brittany certainly doesn't.
Also almost all the returning troops fromm WWII smoked and they seem to have been sexually vital enough to father the baby boom!
Send that as a Letter to the NY Times Magazine and cc the columnist (IIRC, his address is on his column). All you'd have to do would be to add at the top something easy like, The Ethicist said (Sept 17) and then before the last paragraph, quote him again about sexual vitality: He also said...
Betcha a pack of smokes you could get that published.
Dr. Siegel wrote:
We, as anti-smoking groups, should be condemning these policies. Even if all we were doing was standing around silently, I think we would be doing the public a great disservice. We spurred these policies on. Now it's time to put an end to them.
As far back as 1992 the Delaware Chapters of the ACS, ALA, AHA, AMA, not only spurred these policies but actively encouraged them by fighting tooth and nail for 4 years to change Delaware law that would have prevented such discriinatory employment policies, and they were all going to be exempt from said law.
Thanks to the anti-smoker cartel, it remains perfectly legal in Delaware to refuse to hire someone who smokes, or to fire someone who does. OTOH, it is also perfectly legal to do the same to non-smokers for just the reason that they don't smoke.
Gabz: Thanks to the anti-smoker cartel, it remains perfectly legal in Delaware to refuse to hire someone who smokes, or to fire someone who does. OTOH, it is also perfectly legal to do the same to non-smokers for just the reason that they don't smoke.
At least Delaware is an equal opportunity discriminator........hehehehehhe
I'd like to take a moment to note that Kevin Shay, the writer of the article that Dr. Siegel quoted, not only did a far better job of giving us a reasonably sized podium in relation to those on the other side in his article, but that he also was far more careful in his writing than most reporters.
He quite specifically noted at a number of points that statements he was making about the supposed health effects of secondhand smoke were made "according to so and so" rather than merely stating them as truths handed down from God.
Mr. Shay, if you read this blog, I want you to know I think you did a wonderful job and have a solid career in front of you (if you can dodge the bullets of those above who might not like you sticking to your ethics.)
Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
www.AntiBrains.com
Hi all, changed my name here...sorta. Before I was just Eric, but with all the Erics in this blog I thought I would add a suffix that would remove any confusion.
Anyhow, this thread is mostly played out, but I still have a question that's been burning in my feeble nicotine addled mind for a few weeks concerning all this business of not hiring smokers.
Here's my major question: How the hell will they know?
The antis claim that just a whiff of SHS leads to heart failure, emphyzema, lung cancer etc. etc.
Some hysterical female AT politician in CA recently declared with perfect impunity that children exposed to SHS in cars actually inhale 7 times the nicotene levels of the persons actually smoking.
If we, the public, are to properly buy the theory, then we must believe unequivitably that exposure to SHS causes the same toxic contamination, or worse, than actually smoking. So now I am seriously confounded. Here's why;
1) You are working for a company that has just declared "quit smoking or lose your job".
2) To make sure no one cheats, ie., to weed out closet smokers, the company begins periodic, compulsory and infallible urine tests that easily pick-up trace chemicals of anyone smoking, even occasionally, at home, for instance.
3) If SHS is so deadly, and even a tiny exposure level positively invades and changes the whole body chemistry and cell structure, then how the hell are they to know-with their super reliable urine tests- which employee's a real smoker, and not just someone who walked passed a smoker and sucked in some SHS a few days before the urine test?
I don't want to beat this to death, but can you understand my befuddlement?
On the one hand, the antis are screeching that even a millionth of a nonogram gram of SHS is as consequential as a liter of mustard gas; but by their very (urine)tests it's proven that a non-smoking employee leaving work and sitting in a bar with SHS that you can cut with a knife, can piss into any jar his boss offers him, and do so until retirement without getting fired.
Does anyone besides me see something wrong with this picture? Where's Bill Godshall when you really need him?
Eric,
I like your new name, and it definitely helps distinguish you from Erik, to avoid any possible confusion.
I think you make an insightful point. In using urine cotinine measurements to distinguish between smokers and nonsmokers, there is a certain degree of overlap. In other words, there are a few smokers who happen to have cotinine levels low enough that they may be classified as nonsmokers, and there are some heavily exposed nonsmokers who have cotinine levels high enough so that they are wrongly classified as smokers. There are few tests, including this one, which are 100% perfect in distinguishing between two conditions. Inevitably therefore, there are going to be some nonsmokers who may be fired, or denied employment, on false grounds. I do find this very problematic. But even more problematic to me is the idea that you would have to undergo an invasive body test to be able to apply for a job in the first place.
Many thanks Doctor,
If, as you state,(and I have no reason to doubt it's true);"There are few tests, including this one, which are 100% perfect in distinguishing between two conditions." then one can draw two possible conclusions from this new and oppresive private industry policy (of no smoking employees).
1. It's a PR gimmick that won't be actually be enforced, or,
2. Some companies, knowing the urine test has flaws, will use it anyhow and take advantage of the test's inaccuracy as a "secret weapon" to fire certain employees they can't get rid of on other grounds, kangaroo court style.
#2 is a bit stretched perhaps, but I don't think it should be ruled out.
In the classic movie, Casablanca, there's a scene where Rick (Humphrey Bogart) turns down the advances of a pretty, but innebriated, French girl in his bar. Claude Raines, playing the corrupt French police captain, watches all this and then comments to Rick; "How extravagent of you Rick, throwing away beautiful women like that. You may regret it one day."
I think Claude Raines sums up what will happen to all these non-smoker companies one day, who are extravagently throwing away highly skilled and talented people that happen to smoke tobacco.
Commenting by HaloScan
