[trisham]

If Baylor is unable to fill its job openings due to this policy, they have the option of rescinding it.

[traditional1]

"If Baylor is unable to fill its job openings due to this policy, they have the option of rescinding it"The point is that the policy does NOT treat applicants equally; not-withstanding the anti-smoking zealots, who use the "increased healthcare costs" canard, while disregarding OTHER healthcare burden costs because those are "acceptable" behaviors, or, more correctly, "politically-correct" and "defensive efforts" on their part, at the risk of being SUED for "discrimination" and/or "14th Amendment" un-fair practices.

[Tax-chick]

I wonder why smokers get so wound up. And before someone says, “Nobody else faces the same restrictions,” that’s not true.

I’m a drinker. Alcohol is highly taxed and its distribution restricted, often much more (depending on state/municipality) than the distribution of tobacco. Most retail establishments don’t sell alcohol, and few will allow a person to bring in his own and consume it on the premises. Many public areas, such as parks, do not permit the consumption of alcohol, and I can be cited in many places for walking down the sidewalk with a glass of wine. Maybe even in my own yard - I haven’t checked the town regulations.

If an employer wishes to avoid hiring consumers of alcohol, I think it would be within his purview to do so, even if it is simply because he personally disapproves. Certainly most (if not all) companies have policies prohibiting alcohol consumption at work, and many discourage alcohol consumption, even outside work areas/hours, for health or work-productivity reasons (fully justified or not).

So why are smokers in a tizzy, while I’m not?