In fact he states that since formers are more likely to be diagnosed with lung cancer, and if companies are in states where they can't fire currents, it would make the most cost-effective sense to fire only former smokers.

http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2006/02/on-firing-s...st-2-ex-smokers.html



Dr Siegel's bio appears on the lower right at the end of this article.

I suspect that some of this is jest. For instance, the statement below. This leads to: "Quit smoking or get fired,then we are going to fire you anyway!'

So,why quit smoking?



If ASH is serious about saving health care costs for employers and removing the burden on nonsmokers of the costs imposed upon them due to the poor choices of those who chose to smoke, then it should immediately call not only for the firing of smokers, but for the firing of ex-smokers as well.

Most large companies recognize that any employee peeks in their contributions to the company by the age of 45. At 45 you are too young to cry "age discrimination" and just on the cusp of paying for your previous poor diet and exercise regime.

For boomers they reached this age when their children entered college. For the current generation it will hit when their children hit high school.