Hospital....Smokers need not apply!

[Skull Pilot]

Someday tobacco will be banned as a dangerous drug.

No it won't the fucking government makes too much money off of it.

As long as smoking is legal no one should be discriminated against for partaking.

Smoking is not a protected Constitutional right.

Which is why one can be prohibited from smoking at work.

But when one is not at work an employer should have no control over anyone participating in a legal activity.

And if an activity is deemed legal then by definition you have a right to do it.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Fire and police departments have had a no smoking policy for years now. Health care is doing it for insurance purposes but also to keep patients from being exposed to the off-gassing nurse, doc, x-ray tech, etc. who just came in from burning one. The industry wants to lead the way and promote healthy living.

And what does that have to do if one smokes at home when off work?

 

[chanel]

First, Happy New Year Chanel!

My neighbor across the street smokes on her front porch and it ends up smelling up our front porch. That means the cancer causing agents are visiting me too.

Sorry to hear that. Happy New Year to you too.

This policy is about nicotine testing - not second hand smoke. If the hospital wants to ban smoking on their grounds, they are free to do so. But banning it outside of the workplace (home, car) , is wrong IMHO.

 

[WillowTree]

First, Happy New Year Chanel!

My neighbor across the street smokes on her front porch and it ends up smelling up our front porch. That means the cancer causing agents are visiting me too.

oh for crying out loud! what a stretch!

 

[WillowTree]

First, Happy New Year Chanel!

My neighbor across the street smokes on her front porch and it ends up smelling up our front porch. That means the cancer causing agents are visiting me too.

Sorry to hear that. Happy New Year to you too.

This policy is about nicotine testing - not second hand smoke. If the hospital wants to ban smoking on their grounds, they are free to do so. But banning it outside of the workplace (home, car) , is wrong IMHO.

Yes, and drug testing welfare recipients is a must too. No reason for us to subsidize them and pay their hospital bills too.

 

[Sunshine]

No it won't the fucking government makes too much money off of it.

As long as smoking is legal no one should be discriminated against for partaking.

Smoking is not a protected Constitutional right.

Which is why one can be prohibited from smoking at work.

But when one is not at work an employer should have no control over anyone participating in a legal activity.

And if an activity is deemed legal then by definition you have a right to do it.

If the employer doesn't want to provide medical coverage for the end results of even a legal activity that is his right. And the way to insure he does not have to is to screen everyone for use. In 5 years, it will all be a moot point anyway because from what I see the days of employer provided insurance are coming quickly to an end. I worked for one company who paid $275/month tacked onto your salary for insurance, and you could go find your own. More and more this is what will be happening. If I were this employer I would skip the drug tests and do it that way. It would be a lot more economical.

I take it you agree with taxpayers picking up the cost of lung transplants for people who have ruined their lungs smoking.

 

[Sunshine]

First, Happy New Year Chanel!

My neighbor across the street smokes on her front porch and it ends up smelling up our front porch. That means the cancer causing agents are visiting me too.

oh for crying out loud! what a stretch!

Not at my house. But I could see this if it were an apartment building with porches right next to one another.

 

[Sunshine]

First, Happy New Year Chanel!

My neighbor across the street smokes on her front porch and it ends up smelling up our front porch. That means the cancer causing agents are visiting me too.

Sorry to hear that. Happy New Year to you too.

This policy is about nicotine testing - not second hand smoke. If the hospital wants to ban smoking on their grounds, they are free to do so. But banning it outside of the workplace (home, car) , is wrong IMHO.

So, as an employer they should be required to provide insurance which covers smoking related illnesses?

 

[Sunshine]

Fire and police departments have had a no smoking policy for years now. Health care is doing it for insurance purposes but also to keep patients from being exposed to the off-gassing nurse, doc, x-ray tech, etc. who just came in from burning one. The industry wants to lead the way and promote healthy living.

When hospitals went smoke free, I recall the near 'nicotine fits' I saw some of my coworkers having. That can't be safe or make for good patient care.

 

[Sunshine]

Can't have a tatoo at our local hospital either...

A lot of employers require that tats be covered with long sleeves or bandages. A tat is generally considered part of the dress code. But an employer who did not want an employee to have one at all would most likely be looking at the likelihood that the person has hepatitis and will be expensive in terms of medical coverage at some point. Were I hiring I would certainly be looking at it from this angle.

 

[Sunshine]

What about those who use nicotene patches or chew nicotene gum? Are they discriminated against?

Those are probably the remedies that will be offered if the person is still interested in the job. My guess is that once smokers learn of the stipulation, they will just not apply.

 

[Sunshine]

Smoking is still legal last time I looked. Would they get away with refusing to hire male homosexuals who test positive for HIV? Would they get away with refusing to hire overweight people who suffer from hypertension or diabeties? Maybe next time.

Perhaps what you're failing to understand is this..

SMOKERS ARE ONLY THE FIRST GROUP THAT WILL BE TREATED IN THIS WAY.

Remember kiddies...corporations' rights are much more important than citizens' rights.

Why?

Because PROPERTY rights trump citizens' rights.

This country's laws favor commerce. And our laws favor the employer. Even if you took an employer on and won, how do you think it would be to work there after that? You would have to be the child of God as they could still fire you for cause, and generally 'cause' doesn't have to be much.

 

[Sunshine]

'First they came for the smokers, and I said nothing, because I did not smoke"...

"Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves." -Abraham Lincoln

Our local hospital campus is smoke-free now, and during break time the smokers have to cross a busy highway to light up. Walking to the corner a half block away takes too much time, so they jaywalk in large groups. I'm waiting for someone to get killed.

But it's for their own good, right?

The Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (JCAHO) will cite a hospital that has employees or others smoking in the doorways that patients, visitors, and other employees have to walk through to get inside the facility. They will also cite the facility if they see those large outdoor cigarette ash dumps by the doors. But beyond that, I certainly hope the person caring for me in the hospital is adult enough to cross the street. If they are not then I don't think they are capable of providing patient care.

 

[Sunshine]

Remember how that Prohibition thing worked out in the 20s? We look at it now and say "WTH"?

Some people don't like smoking. I get that. But when it does not affect anyone else at work, I don't get it. There are all kinds of unhealthy or "socially unacceptable" behaviors that all people are guilty of, and I would say that smoking is one of the least of them. What's next? Will they be testing for alcohol as well? It's discrimination, but no one expects a lawsuit because smokers are a minority.

In fact, minorities have a higher smoking rate. I'd be curious how their affirmative action numbers pan out in a year from now. Where's Holder??? This policy is racist! Lol

This isn't prohibition. This is an employer who doesn't want to pay for the health care of a person who is deliberately ruining his own health. As previously stated, I believe that employer provided health care will soon be a thing of the past. Many employers have what they call 'employee wellness' programs. These programs provide things like on site blood testing, bone density testing, weight management, and smoking cessation programs. The American population is becoming SO unhealthy that employers no longer want the liability of having to pay the costs. In all honestly, I have never really seen an employee wellness program make much headway. The only headway that will come is when they cut the insurance all together and they will do that.

For one to stop smoking there has to be an incentive. I'll never forget the first time my daughter smoked in front of me. She was ready for a fight. All I did was to say, 'you saw with your own eyes how your father died. It's your choice.' She had stopped in less than 6 months. Then she married a man who smoked. When she got pregnant, he decided to put down the cigarettes for the sake of their little one. He did that and he hasn't picked them back up. One has to want to stop smoking.

But just because smoking is a 'right ' or a 'liberty' does not automatically make your employer responsible for the consequences. It will, however, make taxpayers automatically responsible for the consequences as we are currently. This issue kind of separates the shee from the goats. Many of those who don't want to pay for 'lazy welfare bums' themselves actually smoke, and they will expect the taxpayers to pick up the burden when smoking renders them unable to work any longer.

There was a study done at Vanderbilt a few years back which showed that it is not smokers who cost the system the greatest amounts money. Most smokers die in their mid to late 50s. Their end of life care is quite expensive, but short lived, and no one wants to pay for it. It is those who live to the 80s and 90s who cost the system so much because many of them become demented and have to have nursing home care.

Do smokers cost society money? - USATODAY.com

 

[Sunshine]

Fire and police departments have had a no smoking policy for years now. Health care is doing it for insurance purposes but also to keep patients from being exposed to the off-gassing nurse, doc, x-ray tech, etc. who just came in from burning one. The industry wants to lead the way and promote healthy living.

And what does that have to do if one smokes at home when off work?

Drug free work place laws have been upheld. Many an employee has been fired for testing positive for cannabis even though he/she never took a joint near their workplace. So much for being free to do anything you want in your own home!

 

[saveliberty]

First, Happy New Year Chanel!

My neighbor across the street smokes on her front porch and it ends up smelling up our front porch. That means the cancer causing agents are visiting me too.

oh for crying out loud! what a stretch!

I agree, it took me about a week to realize that was the source. Apparently when the winds are light and from the southwest it occurs. That happens fairly often unfortunately.

 

[saveliberty]

To me, the real proof comes from nonsmokers who used to smoke. Ever spand some time with thema nd ask what they think? I have two people that I know well and both of them report that it is unbelievable how bad the smoke is and they had no concept of how they were effecting others and themselves until they stopped.

Health care professionals pledge to do no harm to their patients. Certainly this policy fits. I know of few people that smoke, who can go an entire working day without smoking, so if they smoke, they smoke at work.

 

[alan1]

(CNN) -- A Pennsylvania hospital is expected to begin screening job applicants for signs of nicotine early next year, claiming it will not hire smokers, a hospital spokeswoman said Friday.

Geisinger Health System -- a facility located in the eastern town of Danville -- will institute its no-nicotine policy on February 1, 2012, said Marcy Marshall.

Applicants that test positive will be offered help to quit and are encouraged to re-apply after six months, she said.

Smoking has been banned on Geisinger hospital grounds since 2007, added Marshall, who said the new program is part of a plan to make the hospital staff smoke free.

Secondhand smoke, she noted, will not result in a positive test.

Hospital: Smokers need not apply - CNN.com

I remember being a nursing student thinking I would die of suffocation from the staff smoking in the tiny report room. In those days staff smoked on the units. I wasn't sure how I would make it. But I moved to Nashville where Vanderbilt had just become a 'non smoking' facility. Smoking was permitted outside only. Soon other facilities followed.

Not surprised about this bit of news. The smoker is not particularly appealing to employers on various levels. This, no doubt, has more to do with the cost of employee health care than anything else.

Smokers actually cost less and burden the health care system less.

Smokers and the obese cheaper to care for, study shows - The New York Times

snips,

Van Baal and colleagues created a model to simulate lifetime health costs for three groups of 1,000 people: the "healthy-living" group (thin and nonsmoking), obese people, and smokers. The model relied on "cost of illness" data and disease prevalence in the Netherlands in 2003.

Ultimately, the thin and healthy group cost the most, about $417,000, from age 20 on.

The cost of care for obese people was $371,000, and for smokers, about $326,000.

 

[saveliberty]

That would be wonderful if true, but it isn't. Thin people are a vast minority is this country, so far more money is spent on smokers and the obese. If thin people were such a risk and scientifically proven to be so, insurance companies would charge them more for health and life insurance. They don't. Fail.

 

[alan1]

That would be wonderful if true, but it isn't. Thin people are a vast minority is this country, so far more money is spent on smokers and the obese. If thin people were such a risk and scientifically proven to be so, insurance companies would charge them more for health and life insurance. They don't. Fail.

I provided a link for proof.
Your choice to ignore facts says more about you than it does about me.