Nurses and smoking - page 14

Do you think it is ok if a nurse or a doctor smokes? Because i know when i go to the doctors office with my boyfriend and he tells him that he smokes that he gos on and on of how he shouldnt be... Read More

  1. by   mercyteapot
    Howard Stern has freedom of speech rights secured by the US Constitution. Despite frequent smokers' claims to the contrary, that document mentions no such protections to be applied to smoking. If there was any such mention, then obviously the proliferation of no smoking laws in this country would have been overturned on consitutional grounds.
  2. by   froghair
    thats why vegas is a great place. when i as over there last year the only place you couldnt light a cigar was.....

    in the buffet breakfast
    at the poker table
    and in the elevator

    now thats my kind of place.

    there ment to be bringing in smoking bans in public here soon, thats ok by me, as i dont fire up when i go out, but the thing i dont understand is why are they enforcing it in cigar bars??????? your only going to go to a cigar bar if you smoke or like cigars so what gives??????
  3. by   SmilingBluEyes
    glad I am in WA then. It's like California, smoke free all over. AHHHHH the air never smelled sweeter.
  4. by   Corvette Guy
    Quote from SmilingBluEyes
    glad I am in WA then. It's like California, smoke free all over. AHHHHH the air never smelled sweeter.
    ... glad to hear the state of WA is a no smoking zone!
  5. by   Corvette Guy
    Quote from steelcityrn
    out last night for a steeler/birthday party for one of our nurses. sitting across from me at the table is a male nurse 45 years old. already had a mi and two cardiac stents placed. in his hand a cigarette. as the night went on, he opened his second pack. after he ate two hot dogs with the works, he ate a huge pice of birthday cake and washed it down with a 6 pack of beer. i'm not sure whats worse the smoking or the diet, but i think his chances would be alot better if the smoking was eliminated!

    go steelers!!!!!!!!!!
    steelcityrn - congrats on the victory over the broncos! yesterday's games were so :zzzzz boring! big ben for the steelers is a helluva qb. however, since susan & i are moving to wa, about 60 miles south of seattle, gonna have to cheer for the seahawks [except, whenever they play my cowboys]. anyway, hope its a close competitive sb.

    btw, wa is a smoke free zone :spin:
  6. by   SmilingBluEyes
    Quote from Corvette Guy
    ... glad to hear the state of WA is a no smoking zone!
    Just recently passed, Corvette. You will like that-----for ONCE no having to suck in others' smoke at restaurants or other places. I always held, having a
    "no smoking" section of a restaurant or other establishment is no more effective than a "no peeing section" of a pool.

    And they can't smoke at the DOORS either----no they have to be a set number of feet away. So no more cig smoke getting sucked in w/people entering the building. YEAHA!!!!!

    There is a group fighting to repeal the law. WA State has a LOT of smokers, I was shocked to learn when I moved here. I hope they don' t win. It's great not worrying if my son will have an asthma attack just by going out to eat or go bowling.
  7. by   thatoneguy
    Quote from SmilingBluEyes
    glad I am in WA then. It's like California, smoke free all over. AHHHHH the air never smelled sweeter.
    yeah its smoke free all over, well almost but looks like soon it will be totally illigal to smoke in the whole state i think. however, if you drive into downtown LA you can taste the air and its not from smoking cigs.
    YEAH BABY!!!! steelers will take the super bowl sorry corvette guy. seattle does finially have a football team but this is the steelers year.
    i know this is about workers smoking but what about the patients who smoke?? right or wrong they smoke and come into the hospital for many reasons both related to smoking and not related to smoking. should those patients that smoke be allowed to do so? i think this is the ture reason why some hospitals will always allow smoking. or they will risk losing the buisness of those people who smoke, to hospitals that do allow it or they (the smokers) will sneak out and go who knows where to smoke. we may be able to argue about co workers smoking, but what about the patients?
  8. by   mercyteapot
    Quote from thatoneguy
    yeah its smoke free all over, well almost but looks like soon it will be totally illigal to smoke in the whole state i think. however, if you drive into downtown LA you can taste the air and its not from smoking cigs.
    YEAH BABY!!!! steelers will take the super bowl sorry corvette guy. seattle does finially have a football team but this is the steelers year.
    i know this is about workers smoking but what about the patients who smoke?? right or wrong they smoke and come into the hospital for many reasons both related to smoking and not related to smoking. should those patients that smoke be allowed to do so? i think this is the ture reason why some hospitals will always allow smoking. or they will risk losing the buisness of those people who smoke, to hospitals that do allow it or they (the smokers) will sneak out and go who knows where to smoke. we may be able to argue about co workers smoking, but what about the patients?
    Like everyone else in California, patients here just aren't allowed to smoke inside. Too bad so sad. No arguments needed. My Mom's roommate smoked when she had her hysterectomy 20 years ago, and the hospital was spectacularly indifferent about even attempting to find other accommodations in which she could recuperate. When I was growing up, our family doctor always had a cigar in his mouth. You could be visiting him with the most ghastly URI and he'd just puff it right in your face. I always have to remind myself that this still happens in other states.
  9. by   thatoneguy
    Quote from mercyteapot
    Like everyone else in California, patients here just aren't allowed to smoke inside. Too bad so sad. No arguments needed. My Mom's roommate smoked when she had her hysterectomy 20 years ago, and the hospital was spectacularly indifferent about even attempting to find other accommodations in which she could recuperate. When I was growing up, our family doctor always had a cigar in his mouth. You could be visiting him with the most ghastly URI and he'd just puff it right in your face. I always have to remind myself that this still happens in other states.
    not talking about inside the hospital but, outside still on the grounds.
  10. by   Marie_LPN, RN
    not talking about inside the hospital but, outside still on the grounds.
    Which comes right on in through the door when it opens...
  11. by   pnaya
    Quote from MLL
    I couldn't care less if other nurses smoke or not - it IS an informed decision. Just don't expect me to watch your patients for you 5-6 times a day while you go out to "huff and puff".


    HAHA.."HUFF AND PUFF" -----THAT IS SO HILARIOUS!
  12. by   froghair
    second hand smoke

    january 17, 2006
    by frank seltzer (mowee)
    ok it has finally come down to this. a couple in boston could be evicted from their apartment for smoking. a boston housing court jury so ruled on june 10th. their ruling came despite the lease allowed for smoking. the jury found that the smoking (about a pack of cigarettes a day for each of them) violated a more general clause banning any nuisance; any offensive noise, odor or fumes; or any hazard to health. alas the jury never said which it was but my guess is odor. we're in the era of legislating or lawyering comfort.
    i just wish this type of jury was around when i used to regularly get trapped in elevators with several mary kay ladies. their perfumes were obviously applied with an industrial sprayer and they all conflicted making a totally noxious smell. but i digress.
    second hand smoke, or ets (environmental tobacco smoke) has been branded a killer. nevermind, that actual first hand smoke may not be the killer the cdc and surgeon general say. (remember just this year the cdc had to revise the number of deaths from obesity from 365-thousand downward to around 25,000 as published by the american medical association.)
    in regards to smoking, the cdc says about 442,000 americans died each year from smoking during the years 1995-1999 (link). however, i defy anyone to find one death certificate which lists smoking as the cause of death. the cdc says it is heart disease, cancer etc. but that isn't the whole list. cervical cancer is attributed to smoking by the american cancer society (link). unfortunately, last year a vaccine for cervical cancer was tested successfully. seems the cancer is mostly the result of a virus (link). whoops. which is it a virus or smoking? actually a doctor friend has this theory of linkage...women who smoke tend to drink more. women who drink more are more sexually active. more sexually active women tend to get the std virus. viola.
    further, when considering smoking, the cdc says have you ever smoked? well when the surgeon general made his initial report on smoking in the 60s...what percentage of the population answered that question in the affirmative (think ww2, lucky strike goes to war, cigarettes on almost every tv show.) might have skewed the stats? probably. another way to view the stats is that if a smoker is obese, has high cholesterol, diabetes and heart problems, never exercises and dies of a heart attack, the government classifies it as a smoking attributed death. (again though the death certificate will say heart attack.)
    ok so how about ets?
    well most of the data on ets comes from an epa study commissioned during the clinton administration, after it classified ets as a "group a carcinogen" in 1993. most of the research was shoddy and in fact a federal judge threw it out in 1998. the judge said "epa publicly committed to a conclusion before research had begun; excluded industry by violating the act's procedural requirements; adjusted established procedure and scientific norms to validate the agency's public conclusion..." in other words, it made up the results. the world health organization did a study finding no statistically significant risk in ets. in the who report it showed that there were relative risks of 1.16 and 1.17 or a 16 and 17 percent increase of getting lung cancer from ets. but what was lost in the data was perspective. the national cancer institute's own guidelines say "relative risks of less than 2 [i.e. a 100% increase] are considered small...such increases may be due to chance, statistical bias or effects of confounding factors that are sometimes not evident." to put this in perspective, the relative risk for getting lung cancer from drinking whole milk is 2.4. that is 140 percentor 8 times more than from second hand smoke.
    there are plenty of chemicals in cigarette smoke...not nearly as many in cigars. but these chemicals exist in many everyday products. cigarettes produce up to 700 micrograms of formaldehyde in sidestream smoke (coming off the cigarette). but gas ranges release 20,000 to 40,000 micrograms per hour! further, formaldehyde is in carpets, coat fabrics, wood bonding and finishing products.. the normal stuff in buildings is around 40-50 micrograms of formaldehyde per cubic meter. ets rarely exceeds 40 micrograms per cubic meter. a "safe" level is formaldehyde is 1500 micrograms per cubic meter, or about 37 times more than cigarettes produce.
    but ets is serious right? well osha started studying the issue in 1994, trying to set an acceptable level of ets. it gave up in 2001. that was also the year that the oak ridge national laboratory did a comparison of a non-smoking restaurant and the non smoking section of a smoking tavern. the result? the levels were virtually identical. but how can there be smoke in a non smoking restaurant? cooking gives off smoke. when oak ridge in 2000 tested saliva of restaurant workers in smoking restaurants, they found their levels of nicotine and other substances considerably lower than proposed osha standards. maybe that's why osha gave up.
    there is a lot of material on smoking and second hand smoke at forces.org also at www.davehitt.com/facts/. dave runs through the science of these studies and gives you more studies.
    so why is there this rage for ets? well think of it...if you could smoke everywhere, then you wouldn't need nicotrol, zyban and other stop smoking programs and drugs. there is a profit motive at work. drug companies (johnson and johnson for one) are funding the initiatives. so are the american cancer society, american lung association and american heart association. they raise money to do it. the more money they raise...well you get the idea.
    finally there is this. on november 11, 2003, the university of houston headlined a release..."an apple a day may keep the doctor away...but so may a cigarette." the findings were based on the fact that stress is among america's top health problems and nicotine has a beneficial effect on memory, especially stress-induced memory impairment. the researcher says this could help with parkinsons and alzheimers.


    this is quiet long but i would like comment from those that think smoking should be banned and is the "cause" of increased cancer rates
  13. by   froghair
    it preaty much shoots down those that say second hand smoke increases the chance of getting cancer............. so what are you guys going to come up with now?????

close