And if we catch you smoking you'll be charge $25

[Manatee111]

Recently, our hopsital made insurance adjustments which included employees having to certify that they were non-smokers or be charge $25.00 a week extra for health insurance. They have also begun to charge any employee that catch smoking on any hospital property $25.00 for every time they are caught. I'm not a smoker, but this is really taking things kinda far. I still see patients and family members smoking on benches inspite of them putting up additional signs and taking sown smoking hutts. Anyone else have this going on by them? I hear the next move similar to this is gonna be for the over-weight employees. I might have to find a new job then.

[Fribblet]

I don't think fast food or food in general is comparable to smoking for this argument. You can have a burger and fries once in a while and it won't affect you. It's just not the same with smoking. I would even say you could smoke marijuana once in a while without it being detrimental.

Sure it's the same for smoking. A person can smoke a cigarette a few times a year with no detrimental health effects.

The health issues take effect when one becomes addicted and starts smoking everyday, many times a day.

There was a recent study that showed smoking marijuana did not put one at an increased risk for lung cancer. This was true even for those who were heavy marijuana smokers. (I don't believe this study looked at any other lung disease other than cancer. It's been a while since I read it.)

Interesting, no?

[dinah77, ADN]

There are people who do eat right, exercise and are still obese. Lab tests are all within normal limits, stress tests show they have no cardiac issues. These people are very few and far between, but they are evidence that bodies come in all shapes and sizes naturally.

Not everyone will be a skinny minny, but obesity is still, by and large, related to poor dietary choices and a sedentary lifestyle. (And before I get flamed: I know there are health issues that make losing weight difficult, but they don't make it impossible. )

That being said, I think BMI is a very poor clinical measurement. A body builder's BMI will fall into the obese category.

I agree with BMI thing- also, I did try to adress some of the medical issues in my post

my point was that often times people throw around the whole "Lots of overweight people exercise and eat well thing!" waaaaaaay too much. Let's face it, the vast majority of obesity in this country is due to poor lifestyle choices

Also, not saying you were necessarily doing this, but on a side note it irks me to no end when people say skinny or fat, like those are the only two choices - there is a happy medium of body type, just average, healthy, in the middle- think Kate Winslet.

[Altra, BSN, RN]

Does anyone else find claims that there all of these obese people running around who eat well and regulalry exercise dubious?

Where are they?

Define obese; could your BMI be in the overweight category if you are muscular from working out? yup, cuz it is judged soley on weight and height- but obese? I'm just not buying it..

Short of having a thyroid imbalance ior another genuine medical condition that would make you obese despite your diet and activity level , I don't think it exists-

I have yet to meet the obese person who eats really well ( i.e no fast food/soda, limited booze) exercises at least 30 mins of cardio a day and is somehow physically incapable of shedding the excess weight

Where are they? Raising my hand ...

I wear a dress size 10. But my BMI is 29.9 (just shy of "obese")

I work with a nurse who has calculated his BMI at 36. He's a big dude. He also goes to the gym 5 days/week after a 12-hr. shift (he works 2 jobs) and does an hour of cardio. His weight is stable and labs are WNL.

The BMI is crap for a diagnostic tool.

[MaryEMT]

Honestly this may sound harsh, but I think its a great policy! I work at a drug rehab facility and had to take two of our teen clients to the ER. There were hospital employees giving them cigarettes while in the hospital building despite the fact that my coworker and I were telling them they are minors (the kids only asked because they saw them smoking). So harsher rules on smoking on hospital property might help prevent extremely unprofessional circumstances like this one.

[Altra, BSN, RN]

Most of us can agree on some prudent reasons to limit smoking on a hospital campus.

But what about this concept that the hospital (or any business/organization/employer) can "fine" you for noncompliance?

Not kosher in my book.

[morphed]

Sure it's the same for smoking. A person can smoke a cigarette a few times a year with no detrimental health effects.

The health issues take effect when one becomes addicted and starts smoking everyday, many times a day.

There was a recent study that showed smoking marijuana did not put one at an increased risk for lung cancer. This was true even for those who were heavy marijuana smokers. (I don't believe this study looked at any other lung disease other than cancer. It's been a while since I read it.)

Interesting, no?

A doctor may say you can have a burger and fries once in a while as long as it's not a habit, but they're not going to say you can smoke once in a while as long as it's not a habit. There's no level of safe consumption for smoking.

The marijuana part, yeah, I believe it. Not sure if we read the same study, but I have read multiple things that indicate that it really is not as detrimental to your health as smoking for example.

[Fribblet]

A doctor may say you can have a burger and fries once in a while as long as it's not a habit, but they're not going to say you can smoke once in a while as long as it's not a habit. There's no level of safe consumption for smoking.

The marijuana part, yeah, I believe it. Not sure if we read the same study, but I have read multiple things that indicate that it really is not as detrimental to your health as smoking for example.

There's not a safe level of consumption for alcohol, but a MD isn't going to tell you not to drink either. They're going to tell you not to smoke because to tell you otherwise opens them up to a whole host of potential problems, not because a person cannot enjoy a cigarette once in a while without ill effects. Walking outside regularly in a major city is probably more detrimental to your health than the occasional cigarette, imo.

Truth is, there are very few things that are detrimental when enjoyed in moderation. Problem is, some of those things are addicting and difficult to moderate.

With that in mind, one has to wonder why cigarettes are targeted to such a degree while alcohol isn't.

Alcohol is addicting, when consumed regularly it has a negative impact on health and is the cause of death for many, many people. That being said, I have no issue with workplaces being alcohol free or with them being tobacco free.

ETA: To get even more tangential: It's amazing to me that alcohol is legal while marijuana remains illegal. Alcohol is much more detrimental to the health of the individual and society. /end tangent.

[Altra, BSN, RN]

Honestly this may sound harsh, but I think its a great policy! I work at a drug rehab facility and had to take two of our teen clients to the ER. There were hospital employees giving them cigarettes while in the hospital building despite the fact that my coworker and I were telling them they are minors (the kids only asked because they saw them smoking). So harsher rules on smoking on hospital property might help prevent extremely unprofessional circumstances like this one.

I disagree. The incident you describe was not about smoking, but about extremely unprofessional behavior perpetuated by those employees.

[VivaRN]

Instead of punishing the smokers they should reward the non-smokers. The positive reinforcement would motivate more people to want to be in the non-smoker category, vs. punishment. For those continuing to smoke, their situation wouldn't change.

For any facility implementing such a policy, they should offer smoking cessation classes and products free of charge so everyone has an equal chance to comply. There should also be a grace period before the policy goes into effect.

I think this would be a lot more equitable and have a higher likelihood of success.

[pedsrnjc]

I just wish cigarettes were illegal, I would never go find a "dealer". I could quit easier that way. Why are cigarettes legal anyway? I'm totally on board with a no smoking policy, even fines for smoking on company property, but to have my supervisor drive by my home and see me smoking outside and fine me...that seems invasive.

[ctmed]

I just wish cigarettes were illegal, I would never go find a "dealer". I could quit easier that way. Why are cigarettes legal anyway? I'm totally on board with a no smoking policy, even fines for smoking on company property, but to have my supervisor drive by my home and see me smoking outside and fine me...that seems invasive.

They aren't. There are drug tests for nicotine.

There is already a hospital in Florida I read about a while back that was testing folks for nicotine as part of pre-employment.

It would not be too much of a stretch by a zealous admin to use "reasonable suspicion" to test at time other than then.

[Penelope_Pitstop, BSN, RN]

I just wish cigarettes were illegal, I would never go find a "dealer". I could quit easier that way. Why are cigarettes legal anyway? I'm totally on board with a no smoking policy, even fines for smoking on company property, but to have my supervisor drive by my home and see me smoking outside and fine me...that seems invasive.

Tobacco companies supporting politicians is one reason.

Another is the jobs dependent on the growing and selling of tobacco.

Plus, if it were illegal, there wouldn't be tobacco companies, and then people couldn't sue them...