Nicotine Test, No smoking policy

Nurses General Nursing

Published

I was just wondering what everyone else felt about the no smoking policy that is enforced to work at many healthcare facilities around the US right now.

I smoke the vapor nicotine system. It does not incur the health hazards that smoking cigarettes do. For example, no second/third hand smoke, my lungs have been clearing out the tar, my smell is returning to normal, and all the other things that relate to what happens when you quit smoking cigarettes.

Now, I called the hospital and asked if they were doing the CO2 and tar test to see if people were smoking, and they said no its just a general nicotine test. Now, many people use nicotine but in ways that do not effect you as smoking does. For example, nicotine patches, gum, vapor systems, and chew. The requirement though states that they are only excluding nurses who smoke cigarettes?

Do you think the nicotine excluded is fair because their are other ways to take in nicotine. Also, there are also other health issues caused by many self inflicted health risk factors. What about weight, alcohol intake, or multiple other things that effect our health negatively.

I understand excluding people that smoke cigarettes due to the risk that it could cause to the patients with second hand smoke, even though I always see nurses standing off hospital property smoking anyway. How is it justified to exclude nicotine all together?

Specializes in OR, Nursing Professional Development.
Right that.

If you are not a "protected class" the corporations may deprive you of rights without batting an eye. Because our government has said they can.

How is one being deprived of rights? They have the right to continue smoking. No facility must guarantee a job to every applicant; they may screen how they wish as long as it isn't illegal.

I am not convinced either that these are that safe. Maybe safer then a regular one, but truthfully I don't want to get a nose full of someones vapor either, Still stuff in that vapor. If I was around someone that was smoking one of those things, I still could be inhaling nicotine which would be in the vapor, and which really I don't feel I want in my lungs anymore then the rest of the toxins that a regular one has. Also wasn't it found out that the liquid is very toxic, and if it were drank it could kill you? I thought there was a report on keeping it out of reach of children because if drank it could kill. Doesn't seem all that safe to me at still putting it in your body even in a different form.

Thankfully with my job I am able to decline working for a smoker. I understand they need all the care and love that anyone else does, but put me in a smokers house for more then 1/2 an hour and I leave sick as a dog.

Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
How is one being deprived of rights? They have the right to continue smoking. No facility must guarantee a job to every applicant; they may screen how they wish as long as it isn't illegal.

Some employers are now able to interfere in the employees right to access certain health care with their compensation, because of "religious" objection. The screening doesn't break the law because our law makers value corporate life over human life.

It is interesting that 29 states actually have laws that "protect the rights of smokers." Smoker Protection Law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

.

This thing about protecting the rights of smokers is misleading. It even says not really tobacco specific on some of the links.

Missouri is listed but:

SSM hospitals in St. Louis area will no longer hire smokers : News

New Jersey has been rethinking their policies after the big firefighter workers comp ruling.

Many states have already adopted rules similar to the Firefighters Heart Lung Act. Even in many the states listed as smoking protected, you will not get hired as a Firefighter or probably any other uniformed public servant if you smoked the year before hire.

California also has some of the toughest public smoking laws in the country including rental apartments. So even though it is on the protected list, there are enough regulations in that state for it to be considered unlawful. Tech companies could also argue 3rd hand smoke running their sensitive gadgets. You also won't find a job in California as a Firefighter if you smoke.

But, the city of San Francisco protects obesity if you can pass the requirements for the job.

With thousands of applicants, why hire a smoker if others just as qualified? The same now in a saturated healthcare market. At will states, even if on the list, also can find ways to not hire you.

As far e-cigarettes having harmful effects, they are still studying the chemicals in the flavored solutions. You might just be trading off one for another. The nicotine is off course still known and some are consuming larger quantities because it is flavored and "e-cigarettes".

Specializes in LTC, Psych, M/S.
This thing about protecting the rights of smokers is misleading. It even says not really tobacco specific on some of the links.

Missouri is listed but:

SSM hospitals in St. Louis area will no longer hire smokers : News

New Jersey has been rethinking their policies after the big firefighter workers comp ruling.

Many states have already adopted rules similar to the Firefighters Heart Lung Act. Even in many the states listed as smoking protected, you will not get hired as a Firefighter or probably any other uniformed public servant if you smoked the year before hire.

California also has some of the toughest public smoking laws in the country including rental apartments. So even though it is on the protected list, there are enough regulations in that state for it to be considered unlawful. Tech companies could also argue 3rd hand smoke running their sensitive gadgets. You also won't find a job in California as a Firefighter if you smoke.

But, the city of San Francisco protects obesity if you can pass the requirements for the job.

With thousands of applicants, why hire a smoker if others just as qualified? The same now in a saturated healthcare market. At will states, even if on the list, also can find ways to not hire you.

As far e-cigarettes having harmful effects, they are still studying the chemicals in the flavored solutions. You might just be trading off one for another. The nicotine is off course still known and some are consuming larger quantities because it is flavored and "e-cigarettes".

I hope you are right, in this case.

Kinda like the FMLA laws supposedly protecting pregnant workers, the employer just finds a way around it.

Specializes in ER.

It's health insurance reasons and break time.

I personally hate it when people chew. I used to be in EMS and people chew all the time there. My ex chews because he was in the military and "everyone chewed."

There is a hospital in Texas that supposedly will not hire obese staff.

Specializes in Emergency.

Since I support our right to choose our own death...assisted suicide etc...etc...I guess I have no problem with people smoking...but please keep that poison away from me...I reserve the right to choose my own demise!

Specializes in MDS/ UR.

I smoked almost half my life.

I have been free of it for near 5 years.

I am of the opinion that I would rather not see anyone inhaling anything into their lungs that is not a prescribed medicine.

If you are going to inhale, I see an E-Cig as a better choice than a real cigarette hands down.

Do I think they are the be all and end all?

Absolutely not.

I think it is trading one addiction for another or using another delivery method to get your fix when you can't have fire.

I believe time will show that they will have consequences to one's health.

Do I think someone should be allowed to go vaping anywhere they please?

Nope.

I don't want to be on the bus, shopping in a store, waiting in the lobby of an appointment or eating my food where someone can disperse their vapor. I will give you the bars, pool halls, clubs, casinos and bingo halls to call it at their will.

If you are vaping nicotine you deal with the risk of a test and consequences for application or job security.

Everyone is free to do as they please but the reality is some things come with payoffs.

It is interesting that 29 states actually have laws that "protect the rights of smokers." Smoker Protection Law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Living in one, I worked at a facilitity that made itself a "smoke free campus." This made things worse because the smokers would take longer breaks due to the fact they have to drive off campus to smoke.

Which points to a good reason not to hire a smoker.

Specializes in burn ICU, SICU, ER, Trauma Rapid Response.

The hospital is saying one thing and doing something else. The claim is that they are excluding smokers, when in realiety they are excluding all nicotine users.

Plenty of people who have never smoked use nicotine. For example I have a friend who used both nicotine gum and patches as recommended by his physician. He used to dip copenhagen snuff but quit 3 years ago, but still uses the gum and patches. So he would be excluded from employment, despite never having smoked in his life.

The hospital should just stop lying and be honest about who they will not hire. If instead of "smokers" the said "nicotine users" it would be much more honest.

Which points to a good reason not to hire a smoker.

What if you only smoke before or after work?

When I have worked in facilities that have allowed smoking, I find myself forever covering assignments as people 'step outside for a minute.' This gets old really fast. I'd far prefer working at a facility that is smoke free.

+ Add a Comment