No Nicotine!

[Brikkz]

I start school next Wednesday and at orientation we were told that before you get hired at many of the hospitals you get your hair cut and checked for drugs including nicotine because they wont hire cigarette smokers. I don't smoke so it isn't a big deal for me but my husband smokes around me. I asked about second hand smoke and the insstructors doing the orientation said even second hand smoke can prevent you from getting hired if they find tracdes of it in your hair. So my husband is going to have to smoke away from me when I get close to graduation. I guess you'd want to quit out here because you can't smoke within so many blocks of a hospital out here anyway.

I was just wondering if anyone else was informed that they'd have to quit smoking in order to get a job where they live? I don't have to quit because I don't but my husband is going to either have to quit or just not smoke around me.

[Adams_Mama_07]

:)

I understand this. However, if someone is exposed to secondhand smoke, or uses a nicotine-based quit smoking drug, or is a home health nurse taking care of someone who's family smokes, or who's fiance smokes, or lives next door to a smoker, or goes to a family gathering where everyone smokes-- she's not going to be able to get a job? I'm referring to the OP's original post and some of the issues raised here by others. I'm sure there are lots of scenarios that could result in a non-smoker's inadvertent exposure to second-hand smoke.

Another point to consider, say a young, single mother works at a bar or something as a bartender (lots of smoke) while putting herself through nursing school. Obviously would test positive for nicotine, but is not longer going to work at said bar upon employment with the hospital (thus no longer would carry a stench with her). She would not be able to get a job at a hospital with such hiring practices. What is completely unfair about nicotine testing is that innocent, non-users can test positive for the nicotine metabolite. Unlike other drugs where actual consumption is required. Someone testing positive for the nicotine metabolite proves nothing, coming in smelling like an ashtray does. Getting caught with a cigarette does. I've never known a cig smoker who can go for an 8/10/12 hour shift without smoking--so there secret wouldn't last long. Then they could be terminated for lying on the application to the hospital.

[~Mi Vida Loca~RN, ASN, RN]

I'm not saying that people who are exposed to second hand smoke never smell like cigarette smoke. I'm saying I don't, and to not hire me because tracing of nicotine metabolite would be excreted in my urine because in the evenings, during my off time, I elect to spend time around my fiance. I am always about smelling top notch (looking top notch, dressing top notch, driving top notch, etc.) I shower twice a day (including washing my hair) then would immediately change into clinical uniforms and head to the hospital. Obviously I would not be smelling like cigarette smoke because I don't smoke and would not be around someone who does at 6:00 in the morning (if people are smart no one will be around me at that hour). Other shifts would be the same story because I always shower before going to work--so whether it be 3 in the afternoon, 11 at night, whatever. I would shower, dress for work, and leave without be smoked upon. So, not hiring me would be completely discriminatory (not in the disability sense, but the moral sense) because

A) I don't smoke B) I don't know how to smoke even if I tried C)My exposure to cigarette smoke is while dressed in everyday attire (not hospital attire) D) My hair is always washed before leaving the house (no exceptions) so it doesn't smell like smoke (it acutally smells like fruity suave stuff even now six hours later... So, my health is not at risk because my exposure is limited sitting outside on the patio with a smoker and I'm not carrying the stench with me in hospital clothing.

The only thing I commented was I disagreed about not smelling like smoke when you're around people that smoke. I stand by what I said. I made no comments on any of the other stuff you mentioned. Just that I can smell it even when it's not the person smoking. Obviously I'm not talking about a person being around smokers, going home taking a shower and changing clothes and then coming to class. That's absurd.

Another point to consider, say a young, single mother works at a bar or something as a bartender (lots of smoke) while putting herself through nursing school. Obviously would test positive for nicotine, but is not longer going to work at said bar upon employment with the hospital (thus no longer would carry a stench with her). She would not be able to get a job at a hospital with such hiring practices. What is completely unfair about nicotine testing is that innocent, non-users can test positive for the nicotine metabolite. Unlike other drugs where actual consumption is required. Someone testing positive for the nicotine metabolite proves nothing, coming in smelling like an ashtray does. Getting caught with a cigarette does. I've never known a cig smoker who can go for an 8/10/12 hour shift without smoking--so there secret wouldn't last long. Then they could be terminated for lying on the application to the hospital.

As far as the bartender and there being lots of smoke, that depends where you live, in CO and WA and I think CA (only ones I know from experience) there is no smoking allowed in the bars. The businesses will be fined if caught allowing it because smoking can't happen in public domains or something like that I can't remember the technical name. In WA the exception was the casinos that were on the reservations, they were able to make their own rules regarding it. I have also known plenty of smokers that can go without smoking during their work shifts. I know plenty of people that smoke occasionally, or only at home or socially.

[Adams_Mama_07]

The only thing I commented was I disagreed about not smelling like smoke when you're around people that smoke. I stand by what I said. I made no comments on any of the other stuff you mentioned. Just that I can smell it even when it's not the person smoking. Obviously I'm not talking about a person being around smokers, going home taking a shower and changing clothes and then coming to class. That's absurd.

Well, I also stand by what you said about people being around smokers smelling like smoke. But that is clearly not what this discussion is about and is a digression from the topic at hand. This discussion is about not hiring smokers and by extension anyone who has nicotine in their system (i.e. blood/urine)--which includes those exposed to 2nd hand smoke. The reason most of us object to the idea of not hiring people based upon exposure to second hand smoke is that for the majority of us non-smoking, clean people who care what we look like/smell like are not going to show up to work smelling like smoke (or b.o. for that matter). Thus, the argument that people exposed to second hand smoke pose a risk to patients is moot, unless of course that employee is scrubby and doesn't shower. In which case their employability should be questioned.

As far as the bartender and there being lots of smoke, that depends where you live, in CO and WA and I think CA (only ones I know from experience) there is no smoking allowed in the bars. The businesses will be fined if caught allowing it because smoking can't happen in public domains or something like that I can't remember the technical name. In WA the exception was the casinos that were on the reservations, they were able to make their own rules regarding it. I have also known plenty of smokers that can go without smoking during their work shifts. I know plenty of people that smoke occasionally, or only at home or socially.

I'm not sure of the relevancy of what you are saying. Since my hypothetical woman works in a bar where there is smoking, obviously she is working in a state where it is legal. The few exceptions aren't relevant, since I said she was in fact working in a bar where there was smoke. I don't go to bars, but I know it's not illegal in my state to smoke in them--of course my state would likely be one of the last to ban smoking in public facilities.

My argument remains the same, do you find it ethical that a woman who is exposed to cigarette smoke should be denied a position at a hospital because she tests positive for the nicotine metabolite due to her second hand exposure in her work setting for which she will no longer be subject to upon hiring?

Or are we advocating elitism here? Just because so and so is fortunate enough not to have a husband/fiance/boyfriend/job/friends that don't smoke she can get the job, but anyone with the sheer misfortune of having someone in their life who does will be denied despite the fact that they do not come to work smelling like smoke, do not themselves smoke, but because their body absorbed the nicotine from second hand exposure?

That is what is clearly wrong with this concept. Substance abuse (alcohol, drugs) cause positive results because the tester actual consumed these products. Positive nicotine results can be the result of second hand exposure.