Jakehose

Agreed. They are not scientific sources, but at this point media is the only source of information about the current issue that is still being investigated. From that information though, we as scientists can focus our attention toward the products being implicated. Very interesting conversation. Please let us know what you find.

I only use 3mg of nicotine (cigarettes have 18). I put it down from time to time, but in times of high stress or appropriate social events I reach for the vaporizer rather then the cigarettes (quit cigarettes in 2010). Recent articles when read in their entirety point to black market thc vaporizer products. When creating vape cartridges (nicotine or thc) the base cannot be a lipid (search lipid pneumonia). THC is mixed with lipids for "oral" administration, not inhalation. Plus the growing of the marijuana product is not regulated to prevent contamination or pesticides when produced illegally. Vaping has been around since around 1970. People have been vaping THC for over a decade. Marijuana has been smoked for longer than recorded history. We just now had this spurt of acute lung injuries, obviously there is a catalyst that was not there before. These are the thing that prohibition pushes people to turn to. I'll keep saying it; education and over site, not prohibition. All the meat recalls that occur, nobody blames the eating of meat. Because contamination is the culprit not the eating of meat. https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/as-vaping-related-lung-illnesses-spike-investigators-eye-contaminants/2019/08/29/cfe26032-ca78-11e9-be05-f76ac4ec618c_story.html?noredirect=on https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2019/08/28/critics-cdc-silent-vaping-thc-injuries-mount/2121523001/

These cases are being linked to black market products, specifically marijuana vape cartridges. I only use products from a reputable vape shop. But you kinda outlined my point. Even if I switched to gum or a patch, I would still be refused employment.

Evidently It is not straight forward for smoker, cause current methods group nonsmokers with smokers. I am a nonsmoker, but I do use nicotine. Big difference between a smoker and an individual whom uses nicotine. Smoking is a serious health issue, but nicotine in itself is not nearly as destructive. My issue is with the wide brush being used to paint all nicotine users as "smokers." Its presumptive and causes inaccurate discrimination. Your right, it's all on the insurance companies and the lack of oversight by state and federal government, hence why other states have taken action. We allow them to make non-evidence base policies and allow them to discriminate, penalize and dictate whom a company can hire through coercion (monetary coercion). Smoking and chewing tobacco cause increase health costs, agreed. I do not see how nicotine use in itself does. They need to pull these discriminatory practices till they can develop a test for smoking. Out of 2000 plus chemicals I find it hard to believe they can only find a test for 1 (nicotine).

Recent reports of serious issues are being linked to black market products (regulation and education). Nicotine is addictive, no disputing that , but degrees vary from person to person same as any other drug addiction. My point was that nicotine alone has shown to be less addictive in the absence of the full to tabacco. Chewing tobacco still has carcinogens excluding nicotine and I would imagine other chemicals that not in themselves are cancerous.

It is late, but I am not clearly seeing your stance. For or against an all out ban on "nicotine" for employment?

Nicotine causes PFOs and PDAs? Yes, please link me the reputable, non- bias scientific research evidence that nicotine caused these birth defect conditions. I would love to read it and see the significant prevalence of such defects being caused by nicotine in itself.

Here is the comprehensive study. https://www.nap.edu/read/24952/chapter/1 I have seen statistic showing teen smoking reduced. Yes vaping has oil increased, but educate not ban. And if an ex smoker switchee to a less harmful form of nicotine, then should we really take that away for them to go back to smoking? Harm reduction. We do not see a ban on cigarettes, the known carcinogen; why? Of course tobacco companies are going to invest. They see a shift in the market. Nicotine is still addictive; so yes they will switch tactics. But that does not negate a "safer" (not safe) alternative. Please show me statistics showing your claims of dual use being the rule not the exception. When naught from a reputable seller these products are less harmful. We are not going to eliminate nicotine use and sure are not going to get it done by targeting the less harmful product. (Makes me feel that big tobacco is hitting at both ends, investments and lobbying for such bans, just my opinion. If you go to a vape shop they will agree that the level of nicotine in gas station ecigs such as Jul (spelling) is outrageous, something like 50mg (cigarettes have 18mg). They do not even keep that high of nicotine on display. That level is for an extremely heavy smoker getting off cigarettes and is kept behind counters Yes regulation is needed and the FDA has been dragging thier feet. Teens and everyone else need information to make informed decisions. Agree, if you do not smoke you should not start vaping, but if it was not vaping they would likely turn to smoking is they are that susceptible to pressure.

I have no issue with cigarettes to a degree. I get that smoke attached to other effects those around them. I also understand cigarettes themselves have a long track record of negative side effects. Mybissue is the blanket statement on nicotine. If someone gets off cigarettes and there 2000 plus chemicals and numerous carcinogens, we should not be turning qualified applicants away due to NICOTINE use. I too am an ex smoker. But I have used a vaporizer for the last ten years with 3mg of nicotine or less (cigarettes have 18 mg, plus everything else mentioned). But even if I was using nicotine gum or a patch, it would make no difference. What's next caffeine, sugar, high fructose corn syrup? If it was limited to cigarettes I could accept, but not an all out ban on nicotine that can be found in more than just a tobacco plant.

Amazing what infrengments on our autonomy without scientific backing we will allow. They are not banning cigarettes, they are banning nicotine. All to save a buck at good employees expense.

Wow. This is so arguable. our own government did a comprehensive study in 2018 and concluded that vaping is in there words "SIGNIFICANTLY LESS HARMFUL." Regulate the products and ingredients, regulate marketing, and stop using kids as shields. Talk to your kids. Give them education like we do with any other substance. Ban vaporizers, seriously. Another example of policies being made off emotion instead of science. Even if a smoker goes to a vaporizer and stays there, it is SIGNIFICANTLY safer than analog cigarettes. Not SAFE (nothing belongs in lungs but air), but LESS HARMFUL. Not only to the user, but to those around them.

I work for a hospital system that has incorporated such discriminatory blanketed policies. They are not simply banning smoking. They are banning NICOTINE! A chemical that in and of itself has not shown to have serious negative side effects (other than addiction, which in the absence of cigarettes is not as strong.). Some like 30 states have banned such policies, rightfully so. I am fine with not allowing smoking on campus or even not smoking before work (clothes). Hell, if they were able to test strictly for "cigarettes" I may be persuade. But not a blanket policy on nicotine so they can save money with the insurance companies. Individuals use all forms of nicotine (vape, gum, patches, sprays and I am sure other forms.) Bottom line, it is discriminatory as majority of other states have declared. I say shame on healthcare systems that implement such policies considering hospitals are to run based off scientific research and research does not support a blanket ban on nicotine. Just another corporation trying to save a buck no matter whom they step on.