stinking of cigarette smoke

Published

:angryfire Is there anyone out there who agrees with me?

I work on a ward where we frequently provide palliative care for patients with cancer (amongst other things). I cannot stress how much it infuriates me when nurses who are smokers go into a dying cancer patient's room stinking of cigarette smoke.

In my opinion this is so morally and ethically wrong that I took my concerns to our unit manager after a patient's family made a complaint to me about another nurse. Unfortunately the NUM also smokes like a chimney and bla bla bla bla nothing was done.

Now that I have unloaded I feel more able to look at the situation objectively and decide on a course of action through appropriate channels.

I would welcome any and all opinions on smoking in the workplace.

(Please let it be known that I do not object to any person's right to smoke off the ward if they wish, only in the circumstances descibed above).

It's not illegal IF it's a signed condition of your employment there. Which it would be.

Scott's is clearly targeting all employees both current and future. They say they can legally fire people for smoking on their own time and off of company property in 21 states. I don't believe it and I doubt such an occurance would hold up in a court of law should it be challenged far enough. You say if they make it a condition of employment. To that I say that anyone who signs away a freedom is a moron, whether or not they engage in that activity. What legal and dangerous activity will be the next target? Scuba diving? Mountain biking? Hunting? Rock climbing? Bike racing? Motor cycle riding (without a helemt). Alcohol comsumption? Being overwiehght? Sedentary lifestyle? Promiscuous Sex? Snowmobile racing? ATV riding? Will the warped thinkers also taget people with DM, HTN, hypercholesteroleimia, or genetic defects? This issue reeks of the same mentality as those who would have all firearms removed from the hands of law abiding private citizens.

i don't know why this needs to evolve into a personal rights debate.

it has nothing to do w/one's personal rights.

the issue is smoking stinks- no way around it. period.

and your patients shouldn't have to smell it.

leslie

Specializes in Med Surg, Hospice, Home Health.

at my hospital, they went smoke free last year, had classes that employees were paid to attend, they even paid for the nicoderm patches...

linda

Specializes in Specializes in L/D, newborn, GYN, LTC, Dialysis.
Scott's is clearly targeting all employees both current and future. They say they can legally fire people for smoking on their own time and off of company property in 21 states. I don't believe it and I doubt such an occurance would hold up in a court of law should it be challenged far enough. You say if they make it a condition of employment. To that I say that anyone who signs away a freedom is a moron, whether or not they engage in that activity. What legal and dangerous activity will be the next target? Scuba diving? Mountain biking? Hunting? Rock climbing? Bike racing? Motor cycle riding (without a helemt). Alcohol comsumption? Being overwiehght? Sedentary lifestyle? Promiscuous Sex? Snowmobile racing? ATV riding? Will the warped thinkers also taget people with DM, HTN, hypercholesteroleimia, or genetic defects? This issue reeks of the same mentality as those who would have all firearms removed from the hands of law abiding private citizens.

This is the slippery slope you worry about. I get that.

But few of the above activties costs NEARLY as much to care for as the results of years of smoking do......really. Rock climbing? If you gear up properly and take care, you do ok....same w/cycling and other leisure activies. They don't compare to the costs smoking-related illnesses are weighing on us all collectively.

And I am not against people having to ride w/a helmet.........nor some other things. I am not against people having to take reasonable precautions to NOT be injured NEEDLESSLY. Maybe its all these years in the military, where seatbelt and helmet wearing have been mandatory (read: our way of life now) for over 20 years!

One HUGE PLUS to me: This company is offering the means to quit and access to a state-of-the-art physical fitness center. If you ask me, they are on the RIGHT track, and I would not mind seeing MY employer (a hospital no less) go that way. This company is not just drawing a hard line, they are helping others make lifestyle changes that will benefit them. And I did read where being a smoker won't get you fired, if you are at least trying to quit. RIGHT ON, if ya ask me.

It's time America owned up to its unhealthy lifestyles and perhaps PAID for them, themselves . People leading healthier lifestyles and making wise choices ARE getting VERY tired of paying the cost for their sedentary, smoking and substance-abusing neighbors. Clearly, times are a changin.....

But few of the above activties costs NEARLY as much to care for as the results of years of smoking do......really.

There is no question that smoking contributes to many healthcare problems and cost's a lot of money. That is not my point. If we allow employers make smoking cesation or abstinance a condition of employment, what is to stop them from going after other legal activities?

Now, back to the topic. Yes, I think smoking stinks and I dislike it when a nurse, or any employee in my facility, comes in smelling of cigarette smoke. Do I think these nurses are hipocrits? Not neccesarily. I bet I could find something on any nurse that could be considered hipocracy.

link to “state legislated action on tobacco issues. restriction of smoking in public places.”

http://www.cancer.org/docroot/ped/content/ped_10_12_state_legislated_actions_on_tobacco_issues.asp?sitearea=ped

california, 1998 banned in all workplaces, including bars and restaurants, and excepting tobacconists.

on december 28, 2005, usa today reported that "six states enacted indoor smoking bans in 2005, more than in any previous year, as public sentiment appears increasingly anti-tobacco." that same news article states that 39% of of u.s. citizens live in areas that "are covered by statewide or local laws limiting smoking, according to americans for non-smokers' rights. in 1985, there were fewer than 200 such state and local laws in the usa.

today, there are more than 2,000. of those, 118 state or local governments ban all smoking in restaurants, bars and other workplaces. it's all part of a growing sentiment for a smoke-free environment at work, in public places, even outdoors."

people who smoke are not in a protected group. protected groups include people who use wheelchairs, people who are members of a particular nationality or ethic group, or people with children. also, people federal disability rights laws.

here in california, only 17% of the adult population is still smoking. (and 70-90% of them want to quit.) however, in some lower economic communities and in some communities of color or particular nationalities, the numbers could be as high as 35%.

different attempts at accommodating both smokers' desire to smoke where they wished and the need to effectively protect against the health risks associated with tobacco smoke have been suggested and tested in practice: designated smoking and non-smoking sections, ventilation systems, enclosed smoking rooms, awareness campaigns.

none of these have proven to be fool-proof effective both in theory and in practice (smoking room doors left open, ventilation shut down to minimize heating/cooling costs), which spurred many public and private establishments to voluntarily implement an in-house smoke-free policy without governmental legislation.

Here ya go, a link to the story:

Your smokes or your job

In less than a year, Scotts Miracle-Gro plans to start firing employees who light up-even at home

Friday, December 09, 2005

"Beginning in October, smoking will be significantly more expensive for employees of Scotts Miracle-Gro Co.

Lighting up, even at home, will cost them their jobs......"

rest of the story at:

http://www.dispatch.com/news-story.php?story=dispatch/2005/12/09/20051209-A1-01.html

So don't be TOO terribly surprised hospitals will follow suit in the future. It's about insurance costs and all that......

Their plan is pretty radical, help them any way they can to stop smoking and they built a muli-million dollar fitness center for the employees to work out in---but it means no smoking, even off the job! I can see this catching in other companies, including hospitals if it has not already.

Is this fair? You decide....

I do believe this is unfair. This infringes on a persons right of freedom. I do smoke although I agree someone should not take advantage of their addiction and go for a smoke five or six times in their shift, Any person is entitled to two fifteen minutes and one thirty minute break during their shift. This is to reliev some of the stress and get off the floor. I may not go smoke everytime, but if I have to I will go and just sit in waiting area or I may go a smoke. But, as far as getting fired from skoking at home that I do not agree with. If you smoke your insurance premiums are already higher than if you don't.

Specializes in Family Practice Clinic.

it already is a misdemeaner in my state, staff have to leave the hospital grounds completely after clocking out for 30 min. there have been many firings from smoking on hospital grounds

If we allow employers make smoking cesation or abstinance a condition of employment, what is to stop them from going after other legal activities?

Employers are only setting non-smoking policies at their places of employment. An individual is not impacted by non smoking policies on their own time and on their property.

Employers are only setting non-smoking policies at their places of employment. An individual is not impacted by non smoking policies on their own time and on their property.

Better re-read the article...

Beginning in October, smoking will be significantly more expensive for employees of Scotts Miracle-Gro Co. Lighting up, even at home, will cost them their jobs.

jimthorp:

As stated in my previous post:

]People who smoke are not in a protected group. Protected groups include people who use wheelchairs, people who are members of a particular nationality or ethic group, or people with children. Also, people federal disability rights laws.

]

]The problem for Scotts: "The company has not determined how it will verify compliance with the new policy..." It will be interesting to read a follow up of this story.

]

]As stated in another post: This is business and about the increasing costs of medical care.

Specializes in Specializes in L/D, newborn, GYN, LTC, Dialysis.
I do believe this is unfair. This infringes on a persons right of freedom. I do smoke although I agree someone should not take advantage of their addiction and go for a smoke five or six times in their shift, Any person is entitled to two fifteen minutes and one thirty minute break during their shift. This is to reliev some of the stress and get off the floor. I may not go smoke everytime, but if I have to I will go and just sit in waiting area or I may go a smoke. But, as far as getting fired from skoking at home that I do not agree with. If you smoke your insurance premiums are already higher than if you don't.

It's not unfair. You are not losing your freedom to either chose to work elsewhere and continue to smoke or comply. It's simple enough: If you want to work there, you comply w/company policy. They are giving people LOTS of resources and time to quit. And the increased premiums smokers pay do NOT begin to cover what we all ALL paying to cover their smoking-related illnesses and hospitalizations.

+ Join the Discussion