1st post

[dragonfire]

Tropical Bob - you said that if you esmoke you would test positive because of the nicotine, but does that apply to the zero nicotine juices as well?

[nicowolf]

Tropical Bob - you said that if you esmoke you would test positive because of the nicotine, but does that apply to the zero nicotine juices as well?

Zero nic juices shouldn't show up in the test as the chemical they are testing for, cotinine, is a byproduct of your body's metabolism of nicotine. Zero nicotine means zero cotinine. Some vegetables have nicotine in them, but not in high enough doses to show up on the test. I was learning a lot reading about nicotine on wikipedia - it is an excellent source of information that isn't tainted by commercial interests or political agendas.

[Kimmiegrif]

trop bob, how about if you chew nicorette or use the patch???? that would put nicotine in your system...I think it is a bit hard to distinguish who is a non smoker and who isn't cuz of the cig replacements out there. All someone would have to say is, unless someone has seen me smoke a cig on business property...I am using nicorette or the patch, so that I can comply with the program and not burn tobacco. Maybe there are level differences in the differnet ways of ingestion?

[MagusSteele]

People are no longer Employees, they are property.
I have been saying for years now, If i ever go to jail, it is going to be because of a smoking ban. Very little makes me madder then the people trying to control us.
You can Bank on the "Fat" police next.

IF (i hope not) we get a universal health care plan, you sure will answer questions, then you will be prioritized depending on what they deem your need is. "Your a smoker, you can wait 6 months for that surgery" "your a smoker, your not worth the expence"

Welcome to the USSA

[TropicalBob]

I'm not sure NRT produces cotinine, Kimmie. Good question. But ... there is not one NRT product that is meant for long-term use, however, so an employer might give someone claiming to be using NRT a few months before retesting would have to show an absence of cotinine.

Here's another interesting thought: What if you live with a smoker and inhale quantities of second-hand smoke? Will that produce a positive cotinine test result?

It's a new world. Stay tuned for the courts to answer these and other burning questions.

[TropicalBob]

Oh yeh, zero-nic carts certainly wouldn't produce cotinine.

But that's not why most people here e-smoke. Most forum posters are nic addicts seeking an enjoyable, healthier way of getting our drug. That's me! Everything I do, however, produces cotinine: e-smoke, snus, Stonewall dissolvables, pipe after supper ... I'd be doomed to no-nic hell.

[Schroedinger's cat]

OK, this thread is REALLY scaring me.... I mean, nicotine is legal (I am not specifically speaking of our e-liquids), and cigarettes are legal. If an employer wants to ban smoking on the workplace, I guess it's their prerogative (although I don't like it). I have more troubles with them banning smokeless tobacco. But, really, how can they ban anyone from a legal activity that does not impair any function and is pursued on own's time? I cannot believe that ACLUs have not been involved in this.... This seems WAY above anything any entity could do to their workers. Besides, as long as only tobacco/nicotine users are targeted, this is discrimination, too, isn't it? Is this really the US???! (WHO does not newly hire smokers, and does not allow promotion of smokers that were hired when this policy was enforced. Hoowever, WHO does not fall under any jurisdiction but their own).

I am starting to feel lucky that I am an Italian citizen.... As a scientist, it's very frustrating to be there (which is why I am here), but I doubt that employers will go this far.....

By the way, MagusSteele, even if this is off-topic: Italy has universal health care and, while it has some problems, I am quite impressed with it. Any resident of Italy is immediately exempted from virtually all out-of-pocket expenses in case of diseases like cancer, diabetes, HIV, etc. Frankly, I do not really understand what many Americans have against universal health care.... I find the system here really inconvenient, complicated, and expensive (and I have health insurance from my work, for now....). In the US, an enormous amounf of money is spent to decide whether a given person should be entitled to this therapy/drug/procedure. In Europe, there are approved procedures, and everyone with an applicable condition is automatically eligible. This cuts costs, and allows for some equity.

[Schroedinger's cat]

Bluewolf: if you end up taking a new job in a different state, look for states that have "smoker protection laws", and check out what law that is. About 30 states have some such law and, in many cases, employer cannot regulate behaviors outside the workplace. The American Lung Association is upset about these laws (of course), but it lists the states here:
American Lung Association
Also, there is a searchable databalse (SLATI) where you can check what protections exist. In NC, for example, one can require such behaviors from employees if this is in line with the objective of the workplace (or something like that). So, if you work in a hospital, it may be difficult for you to geta job where your rights are not trampled on. But you can still try.....

[MagusSteele]

The Public Health care issue could be a 600 page thread on to it self.

You may not be used to the same political crap as we are.
It can be Banned, or taxed, or anything they feel like for several reasons,

"Its For the Children" Its for your Health, Its for the health of others, its to reduce costs,
Its for the people with Asthma.
Basicly its because they can.
When you factor in Dumb people, and ignorance, you can do anything.
Since it has been deemed a health risk, you as a smoker no long have rights.
They have to save you from your self.
Smokeing kills millions, and second hand smoke kills the other half of the public. IF you believe their crap. According to some things ive seen, the Human population should have went extinct a few hundred years ago because of smokeing, if you go by their numbers.

Being a minority, it is hard to fight, and haveing the health connection, the courts wont help.
This is why I am praying they leave E-cigs alone.

ViVa La Revolution

This country has been going off the deep end since ive been alive.

[Schroedinger's cat]

Oh, don't get me wrong.... Italy has A LOT of problems (health care included), and there are smoking bans in virtually all indoor public places. But I don't think that employers could go as far as forbid smoking outside work on your own time, even if Europe is getting to be more and more like the US RE smoking attitudes. I have heard that some UK workplace fired a new employee as soon as they discovered that she was a smoker (although she was not smoking at work), and apparently got away with it. I think it's in part the smokers' fault. They have basically convinced us that we are doing something really wrong, so we just take it quietly.... It was brilliant to get "passive smoking" to be the main issue. That way, even people who would live and let live felt that they were being threatened.... And the science on passive smoking is pretty weak, as far as I can tell. I am an epidemiologist, and I read some of the evidence. I was not really impressed (except in the case of young children, where there is some more evidence).