Can't get a job if you are a smoker!!!

[AngeLsLuv]

Goddess forbid any of us do anything that the government doesn't want us to do, although they are doing it themselves.. Perfect example of this is that they tax ciggies but the taxes on cigars are not raised because in DC they like cigars...

It's one thing if you have children and "want" child protective caps on everything, but saying tobacco is a drug that should be away from children is one thing, But we are talking about tobacco "juice" for an e-ciggie and what about cafeine, are coffee cans going to have child protective caps on them too since cafeine is a drug??

I am disabled and need all my bottled prescriptions with non-child proof caps on them because I can go an hour trying to get the top of them off...

I grew up and was told not to touch things, so I didn't touch them.. Far be it from me to tell someone how to raise a child, but please.. Raise your kids to not to touch things and all of this would be fine.. If you have small kids that grab things, then just put "whatever" where they can't get to them..

Just afew weeks ago I was attemting to open a bottle of bleach to do laundry.. On the top of it was one of those new type aluminum caps. Not the one's with just aluminum but the one with the plastic 1/2 and to open it you are suposed to pull on the plastic part..

I was pulling it and pulling it.. My fingers slipped and my arm went flying, and I punch myself so hard that I went flying and landed on the floor..

Sure that was funny and I laughed about it, but it hurt.. A week later I was still in pain and didn't want to go to the ER from embarrassment, and I couldn't get into see my doctor.. I did ended up going to the ER and found out that not only did I bruise my face, but I dislocated my jaw..

If I'm not hurting anyone, the government can leave me alone.. Who wants to talk about the harm, abuse, and murder of animals?? That's fine according to the laws in this world..

 

[Drozd]

State Smoker Protection Laws
American Lung Association
State Year Code
Arizona 1991 ARIZ. REV. STAT.§ 36-601.02
California CA LABOR CODE § 96(k) & 98.6
Colorado
1990 CO REV. STAT. ANN § 24-34-402.5
Connecticut 2003 CT GEN. STAT. ANN.§ 31-40s
District of Columbia 1993 D.C. CODE ANN.§ 7-1703.3
Illinois 1987 820 ILL. COMP. STAT. 55/5
Indiana 2006 IND. CODE §§ 22-5-4-1 et seq.
Kentucky 1994 KY REV. STAT. ANN.§ 344.040
Louisiana 1991 LA REV. STAT. ANN.§ 23:966
Maine 1991 ME REV. STAT. ANN. tit. 26,§ 597
Minnesota 1992 MINN. STAT.§ 181.938
Mississippi 1994 MISS. CODE ANN.§ 71-7-33
Missouri 1992 MO. REV. STAT.§ 290.145
Montana 1993 MONT. CODE ANN.§§ 39-2-313 & 39-2-314
Nevada 1991 NEV. REV. STAT.§ 613.333
New Hampshire 1991 N.H. REV. STAT. ANN.§ 275:37-a
New Jersey 1991 N.J. STAT. ANN.§§ 34:6B-1 et seq.
New Mexico 1991 N.M. STAT. ANN.§§ 50-11-1 et seq.
New York 1992 N.Y.[LABOR] LAW § 201-d
North Carolina 1991 N.C. GEN. STAT.§ 95-28.2
North Dakota 1993 N.D. CENT. CODE §§ 14-02.4-01 et seq.
Oklahoma 1991 OKLA. STAT. ANN. tit. 40,§ 500
Oregon 1989 OR. REV. STAT.§§ 659A.315 & 659A.885
Rhode Island 2005 R.I. GEN. LAWS § 23-20.10-14
South Carolina 1991 S.C. CODE ANN.§ 41-1-85
South Dakota 1991 S.D. CODIFIED LAWS § 60-4-11
Tennessee 1990 TENN. CODE ANN.§ 50-1-304
Virginia 1989 VA. CODE ANN.§ 2.2-2902
West Virginia 1992 W. VA. CODE § 21-3-19
Wisconsin 1991 WIS. STAT.§§ 111.31 et seq.
Wyoming 1992 WYO. STAT. ANN.§§ 27-9-101 et seq.

 

[topaz_stone71]

There were questions, which I never heard accurately answered, about whether cotinine traces might show up in the spouse of a heavy smoker. Eight hours in a smokefree workplace; 16 hours in a smoke-filled home or car ...

Is it really necessary to use nicotine to have this byproduct of nicotine metabolism show up?

Yes, you will test positive for nicotine if you live in an environment with heavy exposure to second-hand smoke. There is a more specific test that can be completed for anabasine. It will only show up in those who actively smoke tobacco vs those who use NRT. If the only concern is about "smokers", employers should be screening for this more specific chemical. I have a friend who tested positive for opiates on a drug screen because she ate too many poppy seed muffins (and I'm positive she wasn't a closet drug abuser, they retested and she was clean). I used to work with an addict who would have one of her kids pee in a cup, pour that into a tube with a plug and hide it in her ummm....hooha to keep it at body temperature. She kept getting tested because drug counts were off when she was working but she was always "clean". Also, a test for alcohol would be useless. It is metabolized so fast that unless the person is tested while they are actively under the influence, nothing would show up.

I work in an environment where employees are mainly female. Studies show that women utilize health insurance more often than men (well-checks, screenings, and for illness) and we pay huge premiums because of this. The insurance company goes through employee utilization/ costs every year and makes increases according to use. In effect, because our employees utilize wellness care frequently in order to REMAIN healthy, we are penalized.

Just think how things are going to go when the government manages our health benefits (the same government that wants to ban the e-cig for starters).

 

[Michelle M]

Here is the thing. As others have so astutely pointed out, smokers aren't what is actually costing employers or insurers the high premiums. (An argument I frankly doubt to begin with, knowing the typical duplicity of insurance companies.) In truth, it's obese people. However, it isn't fun or politically popular to single out fat people in the same way that it's good sport to pick on smokers and demonize them.

Too many people would have egg on their face (or perhaps Egg McMuffins) if they were forced to read this study: Health-Care Costs for Obesity Top Those Related to Smoking

So, you see, it isn't really about lowering insurance costs after all. It's about the hateful, mean-spirited mindset of anti-smokers. A group I shall never be affiliated with, no matter how long I remain a vaper.

 

[bestthingever]

Here is the thing. As others have so astutely pointed out, smokers aren't what is actually costing employers or insurers the high premiums. (An argument I frankly doubt to begin with, knowing the typical duplicity of insurance companies.) In truth, it's obese people. However, it isn't fun or politically popular to single out fat people in the same way that it's good sport to pick on smokers and demonize them.

Too many people would have egg on their face (or perhaps Egg McMuffins) if they were forced to read this study: Health-Care Costs for Obesity Top Those Related to Smoking

So, you see, it isn't really about lowering insurance costs after all. It's about the hateful, mean-spirited mindset of anti-smokers. A group I shall never be affiliated with, no matter how long I remain a vaper.

Amen, sister !

 

[Spence]

In truth, it's obese people. However, it isn't fun or politically popular to single out fat people in the same way that it's good sport to pick on smokers and demonize them.

Too many people would have egg on their face (or perhaps Egg McMuffins) if they were forced to read this study: Health-Care Costs for Obesity Top Those Related to Smoking

So, you see, it isn't really about lowering insurance costs after all. It's about the hateful, mean-spirited mindset of anti-smokers. A group I shall never be affiliated with, no matter how long I remain a vaper.

Okay, so the non/ex/anti-smokers turn on the smokers. The thin turn on the obese. The young on the old. The healthy on the sick. And the insurance companies remain delighted by how easily manipulated, distracted and divided we are.

If statistically I am healthier because I am a married vegetarian who runs 3 miles every morning, lives east of the Mississippi and doesn't eat salt or sugar ... can you see how the bar keeps getting raised? Should I drink 2 ozs of red wine every night? Rub garlic on my elbows on alternate Tuesdays?

If there is an us versus them, it should be consumers vs. insurance companies.

If I allow them to demonize you, they will demonize me. And then they will demonize us (someway, somehow). Because the only pre-existing condition they truly care about is profit!

 

[Vocalek]

OMG, employers should not want employees working while under the influence of nicotine! Those employees might

Pay attention
Concentrate
Make fewer mistakes
Be able to focus on boring tasks for long periods of time
Be more productive
Be easier to get along with

Wouldn't want any of those behaviors, now, would we?

 

[Spence]

OMG, employers should not want employees working while under the influence of nicotine! Those employees might

Pay attention
Concentrate
Make fewer mistakes
Be able to focus on boring tasks for long periods of time
Be more productive
Be easier to get along with

Wouldn't want any of those behaviors, now, would we?

I quit smoking for a six year stretch, but I never stopped hanging out with the smokers at breaktime. For one thing, I could stand down-wind of them (sniff!). And for another, they were always the fun group.

 

[Michelle M]

Okay, so the non/ex/anti-smokers turn on the smokers. The thin turn on the obese. The young on the old. The healthy on the sick. And the insurance companies remain delighted by how easily manipulated, distracted and divided we are.

If statistically I am healthier because I am a married vegetarian who runs 3 miles every morning, lives east of the Mississippi and doesn't eat salt or sugar ... can you see how the bar keeps getting raised? Should I drink 2 ozs of red wine every night? Rub garlic on my elbows on alternate Tuesdays?

If there is an us versus them, it should be consumers vs. insurance companies.

If I allow them to demonize you, they will demonize me. And then they will demonize us (someway, somehow). Because the only pre-existing condition they truly care about is profit!

Spence, I totally agree with you. My point was really to show the insurance companies are duplicitous in claiming their main interest is lowering costs by shunning smokers. It simply allows them to get rid of a large pool of people who are already demonized like crazy and look like good guys in the process. Mob mentality, and most people will applaud them for it. Yet if they tried to exclude obese people, which studies prove a far bigger health crisis (pun really not intended), people would riot and scream discrimination. There really is no logic in this, which just underscores its mean-spiritedness.

And I agree that smokers are a lot more fun than non-smokers. And demonizing nicotine is outrageous.