What about for health/life insurance? They would test for nicotine. Would they just put you down as a smoker? I have wondered this and even asked here once, I think.
Love ya TropicalBob, but I don't see them charging extra for the obese. Lets see a chart comparing the french fry lovers and salt suckers to dippers and chewers!Overcharge? They'll be happy to show you the charts of expenses they've tabulated for chewers and dippers! That is not a healthy practice. Our goal, though, should be to get companies to recognize harm differences involving various tobacco and nicotine products. A smoker or dipper would get the very highest penalty; an e-cig user or snus user would get a much lower premium. All nicotine and tobacco is not equally harmful, yet all users are treated as if they smoked 30 cigarettes a day.
Love ya TropicalBob, but I don't see them charging extra for the obese. Lets see a chart comparing the french fry lovers and salt suckers to dippers and chewers!
But Sun's point is correct and those using e-cigs should note it well. You are NOT a non-smoker until your system is free of nicotine FOR ONE YEAR. You will pay more in insurance until that cotinine-free state shows up on tests.
And since it's not "smoking" being tested, you remain a "smoker" as long as you put nicotine into your body on a regular basis. Makes no difference if it's from vapor, snus, nasal snuff or Big Pharma's gum.
What is really being required today is "nicotine-free" employees. That's the new reality.
But Sun's point is correct and those using e-cigs should note it well. You are NOT a non-smoker until your system is free of nicotine FOR ONE YEAR. You will pay more in insurance until that cotinine-free state shows up on tests.
And since it's not "smoking" being tested, you remain a "smoker" as long as you put nicotine into your body on a regular basis. Makes no difference if it's from vapor, snus, nasal snuff or Big Pharma's gum.
What is really being required today is "nicotine-free" employees. That's the new reality.
Everyone needs to stop deluding themselves. PVs don't get the monkey off your back. You're still just as addicted to nicotine as you were before switching. The reality is that health insurance companies are in the business of denying claims. That's how they make their money. They do now and always will consider anyone with high nicotine levels in their blood to be smokers. It makes no difference that your risk level is drastically lowered (we think) by using a PV. You're still a nicotine addict, and that's what they take issue with.
I guess I'm in the minority because I view vaping as smoking. My take on the subject is that if any substance is heated to the point a vapor is produced...it is smoke. An example would be cooking oil left in a heated pan too long. Further, the percent of oxygen in our atmoshere that is inhaled is 21%. and we exhale approximately 16% of the oxygen from our intake. Exhaled oxygen is warmer and more moist. Thus, I could deduce from the above model that a vapor mist from chemicals or flavorings would not be totally absorbed by our system and expelled in our vape cloud that was created by heating the chemicals in the carts/liquids...a chemical combustion.
The same effect can be witnessed from the emissions of the tailpipe in a chemical combustion engine in an automobiles, flame is not required.
I guess I'm in the minority because I view vaping as smoking. My take on the subject is that if any substance is heated to the point a vapor is produced...it is smoke.
You can view it as anything you want, but smoke is a specific thing. Vapor (what a PV creates is actually more like mist) is not smoke.
Oh .. we very much agree. The insurance practices infuriate me, and worry me that before long, with our medical records computerized in a large database, the companies will be able to identify people with a genetic proclivity for cancer, or diabetes, or heart failure, and charge even higher premiums for those unfortunate folks. Not good ...