Insurance question on tobacco use

[dnakr]

I have a question.

After you have been e-smoking exclusively for one year and you decide to apply for, say, life insurance or health insurance and as we all know, one of the questions on the application is “Have you used any tobacco products within the last year”?

How would you honestly answer this?

 

[karenwest1961]

THIS is gonna be an interesting thread!

 

[leaford]

I would answer no. The nicotine would be more of a by-product, really. A tobacco product would by definition have tobacco in it.

 

[TropicalBob]

You can honestly say no, since our government has determined this is not a tobacco product.

Nicotine, however, can kill you, so any health group will be very interested in knowing that you're ingesting a large amount of nicotine daily. You have increased the chance of heart disease, hardening of the arteries, hearing loss, cataracts and other eye problems, poor circulation, sexual dysfunction, liver and pancreas problems .. and, according to some recent studies, lung cancer. All from nicotine without the other constituents in tobacco smoke.

This is going to be interesting ... wife and I discussed the same thing the other night. She is NOT thrilled with my e-smoking and says I'm still smoking. Arrrgh.

 

[karenwest1961]

The deal is, a few years ago when I went for universal life insurance through state farm, I had to take a saliva test for tobacco/nicotine. They can't force you, but they can also deny you if you don't take it. At the time, I had quit smoking for 3 years. I cannot tell you if it will detect the nic from the e-cig or not.

But here is a link to check out: http://www.goaskalice.columbia.edu/3063.html

and another:

http://www.craigmedical.com/Nicotine_Saliva_tests.htm

Now, I'll deny it unless it comes back positive...then I'll play dumb. "I didn't know this counted!"

 

[dnakr]

by TropicalBob

This is going to be interesting ... wife and I discussed the same thing the other night. She is NOT thrilled with my e-smoking and says I'm still smoking. Arrrgh.

Thats funny because my husband considers me a non-smoker now...

 

[TropicalBob]

The test for "smoking" involves finding cotinine in the blood. That is produced from nicotine, so an e-smoker is going to test positive. If you're tested, you will register as a smoker. You will be considered the same as a tobacco smoker. But the same goes for those of us who use snus, puff a pipe, etc. We're all lumped in with chain-smoking cigarette users because we test positive for cotinine.

Here's a link to an article in New Scientist on the nicotine-lung cancer connection: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn216-noxious-nicotine.html

 

[trog100]

if e liquid nicotine is obtained from the tobacco leaf it means it could very loosely be called a tobacco product.. nicotine is present in othere things we consume thow and could theoretically be obtained from something other than tobacco leaf..

if ask the question "do i smoke".. i could honestly say no.. but the question "do you use tobacco products".. aint so easy to say no to..

at the moment i am in the say no frame of mind and let them prove otherwise.. nicotine itself isnt a tobacco product

trog

 

[sanneke]

I think the answer no, you're not smoking.

We're inhaling a vapor, not smoke.
There's no fire involved.

My husband is very proud of me that I only SMOKE 2 cig. a day.

I VAPOR instead.

 

[TropicalBob]

You can truthfully say "no." There is no tobacco; there is no fire with our product. This is NOT a cigarette by U.S. definition written in the federal codes. By all logic, e-smokers are not smokers.

BUT .. if you are physically tested to determine if you're a non-smoker, the test will be for cotinine. You will have it in blood, urine and saliva as an e-smoker inhaling nicotine. You will be branded a smoker. You will not be eligible for non-smoker premiums.

Get ready to argue with the enforcers ...

 

[karenwest1961]

You can truthfully say "no." There is no tobacco; there is no fire with our product. This is NOT a cigarette by U.S. definition written in the federal codes. By all logic, e-smokers are not smokers.

BUT .. if you are physically tested to determine if you're a non-smoker, the test will be for continine. You will have it in blood, urine and saliva as an e-smoker inhaling nicotine. You will be branded a smoker. You will not be eligible for non-smoker premiums.

Get ready to argue with the enforcers ...

Okay, what about gum and patches? Would that still read a positive? Then, you could say no, but you are on NRT. (which will still prove that you were once a smoker and still not eligible for non-smoker premiums for fear that you'd fall off the wagon.)

 

[TropicalBob]

This has all come up with Sarasota banning the hiring of smokers for city jobs. The city will test for cotinine.

Yes, nicotine replacement therapy products will show positive in tests. So might second-hand smoke inhaled by living with a smoker.

It's a can of worms, for sure.

 

[UncleMidriff]

Here's a link to an article in New Scientist on the nicotine-lung cancer connection: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn216-noxious-nicotine.html

Do you know if this research has been followed up? I ask because that article was written in 2000, and as much as it seems like it was just yesterday to me, 2000 was 8 whole years ago... we could have learned a lot since then.

Most stuff I read now says that nicotine does not seem to cause cancer. The only thing I've read suggesting anything of the sort is an un-cited assertion on the Wikipedia Nicotine article that says that nicotine might aid tumor cell growth. But then again, who knows if you can trust anything from Wikipedia.

I'm not not not not not suggesting the article you linked to is wrong; I'm no scientist, so I defer to them. But the article was written a while ago, so I'm wondering if the scientists out there have made a determination either way.

 

[TropicalBob]

Don't know.

 

[Oliver]

Have a look at this one:http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg17723882.300-nicotine-speeds-the-growth-of-lung-cancers.html

 

[trog100]

i find it hard to take seriously anything said about nicotine.. its too closely linked to big bad tobacco to be anything other than negatively biased..

the cynic in me says soon.. when alzheimers and the term coffin dodgers becomes popular free packets of fags will be handed out on the national health service..

trog

 

[CaSHMeRe]

I find this article interesting ... Stating Nicotine doesn't CAUSE lung cancer, but may just speed it up if you already have it. And this is one of the more recent studies ... Done approx 2 yrs. ago.
http://www.webmd.com/cancer/news/200607 ... ung-cancer

Nicotine Speeds Lung Cancer
Nicotine Plugs Directly Into Lung Cells, Tells Tumors to Grow
By Daniel J. DeNoon
WebMD Health News
Reviewed by Louise Chang, MD

July 20, 2006 -- Nicotine directly speeds the growth of lung cancer, University of South Florida researchers report.

Tobacco smoke contains agents that cause cancer. But nicotine itself isn't one of them. Instead, nicotine promotes the growth of existing cancer cells.

Exactly how nicotine does this is now becoming clear: It plugs directly into lung cells, where it jump-starts the cells' growth machinery. If those cells are cancerous, nicotine makes them grow wildly.

"These events can be expected to contribute to the growth and progression of tumors exposed to nicotine through tobacco smoke or cigarette substitutes," suggest Piyali Dasgupta, PhD, and colleagues at H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center, USF, Tampa, Fla.

Dasgupta and colleagues found that nicotine plugs into receptors called nicotinic acetylcholine receptors or nAChRs. These receptors are found throughout the body.

The finding may help explain why chemotherapy for breast cancer is less effective in smokers and why cigarette smoke helps many different kinds of cancer grow.

The study appears in the August issue of the Journal of Clinical Investigation.