Need help responding to Ban

[crazybry79]

Smoking, tobacco, etc, doesn't fall under a protected class (race, religion, creed, etc)

Cptr....you just gave me an idea!

We need to form a religion.....somthing, I dunno, that says vaping is our form of prayer. We've been using it as a form of prayer in our rewligion since waaaaaay back in the old days, when our religion started....back in 2010...

 

[Drozd]

Yea, I work for a very large Insurace Company with way too much power to fight head on. All I want to do is make someone do a little more research on our vaping devices prior to just following the herd. I'm sure I will get shot down in the long run.
As for them searching vehicles, they have all the rights when you are on their property. I can't see this being a good thing for the hard core smokers in the long run. I'm sure someone down the road will get fired to set an example. Just don't want it to be me......
After 33 years with the company I have way too much to lose.

Ahh..you work for *tate *arm huh?....sorry to hear about that...I know they've sent me mailings and tried to get me as a customer and I've told them that as long as this is their company's policy they won't have any of my business and I'll persuade my friends and relatives to switch or use another company as well..

 

[bassn99]

Ahhh, you are correct. Thinking of changing myself.

 

[Territoo]

Ahh..you work for *tate *arm huh?....sorry to hear about that...I know they've sent me mailings and tried to get me as a customer and I've told them that as long as this is their company's policy they won't have any of my business and I'll persuade my friends and relatives to switch or use another company as well..

I quit Tate Arm after Hurricane Katrina, when I saw how poorly they treated their customers when it came time to pay. At the time, I owned a house near the Gulf. I later actually met a family whose house, insured by Tate Arm, lost their entire house down to the foundation and Tate Arm refused to pay.

 

[ChipCurtis]

The issue has yet to arise at all where I work. I don't think anybody there even knows what an e-cig s yet. I am just continuing to vape casually whenever no one is outside of my office. It's been working fine so far.

It's weird - we treat people with developmental disabilities; many of those people smoke heavily and often outside our building while waiting for their appointments. Many have put themselves in early graves because of it; yet no one in our program has yet figured out, hey, why not let them try e-cigs as a life-saving alternative. I suppose that person should be me, but I suspect it would somehow not go over well and simply precipitate a quick ban like the kind that happened here.

Learning from the person who went into the administration office asking if he could use his e-cig and was flatly denied, it's probably best to not awaken the sleeping lion at this point.

 

[dubnluvn]

See if you can get a note from your doctor. You never know....

 

[Vocalek]

Thanks for all the good input and support. This was a huge blow to me as I am working on month six being TOBACCO FREE. I guess I just need to approach this a way where they won't be able to fire me after 33 years of service over vaping. I too, and tired of these uber liberal people making policy just because they can. I am planning on taking it to the next level and see what happens. Wish me luck.

Does the policy statement mention anything about the purpose of this being to protect the health of employees? I'd be willing to be that it does. They are probably breaking their arms, patting themselves on the back thinking about how much credit they deserve for improving the health of their employees.

So that is the angle I would come from.

Start with your personal story.

After <##> years, I finally managed to stop smoking tobacco cigarettes six months ago. As a result <describe measurable improvements in your health, e.g. "I have stopped wheezing">.

In my efforts to quit I tried <list everything that failed to help you quit>, but none of these worked for me. What did work for me was switching to inhaling vaporized nicotine from an electronic cigarette (ecigarette).


I have found that when I abstain totally from nicotine, <describe the negative consequences, e.g., I have so much trouble concentrating that I keep making mistakes in my work and can't get my work done on time.> I rely on my ecigarette to provide sufficient nicotine to keep me from going back to smoking and to allow me to function as a productive employee.
​

Next introduce some messages from health authorities.

The American Association of Public Health Physicians (AAPHP) has pointed out the life-saving potential of ecigarettes. "The AAPHP Task Force, on the basis of extensive literature review and analysis, has concluded that a national harm reduction initiative, based partly on the potential attractiveness of Ecigarettes to current smokers, could save the lives of 4 million of the 8 million current adult American smokers who will otherwise die of a tobacco-related illness over the next 20 years." http://www.aaphp.org/special/joelstobac/ecigcontext.pdf


The FDA reported that ecigarette liquid contains carcinogens and other toxins, but failed to point out that these same substances are delivered by tobacco cigarettes in quantities thousands of times greater. Perhaps because FDA was more concerned in winning a court case than in saving lives, the agency also failed to provide information that would have made its conflect of interest obvious: The carcinogens found in ecigarette liquid are also contained in FDA-approved nicotine replacement products--in roughly the same quantities for a one-day supply. The Rest of the Story: Tobacco News Analysis and Commentary: Comparison of Carcinogen Levels Shows that Electronic Cigarettes are Much Safer Than Conventional Ones

Ecigarettes do not present a danger to bystanders, because nothing is burned and no smoke is produced, Health New Zealand conducted extensive testing of the liquid and vapor from ecigarettes and concluded that the mist is "harmless inhaled or exhaled." http://www.healthnz.co.nz/RuyanCartridgeReport30-Oct-08.pdf
​

Hit them with the bottom line message:

The bottom line is that there is no evidence that ecigarettes are harmful to health. In fact, thousands of individual users have reported improvements in their health after they started using ecigarettes as a replacement for their tobacco cigarettes. http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/keep-life-saving-electronic-cigarettes-available
​

I know that you believe that your new policy will protect and/or improve my health, and I sincerely appreciate that. But I am already a former smoker and a portion of your policy works to sabotage my recovery from tobacco smoking. I know that isn't what you intended.
​

Suggest a compromise:

It may be that after you have studied the health effects of ecigarettes, you will want to suggest using an ecigarette to other employees who have a very strong dependence on nicotine as a reduced-harm alternative. Meanwhile, to protect my health I am asking that you remove the restriction on ecigarettes from your policy. To avoid any potential confusion about the similarity of the mist to actual smoke, I will use my ecigarette in a discreet manner.
​

 

[Poeia]

Nice letter.

The ban on smoking does make some economic sense. If a company provides medical benefits, their premiums can be reduced if they have such a policy. That's because of the anticipated reduction of medical care needed by non-smokers.

Anecdotally, vapers should be classified as ex-smokers and welcomed. We've all read posts from people whose blood pressure went down, etc. There is not yet any scientific evidence to back this up but you could try going to your doctor and get a report on what the physical benefits switching have been for you.

By the way, indicating that you won't need anti-smoking meds such as Chantrix probably won't help. Most health insurance companies do not cover them. (When I started Wellbutrin it was in an effort to quit. It wasn't covered for that, only for depression. As it happened, I still take it for depression and it never helped me avoid a single cig.) However if you will no longer need meds for hypertension, that will count.

A thought: Will people who are vaping nicotine-free be allowed to vape? If not, what would be the justification? It's PG (or VG) and flavoring. Would they be allowed to put some glycerin and Lorann's flavoring in a spray bottle and spritz it*? If that were permissible, it would seem that the ban would be solely because the glycerin is heated in a personal vaporizer -- which begs the question of whether they could flick their Bics under the spray bottle before spritzing the air around them.

*I'm not advocating spritzing someone in the face. I'm pretty sure that would qualify as assault.

 

[Vocalek]

After thought: I have found that when my message to the "powers that be" contains incontrovertible information they often pretend they never heard me. The message is totally ignored.

In this case, that might not be a bad thing. You keep a copy of your letter and you continue using your ecigarette--but do so out of sight of anyone else. If, perchance, you get caught, you produce your letter and state, "I never heard back from them, so I assumed everything was OK."

 

[simonduz]

A thought: Will people who are vaping nicotine-free be allowed to vape? If not, what would be the justification? It's PG (or VG) and flavoring.

Extremely interesting point.. So are they banning the device or are they banning the nicotine? Which brings up other outrageous bans like the patch, nic-gum, etc.. Shocking!

I often wondered how much money it would take to keep an attourney on hold for cases like this. Seems there is a ton of money to be made by the e-cig users and a good law firm for simply suing those who have no justification for their actions.

 

[Illuminate]

I vape at work and have been asked by co-workers about "second-hand" type issues.

The best thing to do is educate them. This is a new concept and people still need to fully wrap their heads around it. Give them time and provide a demonstration for the reasonable skeptics. I showed everyone my kit and have developed a sense of respect for putting down the analogs.

The USB passthrough seems to really boggle peoples' minds.

 

[TropicalBob]

With my former employer, I argued that there would be an increase in productive work by former smokers who no longer had cravings on their minds or when the next cigarette break was. Employers should welcome this practice, not ban it. E-smoking is a practical alternative to a practice that stole from work time and created antsy employees.

We have no known second-hand issues and present no fire hazard or environmental issue. The sole objection is based on perception. If benefits can be shown to outweigh any objections, then this battle can be won. Be reasonable. Voice only truth. Good luck.

 

[bassn99]

I sent in my letter to the powers above stating the facts and the benefits I have gained. It was forwarded up the ladder and I will see what happens. I used some of the great ideas you guys presented here. This site has been my source of support for quiting tobacco. I did site that the Tobacco Free Policy does not site anything about the ise of nicotine in it. I guess it will be one of those wait and see things. I will continue to use my PV. I think the whole problem is they wanted to make sure the ban would include the dippers. I really think I will be fighting a losing battle, but at this point I did get my 2 cents in.

 

[Territoo]

I sent in my letter to the powers above stating the facts and the benefits I have gained. It was forwarded up the ladder and I will see what happens. I used some of the great ideas you guys presented here. This site has been my source of support for quiting tobacco. I did site that the Tobacco Free Policy does not site anything about the ise of nicotine in it. I guess it will be one of those wait and see things. I will continue to use my PV. I think the whole problem is they wanted to make sure the ban would include the dippers. I really think I will be fighting a losing battle, but at this point I did get my 2 cents in.

The main thing is that you responded and tried to make a difference. Who knows, you might actually have acomplished your goal. Even if you didn't, you did more than most folks, who would have just sat around and .....ed loudly into their coffee.

 

[bassn99]

The powers above did respond. As I expected of course the ban on e-cigs stands.
Their philosophy was "E-Cigarettes have not been studied or proven to be a smoking cessation product". ?? Okay, never said it was, just told my story.That was about the jest of it. They offered to help me get chantix (nice) that could be the worse thing for someone trying to quit IMHO.
Well, I guess I will have to resort to my sneaking in my vapes. There is no way I will go back to analogs.

 

[Vocalek]

The powers above did respond. As I expected of course the ban on e-cigs stands.
Their philosophy was "E-Cigarettes have not been studied or proven to be a smoking cessation product". ?? Okay, never said it was, just told my story.That was about the jest of it. They offered to help me get chantix (nice) that could be the worse thing for someone trying to quit IMHO.
Well, I guess I will have to resort to my sneaking in my vapes. There is no way I will go back to analogs.

So in effect what they told you was, "We don't like the method you used for smoking cessation. We are willing to risk that you might start smoking again without the tool that works for you. We are willing to risk that you might have an adverse reaction to the treatment that we like best. But--hey, so what! We're willing to pay for the pills."

 

[Vocalek]

Here is a quick Risk-Benefit analysis. Which one has the most benefits and the fewest health risks? [Click to enlarge]

View attachment 6131





NOTE: The list of Health Risks for CHANTIX is incomplete. It includes only those specified in the product WARNING and some of the post-marketing adverse event that Pfizer described under "Frequent". http://www.pfizer.com/files/products/uspi_chantix.pdf

 

[BadState]

Their Tobacco Free Policy is on all property. And Yes some of thier properties are massive, so yes it is a big deal. Depeding on where you may be working you could have to walk quite a ways. Also, the policy states you cannot have the tobacco on their property. So that also means you can not even have it in your vehicle.
So again yes it is a very big deal cripledbazooka.

Can they even do this legally? Tobacco is not an illegal substance. How can they say you can't have it in your car?

 

[DaBrat]

Sounds like my former employer. It was illegal for them to ban tobacco products from your vehicle since it was personal property and federal law protects against unreasonable search and seizure. The result was people jumping into their cars to go to a nearby park for smoke break thus turning a ten minute break into 20.

Needless to say the company is now out of business simply due to poor business practices.

For them to suggest Chantix as a alternative is irresponsibe in my book as the side effects are well-known, as well known as the consequences of analogs. It seems more companies need to wake up and embrace vaping as an alternative for smokers. Not only will they have more productive workers but with the right mix of juices being vaped an aromatic workplace.

Its funny, had the FDA told the truth about the comparison of ecigs to analogs, these things would probably be provided in company break rooms.

 

[Janetda]

Well Bessn99, I think you have a chance to use some of the tactics we've been taught by Ash. Remember when A$$hat told PayPal that they could be liable for any problems that arose from anyone using e-cigs? Tell you're company you'll be happy to use Chantix since they so highly recommend it and your job is threatened because they refuse to let you use your choice of products. But of course, if you experience (choose your side-effect) then you'll have to sue.