Nicotine Testing for Employment/Admission

[Churros4u]

I am starting this thread to discuss the issue of, what I feel, is a violation of our rights and to ask if anyone has any experience with the issue of nicotine testing for employment and admission into some schools. In the last few days, it has come to my attention that employers and some professional schools are testing for nicotine usage in their bit to not hire or admit smokers. My confusion comes from the fact that testing for nicotine is not really appropriate to determine whether you smoke cigarettes or not since, besides vaping, there are other ways to get nicotine (socially-accepted ways) such as nicotine gum or patches.


This came about as one of wife’s coworkers was concerned about starting to vape using nicotine juice. She isn’t a smoker now – she quit years ago – but wanted to vape more for appetite control especially at night because she says she gets hungry watching TV and sits around eating. She saw my wife’s ecig and thought it could be a tool to keep her busy from snacking. She also knows that she can vape with zero nicotine juice but the nicotine suppresses the appetite. She is going back to school and plans to be a nurse and some of the teachers had mentioned previously that nicotine testing along with regular drug testing was starting to happen for admission into some nursing schools as well as some med schools. She also came across an employment position at one of the universities in Kentucky that stated that they were a “tobacco and drug free campus”. I understand that wording but they stated that they do a nicotine test as well as a regular drug test.


My question is how does a nicotine test determine that you are a smoker? I would really appreciate it if someone can help me understand this or if anyone has had experience with this nicotine testing. This feels to me like a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don’t situation in quitting smoking. What gives and what’s next … caffeine testing?

 

[pAth77]

Laboratory tests for nicotine and its metabolite continine do not differentiate whether the source of nicotine is from smoking or from vaping. Routine drug testing is understandable only when it pertains to the routine drugs of abuse (i.e. ..., ......., opioids, barbiturates, etc), but this is the first time that I've heard of routine nicotine testing. Not hiring someone due to illicit drug use makes sense, but IMO not hiring someone due to smoking/vaping is unethical and illegal. It is essentially a form of discrimination. Testing for nicotine for insurance purposes also makes sense since nicotine (not just smoking) is associated with medical conditions such as hypertension and coronary artery disease/atherosclerosis, but from your description, this sounds like a completely different scenario.

 

[fray]

When I started my life insurance they tested me for nicotine and carbon monoxide to determine if I was a smoker or not. I spoke with an agent with the insurance and they gave me a slight exception because although I had nicotine I had no elevated carbon monoxide levels. I still don't have a non smoking rate, but it helped some.

 

[Churros4u]

pAth77,

Thanks for your post. I have heard of smoking issues and employment before but not this. I can't exactly remember where I saw this but I have seen on TV before that at least one employer was actually firing people that were already employed if they didn't quit smoking in an effort to cut health care costs, but I don't know whatever happened to that. This was the first time I had heard of this too. My wife actually read the posting for the position at the Kentucky university. That's when she called me and told me because she too was a little concerned in case she had to look for a new job. Her coworker and her even looked up on the internet how long nicotine stays in your system and the kinds of testing done - they all still went by smoking and not ingesting nicotine. She said it depended on how much your smoked a day and what kind of test you took as to whether or not it could be detected.

I don't have a problem either with testing for illegal substances or like drinking on the job but I think that testing for nicotine for health care purposes is still not right. Nicotine isn't really any more dangerous than caffeine. People die from caffeine overdose ... even water overdose! Nicotine has an effect on the body inadvertently just like eating too much meat can cause high cholesterol which in turn can be extremely damaging.

But that's not really the point here, it's about being excluded from employment or school because of nicotine ... and you're right, it is a form discrimination. I also find it interesting, although maybe no connection, that Kentucky happens to be one of the states that is trying to put a bill though to ban vaping. Hmmm ... makes you wonder!

 

[Churros4u]

@fray,

Thanks for replying. Your situation is very interesting to know. I forgot about life insurance. Can you tell me whether the testing for nicotine and carbon monoxide were done in the same test or were they 2 separate tests?

 

[MrSmith99]

<Soap Box Mode>
I work for the headquarters of a big box retailer. Once a year we have to go to a physical of sorts and answer questions. I don't vape/smoke that morning and say "No" to the question "Do you smoke?" They don't ask if I vape. There is a blood test but it's analyzed on the spot and I don't think it checks for much.
If you admit to smoking they make you go through a no-smoking course or they charge you more for health insurance, which doesn't cover much anyway ($1500 deductible before they pay anything.)

It's not about Big Brother or control. It's about money. They got rid of pensions and gave us 401K (which at the bottom of the ladder insures you will retire with just a couple of years pay. And most of that is your own savings and not something they are giving you!). Now they are giving us less and less health insurance with huge deductibles insuring only management can afford to go see a doctor.
Next they will do what ever they feel they can get away with to improve their bottom line. GREED, it's the way of the world now. Get used to it.
Just be glad they aren't herding us like cattle and holding us in work pens...yet. You know it's coming!
</Soap Box Mode>

Oh, and "Soylent Green is people!"

 

[pAth77]

pAth77,

Thanks for your post. I have heard of smoking issues and employment before but not this. I can't exactly remember where I saw this but I have seen on TV before that at least one employer was actually firing people that were already employed if they didn't quit smoking in an effort to cut health care costs, but I don't know whatever happened to that. This was the first time I had heard of this too. My wife actually read the posting for the position at the Kentucky university. That's when she called me and told me because she too was a little concerned in case she had to look for a new job. Her coworker and her even looked up on the internet how long nicotine stays in your system and the kinds of testing done - they all still went by smoking and not ingesting nicotine. She said it depended on how much your smoked a day and what kind of test you took as to whether or not it could be detected.

I don't have a problem either with testing for illegal substances or like drinking on the job but I think that testing for nicotine for health care purposes is still not right. Nicotine isn't really any more dangerous than caffeine. People die from caffeine overdose ... even water overdose! Nicotine has an effect on the body inadvertently just like eating too much meat can cause high cholesterol which in turn can be extremely damaging.

But that's not really the point here, it's about being excluded from employment or school because of nicotine ... and you're right, it is a form discrimination. I also find it interesting, although maybe no connection, that Kentucky happens to be one of the states that is trying to put a bill though to ban vaping. Hmmm ... makes you wonder!

I'm a pathologist and I deal mainly with surgicals, but I still do my rounds through the clinical side of the lab when I'm needed. The most common way for detecting nicotine/continine is through a blood draw. I've posted this in another thread, but all laboratory equipment have limits in how much they are able to detect for a given analyte. The limit for nicotine is 5ng/mL and for continine is 100µg/mL; both of which are very small concentrations. With respect to how long it takes to clear from your system, it really depends on the half-life of the substance (1-2 hours for nicotine). Using the generally accepted steady state theory, it typically takes 5-7 half-lives to reach equilibrium, and although this is typically used for obtaining optimal drug concentrations (i.e. antibiotics), the concept can be applied to clearing a substance from the body. The only other real variable that would come into play is the initial blood concentration, which would essentially equate to how much your nicotine intake is (how much you smoke/vape).

Just for clarification purposes, nicotine itself actually is more dangerous than caffeine. It is a known vasoconstrictor and will increase your blood pressure. Studies have also shown its role in atherosclerosis (lipid deposition into your arteries). Given that, there is still a tangible reason why testing for nicotine is needed when it comes to insurance. Granted, vaping is better for you than smoking (pretty common sense that we all know, but for some reason the FDA doesn't get it), and vaping zero nic juice is healthier than vaping nic juice.

It's very troubling that one would not be granted employment just for smoking/vaping/having nicotine in their system. If I were in that position, there would definitely be a discrimination lawsuit lurking behind my shadow.

@fray,

Thanks for replying. Your situation is very interesting to know. I forgot about life insurance. Can you tell me whether the testing for nicotine and carbon monoxide were done in the same test or were they 2 separate tests?

Carbon monoxide is also tested using blood.

 

[TNT]

Just sort of thinking out loud here...

Okay, I can be denied employment because I use nicotine. Okay... but I'm also bipolar, and the law (the Americans with Disabilities Act) says an employer can't take that into consideration. The smoking rate among bipolars is astronomical... a few studies suggest 80%, but my experience suggests closer to 100% (that is, although I can't say I've met a lot, I've never met another person with bipolar disorder who didn't smoke).

I wonder how that's going to be decided....

An edit to clarify... I'm a "protected class" because of bipolar disorder, and smoking seems to be a part of that disorder for many. where do we go from here?

 

[Mvgratz]

What if you were married to a smoker and he or she smoked in the house and or car. Would the second hand nicotine you inadvertantly inhalled cause you to fail a nicotine test? I believe I'd be on the phone with a big shot lawyer like these...
Google

The BS that the states and us goverment try to impose on us is getting way out of hand imo.

 

[six]

When I was younger and more prone to being a bit of an activist, I turned down a few jobs because they required drug testing. I've never been at risk of failing such a test, but I decided back then that anyone who wanted to watch me pee certainly wasn't worth working for. It was their loss, not mine. I'm among the best at what I do and if anyone needs to be so intrusive as to require samples of my body fluids, they just have to make do with someone far less talented than I am. - - Today, I might consider giving them samples for the right amount of money... but it's a really big number.

 

[THE]

I don't think you'll receive enough nicotine through second hand smoke that it'd matter, much, if it did at all... I've read that second hand smoke gives you 1% the nicotine of actual smoking.

Employers might be concerned about nicotine addicts because we begin to go into withdrawl within an hour. That changes ones behavior. Like someone said, though, a raving maniac can't be discriminated against - yet nicotine addicts can?

I guess the logic is that we make a choice, and the lunatics don't have a choice. Then there will be the people talking about nicotine soothing some peoples lunacy.

Who knows

 

[Secti0n31]

?I know that the Cleveland Clinic doesn't allow their employees to smoke, nor do they allow smoking on Cleveland Clinic property including the parking lots. Their test is a urine test for nicotine only, so this is BS because lets say you were quitting using the patch, gum or lozenge, or NRT, you're still gonna have nicotine in you. If you use chewing tobacco you'll still have nicotine in you. I like the idea of testing for elevated carbon monoxide levels because that rules out any nicotine use thats not "smoking."

If, say a normal retail store, were to filter out applicants based on nicotine in the bloodstream they would lose a lot of potentially good employees just because they smoked or chewed, or (like the dumb blonde paris hilton) were addicted to nicotine gum. It's ridiculous. I agree that people shouldn't use tobacco products, but there has to be a better way of screening for tobacco besides nicotine. Hell, screen for arsenic or potassium cyanide or as stated above, test for CO.

 

[TNT]

When I was younger and more prone to being a bit of an activist, I turned down a few jobs because they required drug testing. I've never been at risk of failing such a test, but I decided back then that anyone who wanted to watch me pee certainly wasn't worth working for. It was their loss, not mine. I'm among the best at what I do and if anyone needs to be so intrusive as to require samples of my body fluids, they just have to make do with someone far less talented than I am. - - Today, I might consider giving them samples for the right amount of money... but it's a really big number.

This is kind of an aside... and like you, I'm never going to fail a drug test. Ten years ago, I applied for a job and couldn't help but notice that they had a sign... "Applications being taken. No pre-employment testing."

Oddly enough, that wasn't some small, hippie-mentality company. It was the humungous media-giant Time-Warner, which at the time (pre-AOL), was an awesome place to work in pretty much every way... and I was in a $9.00 an hour job opening mail.

 

[Churros4u]

Thanks to everyone for their comments and opinions. Thanks pAth77 for your indepth explanation and my wife says she feels better about the issue of nicotine testing if she would have to do it for a position and will mention what you said to her coworker.

Mvgratz you bring up an interesting point of being married to a smoker. If you are tested for nicotine usage for a job or insurance will they next want to test your spouse before you get a job or for them to be covered on your insurance. It's a Pandora's box. When I was still a heavy analog smoker (I still smoke a couple a day), I didn't care that my state passed a smoking ban because I don't like smoking inside - I don't even smoke in my car or house. But what I hated to see was the issue that would start telling people what they could do and where they could do it. Once it starts, where does it end. What should have been passed were laws that give business owners the right to incorporate whatever rules they want for their business without being sued because at least that gives people choice.

MrSmith99 can you tell me whether or not they ask questions pertaining to the nicotine test like they ask for regular drug testing? Like on a drug test, they ask what you've had to eat or drink or what kinds of medication or OTC drugs you've taken in the 24 hours prior. Do you they ask what forms of nicotine you might have ingested prior to the test or anything like that?

I'm not sure how something like this will play out eventually just like the vaping bans in certain states, but it does happen. I don't think it has been really challenged by anyone yet.