Workplace banning e-cigs

[Mac]

Thanks, Mac. I had looked at those, of course, that's how I came to post here for help - I saw that there was something there.

And, no, I really am not interested in "beating the test". I mean, if I have to, I could do it, of course. It is a matter of principle.

I know someone did a lit review on the topic, I have that but I don't know if I can post it (it was posted somewhere on the forum...)

I am actually thinking of re-doing that, but I wouldn't be able to publish it, of course...

Unfortunately, it's no longer an emergency for me - I had thought I would have an opportunity to meet with certain people sort of high up that were willing to discuss the issue. I got an e-mail yesterday that this is no longer the case...

That's got to suck. I don't see any conflict of ethics for cheating at the test though. Unless they are paying you so well that it represents compensation for every single moment of your life. In other words to mandate whether or not an employee can use legal substances in their personal time they are controlling your life while not at work. Therefore if they are not paying you standard hourly pay for the first 40 hours you are alive and then 1.5 your rate for the remainder of the time you are alive (in that work week) then they are essentially enslaving you.

I probably wouldn't cheat the test either unless it was taking me that long to change careers. I feel for you. This is wrong and the company you work for does not have an ethical leg to stand on. They don't own you. Your off time is your own.

 

[Daren Despot]

with no clear official stance on ecigs, customes doesn't know what to do with them here in my country. sometimes they charge duty as though it's an electronic, and other times they charge duty as though it's a tobacco product. It's nerve wracking whenever i'm waiting for my orders.

 

[wv2win]

I agree in the regards to the wrongful dismissal suit for firing simply because of smoking, however to now say that it is ok to say "that e-cigarettes are wrongly defined as tobacco use" make vapers come across as wanting to have our cake and eat it too. Remember, that during the SE/njoy v FDA hearings, we were fighting to have e-cigs classified as tobacco products. Now that we have won that battle, are we gonna turn around and say that they aren't tobacco products. They are tobacco products, they just are not smoking products. They are a smoking alternative. So is the policy against smoking or is it against tobacco? If it includes all forms of tobacco, then it must include e-cigs. I work at a place where it is a criminal offense to bring tobacco products onto the facility. I don't even make an attempt to fight the issue w/ my e-cig, even though I will soon be going down to zero nic.

The ONLY reason we vapers wanted them classifed as tobacco products was to prevent an outright nationwide ban. No one in the vaping community liked it but it was the lesser of two evils. I don't see it as hypocritical at all. They are not tobacco products and they are not cessation products. There should be a third category where vaping and snus would fit without the negative perceptions associated with the other two options. But the antz's are not interested in actually helping people or saving lives.

 

[elfstone]

WV2win! How are you? Haven't seen you in a long while!

Anyway, you are right - e-cigs should continue to be considered and legislated as a commodity, even a luxury if need be, but not "medical devices" nor "tobacco products". That should be the ultimate goal of this. But, anyway...

There are two misconceptions at play here: (1) that a product that might be beneficial to one's health MUST be regulated as a drug / medical device and (2) that a product the use of which may carry some risks, known or unknown, cannot be marketed at all. The truth is very different for both... (1) is actually, for a product to be marketed for the diagnosis or treatment of a medical condition it needs to be regulated bla, bla... and (2) if a product hasa known risk that exceeds a certain threshold of social acceptability, then it needs to be labeled as such or, in extreme cases banned outright.

That's what I don't understand about the treatment of e-cigs.

For (1) the closest analogy with e-cigs that comes to mind is decaf coffee... Supposedly it is better for you and may help in caffeine use cessation. But it's not regulated as a medicinal, is it? Nor have there been clinical trials mandated to prove its advantages over caffeine or it's role in quitting caffeine...

For (2), well, really... anything is an example. Most if not all consumer products carry inherent risks... Whatever... BPA and GMOs come to mind as products that carry known risks, evidence is accumulating, and yet neither warnings nor bans have been effected, because the risks are deemed too small or not entirely proven.

 

[xanderxman]

I agree with you elfstone but the issue is a little more muddy than that. Your coffee analogy is spot on but the problem is BP has not created caf cessation drugs. They are not losing their tails due to a much cheaper and more successful alternative. With nic there is something at stake for BP. The attack on e-cigs will not stop due to the fact that BP has a LOT of $$$$ to lose if e-cigs become successful and remain unregulated so that they do not recoup some money in the process.

The way I see it is that e-cigs are so successful at helping people stop cigs that they are a threat to BP and their "smoking cessation" drugs. These drugs have a horrible failure rate but because BP has so much $$$ to spend on lobbying, e-cigs are seen as harmful not helpful. I wonder what would happen to cigs if they became regulated by the FDA? I laugh out loud every time I hear someone say that the stuff we inhale in e-cigs is untested and potentially harmful, yet the uncontrolled sale of cigs is allowed. Who do these idiots think they are fooling? At this point we all know politicians and the FDA are paid off by BP and lobbyists. Do they think that educated people can't make the connection?

 

[sonicdsl]

This reminds me so much of the current climate about our typical American diet (high-carb/low-fat) versus a high-fat, low-carb diet (both are medium protein, btw). The FDA, BP, many "alphabets", USDA, grain industry, etc., are behind the fight against the emerging clinical science coming to light as more people dare to speak truth about low-carbing (aka Atkins, Keto, Paleo diets). I just find it interesting that I'm becoming very involved in both fronts (low-carb & ecigs), and fighting almost the same enemies...

 

[RosaJ]

We still have a Constitution to safeguard individuals' rights. It seems to me that to force prospective, or even current employees to a urine test for nicotine is unconstitutional. They have every right to expect people not to smoke on their premises, but they have absolutely no right to tell their employees what to do while they're at home. Especially since we're talking about a substance that is legal to buy in any store throughout the country.

 

[xanderxman]

We do have our rights protected but a private employer can enforce such a ban, as long as every employee is subject to it. I have a friend that drives a beer delivery truck for Anheuser-Busch InBev. As part of his employment he is not allowed to drink alcohol during the work week. The drivers are subjected to random urine tests during the week and will be fired for a violation. I am not sure how it would work in the public sector but private companies do have that freedom.

 

[Vocalek]

FDA approves that for 3 months. Using it beyond the regular preescription duration constitutes tobacco use.

Says who? Nicotine patches contain no tobacco and are not regulated under the Tobacco Act.

They don't magically turn into a different type of product after 90 days

 

[flintlock62]

wow i didn't know that, it's so communist.... soon you will all be "working for the common good"

If we don't get some of the trash out of Washington, we will be.

 

[flintlock62]

Says who? Nicotine patches contain no tobacco and are not regulated under the Tobacco Act.

They don't magically turn into a different type of product after 90 days

Narrow minded people are ruling everything now days.

 

[elfstone]

Says who? Nicotine patches contain no tobacco and are not regulated under the Tobacco Act.

They don't magically turn into a different type of product after 90 days

Says my employer. And more than likely insurance companies.

 

[haiqu]

i'm baffled by the sheer arrogance of a company that would submit people to "nicotine testing", i'm sorry but i'd say a few choice words before i walked out of that room, such an invasion of privacy and your body, they don't have a legal leg to stand on, go talk to a lawyer, if crap like this is allowed to continue it will someday become the norm and we will all end up being barcoded and sorted into classes etc, the real world really is turning into an L Ron Hubbard novel!!!!!

Hubbard knew a thing or two about the FDA. Check this link:

1963

 

[Vocalek]

Says my employer. And more than likely insurance companies.

Employers and insurance companies need a dictionary. "Tobacco" and "nicotine" are not synonyms. And "smoking" is not a synonym for either of them.

Actually what employers and insurance companies that are denying employment and/or insurance benefits to non-smokers based on nicotine use need is a class action lawsuit. The first interrogatory delivered after the suit is filed should ask them to present the scientific evidence that nicotine users who do not smoke cost the company more than any other non-smoker.

 

[Fesso]

If we don't get some of the trash out of Washington, we will be.

wow i didn't know that, it's so communist.... soon you will all be "working for the common good"

Let's be clear here, there is nothing "Communist" about this. This is corporate fascism and it does indeed suck.

Disclaimer: I am NOT a communist but I hate to see incorrectly used political rhetoric.

 

[DanFromIran]

This is indeed unacceptable. If they say "No smoking in our facilities" it is plausible but firing smokers is absurd.

 

[LaVsy]

this is definitely getting bad.
full force out to eliminate.

 

[~Milo~]

oops, please delete

 

[starsong]

I went through this same thing last year. I work for a major corporation that had a $50/mo surcharge for insurance if you smoke. I was thrilled the year before when I could mark myself as a non-smoker and not pay that 'penalty'. Then this time last year they reworded their definition to mean any tobacco use, including e-cigs, and upped the charge to $70/mo. Those that claim to be non-tobacco users can be randomly tested for nicotine. I chose to pay the price for personal freedom. This year it goes up to $75.

My HR manager is also a vaper and even sold them for awhile. She fought with her corporate bosses about nicotine vs. tobacco. They won't budge, says it is the insurance company's rule (UHC). They claim they can tell the difference between gum/patch nic and vaped nic (but I think that is BS).

I fear it is only a matter of time where they don't even offer to let you pay to keep them out of your business. Then I have to choose between my personal freedom or keeping the job I've held for 30+ years.

 

[EddardinWinter]

They are almost certainly lying to you about detecting the difference between gum/patch and vaped nicotine. It is a substance that can be tested for but the nicotine in your urine (I assume this is the test they employ) cannot be differentiated by source. Maybe they are doing some other type test, but it smells like BS.

This kind of stuff makes me irrationally angry. I guess you can pay this ridiculous premium cost, cancel the insurance, or quit, and this hardly a great job hunting market.

Let us all enjoy vaping until it gets banned altogether for some false pretense of a medical reason.