Your employer's take on vaping?
- Thread starter jeffree
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
vaping is encouraged, in non-public areas. (better than "get out in the car park") 
Thanks for all the feedback. For anyone interested, I thought I'd copy and paste the four main arguments I presented. Do let me know if you see any red flags or something else missing.
_______________________________________________________
E-CIGARETTES ARE AN INCREASINGLY POPULAR STOP-SMOKING AID
I’m one of thousands who quit smoking after discovering e-cigarettes. I quit cigarettes cold turkey more than two years ago, and the latest research offers support for this approach. In fact, a 2010 review at UC Berkeley/Boston University examined all of the research available to date to determine whether or not e-cigarettes are a viable option for nicotine reduction or withdrawal. The conclusion was positive (see attachment).
NO FIRE, NO SMOKE, NOTHING BURNS
A simple lithium battery heats a coil that warms a liquid made from glycol, flavor, and (optional) nicotine. The vapor produced is primarily water, with no second-hand effects identified. Thus, the danger to property and other people is minimal.
NO KNOWN HEALTH DRAWBACKS
Beyond the major benefits of quitting smoking—an important issue for some employees—the side effects of e-cigarettes are few. Gone are the 4000+ chemicals, including tar, found in cigarettes, leaving only one potentially negative chemical: nicotine, generally not considered a dangerous substance in itself. In fact, e-cigarettes allow users to choose the level of nicotine so that they can gradually wean themselves off nicotine entirely.
NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE TO DETECT
Even if the committee chooses to disregard the health benefits mentioned above, and more, any ban on e-cigarettes will be nearly impossible to uphold. E-cigarettes have no lingering odor, allowing users to use them almost anywhere they desire without detection. A ban would be meaningless since any empty hallway, restroom, office, and so forth provides an excellent setting for e-cigarette users. An unenforceable ban is seldom a good move.
Considering all of the above and more, I just can’t understand the logic of banning e-cigarettes. Reputable research supports their usefulness; they present no danger to property or bystanders; health benefits for users are significant; and detection is virtually impossible. While I fully support the ban on smoking and tobacco for all the obvious health reasons, tossing e-cigarettes into the ban makes little sense on any level. In my opinion, such a ban simply projects a lack of knowledge leading to a decision that offers only potential harm to affected employees and the organization at large.
_______________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________
E-CIGARETTES ARE AN INCREASINGLY POPULAR STOP-SMOKING AID
I’m one of thousands who quit smoking after discovering e-cigarettes. I quit cigarettes cold turkey more than two years ago, and the latest research offers support for this approach. In fact, a 2010 review at UC Berkeley/Boston University examined all of the research available to date to determine whether or not e-cigarettes are a viable option for nicotine reduction or withdrawal. The conclusion was positive (see attachment).
NO FIRE, NO SMOKE, NOTHING BURNS
A simple lithium battery heats a coil that warms a liquid made from glycol, flavor, and (optional) nicotine. The vapor produced is primarily water, with no second-hand effects identified. Thus, the danger to property and other people is minimal.
NO KNOWN HEALTH DRAWBACKS
Beyond the major benefits of quitting smoking—an important issue for some employees—the side effects of e-cigarettes are few. Gone are the 4000+ chemicals, including tar, found in cigarettes, leaving only one potentially negative chemical: nicotine, generally not considered a dangerous substance in itself. In fact, e-cigarettes allow users to choose the level of nicotine so that they can gradually wean themselves off nicotine entirely.
NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE TO DETECT
Even if the committee chooses to disregard the health benefits mentioned above, and more, any ban on e-cigarettes will be nearly impossible to uphold. E-cigarettes have no lingering odor, allowing users to use them almost anywhere they desire without detection. A ban would be meaningless since any empty hallway, restroom, office, and so forth provides an excellent setting for e-cigarette users. An unenforceable ban is seldom a good move.
Considering all of the above and more, I just can’t understand the logic of banning e-cigarettes. Reputable research supports their usefulness; they present no danger to property or bystanders; health benefits for users are significant; and detection is virtually impossible. While I fully support the ban on smoking and tobacco for all the obvious health reasons, tossing e-cigarettes into the ban makes little sense on any level. In my opinion, such a ban simply projects a lack of knowledge leading to a decision that offers only potential harm to affected employees and the organization at large.
_______________________________________________________
Last edited:
Unfortunately your company may actually completely agree with all your statements. However the policy may have more to do with healthcare cost containment and that policy is in the hands of your benefits provider.
Correct me if I am wrong but I thought some corporations used ecigs as a healthcare "break" of sorts to get employees off tobacco or for insurance purposes.
CASAA has a .pdf available for download that addresses smoking bans and ecigs:
http://casaa.org/uploads/Ecigarettes_and_Smokefree_policies.pdf
The page for other downloadable materials is here:
CASAA Printable Material
Good for you and good luck!
http://casaa.org/uploads/Ecigarettes_and_Smokefree_policies.pdf
The page for other downloadable materials is here:
CASAA Printable Material
Good for you and good luck!
Definitely, Snow. All the ideas here are helping me, but specific resources are especially useful. Durgi, case in point--the CASAA stuff's great. I just now realized that I should probably prepare a dozen semi-slick information manuals if I present. If I can convince just one committee member to read it, maybe... Or maybe not.
If it were me I would contact your health care provider and simply ask them if an all inclusive ban on tobacco use and e-cigs is specifically apart of their wellness plan and qualifies employers for discounts. If it is, well, at that point you have to ask yourself if such a sacrifice is best for the greater good...ie all those folks that are not addicted to nicotine.
I'm not saying the fight is not a good fight, but policy issues like this generally have a monetary incentive and switching carriers means losing any rating the company has. I may sound cynical but we live in a world where common sense and facts simply get in the way of the powers-that-be and their agenda.
I'm not saying the fight is not a good fight, but policy issues like this generally have a monetary incentive and switching carriers means losing any rating the company has. I may sound cynical but we live in a world where common sense and facts simply get in the way of the powers-that-be and their agenda.
I'll have to look SD. I've talked about about this with customers in the store about their jobs but I'd also have to look. I was asking to clarify to see if anyone else has heard these claims. I'll look for ya jeffree.
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
I would edit the part that says nic isn't considered dangerous by itself. It is in fact highly toxic even in small amounts.. what I would say instead is that there have not been studies of the effects of just nic , but it is not known to be any more harmful than caffeine consumption.
Or something like that...
Sent from my phone; Please excuse typos / autocorrections.
Or something like that...
Sent from my phone; Please excuse typos / autocorrections.
There are health effects of nicotine without smoking ...it is a vasoconstrictor .We tend to only see the good because its better then smoking for sure and we are absorbing less then with analogs .There are plenty of studies on nicotine alone ..look on the web .
I think one has less chance of vaping at work if you work for a large corporation vs .say a small company .
I do believe that the last time hubby got private life insurance during a period where he did not have it at work ,it asked "are you a nicotine user " it did not ask if you were a "smoker " .( he quit about 9 years ago using the patch ) and even he looks down on my vaping.
There are so many politics in even his company now of under 100 that if it was me ,i wouldnt even bother to ask .
I may not have a problem letting an employee vape and hr might not but remember they have politics too and I don't think any hr rep is going to take on our fight .I do not expect to be able to vape in any corporate environment and figure i'll just have to wait for breaks and lunch like i did with smoking .jmho and my experience so dont flame me because i know this is not how many vapers feel.
I think one has less chance of vaping at work if you work for a large corporation vs .say a small company .
I do believe that the last time hubby got private life insurance during a period where he did not have it at work ,it asked "are you a nicotine user " it did not ask if you were a "smoker " .( he quit about 9 years ago using the patch ) and even he looks down on my vaping.
There are so many politics in even his company now of under 100 that if it was me ,i wouldnt even bother to ask .
I may not have a problem letting an employee vape and hr might not but remember they have politics too and I don't think any hr rep is going to take on our fight .I do not expect to be able to vape in any corporate environment and figure i'll just have to wait for breaks and lunch like i did with smoking .jmho and my experience so dont flame me because i know this is not how many vapers feel.
Last edited:
Thanks for that waylonjessi, I was not aware of studies on the long term health effects of consuming the nic by itself. I will do some searching.... I figured if those studies existed and were strong studies , the laws would be changing accordingly, at least in progressive states, and insurance companies would push it.
Sent from my phone; Please excuse typos / autocorrections.
Sent from my phone; Please excuse typos / autocorrections.
Its not vaping studies but yes i searched and they know what nic does in all areas of the body ( heart ,vessels ,blood pressure ,brain .etc ) and the addictive properties ..when your heart dr tells you to quit smoking ....its not just the carcinogens in the analogs from burning the tobacco and the additives .I am not concerned for my health because I do not have heart problems as of yet but not sure i would even vape if i did .Heart disease runs in my family super strong and I did have the full on stress test last year ...so far so good .Not a bad idea if it runs in your family ,and you hit 40s or 50s .
Makes sense, particularly with its vasoconstrictive properties. Thanks again!
Sent from my phone; Please excuse typos / autocorrections.
Sent from my phone; Please excuse typos / autocorrections.
Jeffree, I applaud you. Your actions speak for all of us. My employer has stated that smoking of ANY kind is grounds for immediate termination. By saying ANY he means to include vaping. Seems there should be some recourse to losing ones job over something like vaping.
Thanks for the continued suggestions. Blue, I had the same thought and will qualify my words if given the chance by the committee. (I've received no response thus far).
Just FYI, I was basing that nic argument on information I'd found from some academic sites like this: FAQ: Nicotine (tobaccoharmreduction.org) (there's a section there on e-cigs as well).
Just FYI, I was basing that nic argument on information I'd found from some academic sites like this: FAQ: Nicotine (tobaccoharmreduction.org) (there's a section there on e-cigs as well).
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
