Nicotine Tests For Medical Workers. It's happening. An attack on Liberty or not?

Is Nicotine Testing an attack on Liberty?

  • Yes

    Votes: 2 100.0%

  • No

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    2
Anti-Party

Anti-Party

Tea Is The New Kool-Aid
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/05/hospital-quits-hiring-smokers_n_1187028.html

It takes 1-4 days for Nicotine out of your system. Studies suggest that there is a 40% less "call in sick" rate when smoking is banned for hospital workers. And anyone with a brain knows that smokers get more breaks resulting in less work.

I'm torn on this one because smokers cost us all in medical bills. They generally do get distracted easily when craving nicotine in serious situations. I know that when I smoked I was a terror the 2 hours before the noon lunch break. I came back from lunch break high as a kite from nicotine because I went 5 hours without it and smoked 2-5 cigs on break.

But I have to think about the social smoker who smokes cigs when they drink on weekends.

Let's see what you all think. Try not to be immature, simply state your perspective and reason.
 
One of our local hospitals instituted this. I don't like it. I think it has absolutely nothing to do with the ability to perform.the job.
 
Steelplate said:
One of our local hospitals instituted this. I don't like it. I think it has absolutely nothing to do with the ability to perform.the job.
Click to expand...

It statistically has a lot to do with job performance.

Whether or not it is on a "fire" level, is up for discussion.

But again, statistics CAN and always do, profile.
 
I want to open this thread up a bit. Are there any cigar smokers here?

I guess I'm following the assumption that you can smoke a cigar when a child is born without losing your job, on the extreme end. I'm also under the impression that some people smoke cigars irregularly and that cigars can give someone nicotine for 1-4 days.

If I have a baby should I skip the cigars because I'm not free to do this?
Of course I balance this perspective with the smoking workers that abuse smoking, work less and drive up my healthcare costs.
 
It's bullshit, unless the state declares nicotine and/or tobacco an illegal drug. Even then it would be an attack on liberty, but at least it would be consistent and legally prudent.
 
LMAO. I've been saying for years these invasive drug tests are Unconstituional - requiring a body search of your fluids.

WTF is that anyways?

I don't smoke anything, or drug anything, or drink alcohol - but I USED to smoke weed. and i remember getting pissed tested.

WTF?? I smoke a joint on the weekend and I get fired??

So. to all those whom were SILENT about that - and smoke the devil's weed (tobacco) you should have spoken up before.
I feel your pain, but you had it coming by the silent aquiesence beforehand
 
Smokers are quickly having their freedom stripped. First it was their mobility, with public smoking bans, lawsuits being filed by neighbours for second-hand property impact by smoke trails, bans on smoking inside private clubs, etc., and now they are being drug-tested for the purpose of job discrimination.
 
I don't think anything you do on your own time should be used against you at work - assuming you are performing your job as required.

If someone calls in sick too much, they can be fired for that. If their performance on the job sucks, fire them for that.

But on your own time? smoke, toke, drink, whatever

I have been blasted for this position on other boards - if the company is paying health insurance for you, other posters say, they can control your habits in your personal life.

So then next step is to control what you eat. Then what activities you do (rock climbing? Way too dangerous. YOU RIDE A MOTORCYCLE? you're fired)

I think we need to keep the barrier between work life and non-work life.

But like many things, this is a battle that so far has been lost.
 
With new ways to get nicotine they should not assume smoking is the only way to obtain such a level of nicotine. Some surgeons use it to increase their concentration levels during surgery, but they're not smoking in there, they use a patch. There are the new "electronic" cigarettes which deliver nicotine in water vapor...

The idea that because they have nicotine it means they smoke cigarettes is a bit outdated.
 
Threedee said:
Smokers are quickly having their freedom stripped. First it was their mobility, with public smoking bans, lawsuits being filed by neighbours for second-hand property impact by smoke trails, bans on smoking inside private clubs, etc., and now they are being drug-tested for the purpose of job discrimination.
Click to expand...

And as a working musician? Between the draconian DUI laws and the no smoking in bar rooms thing here in PA? It's tough to get regular gigs.
 
Damocles said:
With new ways to get nicotine they should not assume smoking is the only way to obtain such a level of nicotine. Some surgeons use it to increase their concentration levels during surgery, but they're not smoking in there, they use a patch. There are the new "electronic" cigarettes which deliver nicotine in water vapor...

The idea that because they have nicotine it means they smoke cigarettes is a bit outdated.
Click to expand...

I have an e-cig kit. It's OK in a pinch and it does curb the desire....but it's just not the same. I'd like to make a permanent switchover to them, but haven't been able to do so as of yet.
 
Steelplate said:
And as a working musician? Between the draconian DUI laws and the no smoking in bar rooms thing here in PA? It's tough to get regular gigs.
Click to expand...

Hard to believe they want to lower the "drunk" BAC down to .05 ... how many accidents have been caused by people with a BAC between a .05 and .08? That would really put bars out of business and put a big dent in restaurant earnings.
 
tekkychick said:
Hard to believe they want to lower the "drunk" BAC down to .05 ... how many accidents have been caused by people with a BAC between a .05 and .08? That would really put bars out of business and put a big dent in restaurant earnings.
Click to expand...

I thought the .10 BAC was fine. When it went down to .08, you saw a lot of smaller establishments change from decent places to sit back and hear a band to dives with a near empty bar who's few filled seats are occupied by "regulars" who can either walk home or are willing to roll the dice.
 
I could get with programs such as bonuses for non-smokers. But firing smokers seems crazy to me. Maybe it's just because I use to be a smoker and know how hard it is to quit.

But this topic is just like many in politics today. Lots of things could be changed with suggestion/rewards instead of force. But we are at a time where if Obama asked the people to quit smoking, we would have 10,000 more new smokers the next day.

Gotta edit this before some nuttball thinks this is a serious scenario. No it's not the presidents area to ask the people to stop smoking. But he could talk about the financial benefits if everyone did stop smoking. ...........whatever, someone will troll anyway...why try.
 
Maybe Pres Obama should say he's thinking of issuing an executive order to force everyone to have at least 3 cigarettes a day.... then all the smokers will quit just to spite him!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top