Help, I don't know what to do...... F*CK

bacon.jay

I want to begin by saying that I am firmly of the opinion that smoking fine, hand-made cigars is altogether different than smoking cigarettes (as well as being completely unrelated to any addiction to nicotine) and I believe this sentiment is echoed by the vast majority of us here on the forums. Additionally, this same view is validated by the statements (and actions in some cases) of several doctors and insurance agents I have been acquainted with in my short time since I picked up this hobby 6 years ago. However..... I am very afraid that in the near future this may not matter....

I am in an accelerated CST certification program at an adult career center, and I am doing very well in all my classes (highest average in the entire program) and am doing equally well in all my skill competencies. I love what I am doing now, and I'm really REALLY excited to start clinical rotations in January after the holidays.

Well, I just found out today that hospitals throughout the area have adopted the practice of administering nicotine tests to potential employees before they hire them to prevent employing someone that "smokes", due to the health aspects involved, possible insurance conflicts, etc...

Is anyone else in their current line of work required to submit to a blood-nicotine test prior to, or throughout the course of their employment in their current position? I know absolutely nothing about the possible blood-nicotine levels acquired through smoking cigars in a hobby capacity, and whether or not it would turn a nicotine test administered prior to employment...

I fear that sooner or later I will have to give up this wonderful hobby that is cigar collecting and enjoying, and I dread even the thought of it.... Short of quitting my program, does anyone have any suggestions or comments to assist in coping with the possibility of this outcome?

j0z3r

One thought would be to see if you can arrange for your own doctor to run a blood-nicotine test on you and see if in fact the results show anything. At least that would let you know in advance if you're concerns are well founded.

PsychoSJG

That sounds illegal to me. Ask a lawyer if they can legally deny you a position due to nicotine levels

Nick2021

wow, I didn't even realize they did this...WTH???!!

fla-gypsy

That is so over the top assinine and it has nothing to do with health. It is all about an agenda

xmacro

PsychoSJG:

That sounds illegal to me. Ask a lawyer if they can legally deny you a position due to nicotine levels

Not really; I think what j0zer was talking about, was asking his own doctor to run a nicotine test, so bacon could see how many cigars would trip the test off.

I did some digging, and it seems that the half-life of nicotine is about 2 hrs, and the body flushes out nicotine within 24 hours. You're gonna wanna do your own research, but if this is the case, it seems this test is intended to catch cigarette smokers who need to take a drag every few hours, not someone who casually smokes cigars

http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/603883

http://health.howstuffworks.com/wellness/drugs-alcohol/nicotine2.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicotine#Pharmacodynamics

Worse comes to worse and you trip the test, you can always tell them you went to a bachelor party that day/week and had a few cigars, or that a buddy of yours is having a baby. A good excuse should get you out of at least 1 failed test.

fla-gypsy:

That is so over the top assinine and it has nothing to do with health. It is all about an agenda

Too true. It always amazes me how progressives want to legalize pot, but believe that smoking tobacco, in any form, is unacceptable. Nothing but hypocrisy and political correctness.

Krieg

I think if you don't smoke a cigar withing 24-48hrs of the test, u should be ok. Cigars have nicotine, and it is absorbed through the gums and inside of the cheeks, but I think a cigarette smoker would have higher amount of nicotine in his/her body than a cigar smoker.

Amos Umwhat

PsychoSJG:

That sounds illegal to me. Ask a lawyer if they can legally deny you a position due to nicotine levels

Sadly, this is not illegal. I am an ICU nurse, and keep up with these things. For myself, I'm grandfathered in, but, many hospital corporations are going this direction. The groundwork has been laid in the drug testing programs for marijuana, and there is far more objective scientific evidence regarding the dangers of nicotine. This is why I say things like: "if you want to keep your freedom, you need to respect the freedom of others" and "united we stand, divided we fall". You may not choose what others choose, but, if, objectively their choices are made responsibly, respect them, or support legislation that will soon erode your freedom and mine to do as we wish with our own lives. Not politcally correct, but true none the less. Sorry if this offends The Right, but it's true.

xmacro

^ There's a fine line between sensible rules and guidelines, and anarchy. Some boundaries are required in any society. Just because I believe a strong military is required to secure freedom, doesn't mean I want a police state; just because I enjoy smoking cigars, doesn't mean I need to support legalizing weed. You can support one thing without going down a slippery slope - it's not an all or nothing proposition.

Amos Umwhat:

Not politcally correct, but true none the less. Sorry if this offends The Right, but it's true.

Political correctness is a creature of the Left.

/derail

firetruckguy

I had the same question for my insurance lady the other day. I am starting my own business the first of the year and need to get some life insurance asap after that. My insurance lady said they need a blood test when I apply for the life insurance, so I asked how long would a hobby cigar smoker have to go to pass this test. She said 2 full months and everything is gone. How she knows that, i dont know........ but i trust her. So now I need to loose 30 lbs and not smoke for 2 months to get the "good" price for life insurance. the next 2 months is going to suck balls......

ellinas

sounds like they're discriminating against people who smoke...

One2gofst

ellinas:

sounds like they're discriminating against people who smoke...

Most certainly they are. However, smokers are not a legally protected class and it is therefore legal.

bacon.jay

ellinas:

sounds like they're discriminating against people who smoke...

I think the whole situation is because of the insurance plans that lots of places have. And practically 100% of hospitals prohibit smoking of any kind on the hospital campus, which I understand, and support.

It just sucks that people like me that smoke cigars recreationally or as a hobby are affected by rules meant to minimize the employment of people that are addicted to and/or negatively affected by nicotine, such as cigarette smokers.

EDIT: I just thought of a story I could use. I could say that my roommate smokes.

Christian_Sapp

so most hospitals are going in that direction is there anyway to get around it because right now im studying to be a nurse but i surely do not want to give up cigars?

Amos Umwhat

xmacro:

^ There's a fine line between sensible rules and guidelines, and anarchy. Some boundaries are required in any society. Just because I believe a strong military is required to secure freedom, doesn't mean I want a police state; just because I enjoy smoking cigars, doesn't mean I need to support legalizing weed. You can support one thing without going down a slippery slope - it's not an all or nothing proposition.

Amos Umwhat:

Not politcally correct, but true none the less. Sorry if this offends The Right, but it's true.

Political correctness is a creature of the Left.

/derail

Shouldn't be a slippery slope, no, and political correctness is a creature of extremes, be they left or right. The slippery slope arguement is only a fallacy if we don't slide down the slope, as in your example 'legalize pot and we will sink into anarchy', a slippery slope arguement, and we only know by what happens in reality. My arguement, create non-fact based laws that lead to loss of freedom will lead to loss of my freedom, is no longer slippery slope when my freedoms are attacked, which is what this thread is about. Sometimes reality bites, sorry.

jship079

I did not smoke a cigar for a week or two and passed the test and I smoke like 2 to three a week at that time. This *** has to be discrimination

xmacro

jship079:

I did not smoke a cigar for a week or two and passed the test and I smoke like 2 to three a week at that time. This *** has to be discrimination

Congrats! Seems you get the best of both worlds - a good job, and you can keep your hobby This may call for a GOF in celebration

Also, technically this IS discrimination, but it's entirely legal. Discrimination is only illegal against "suspect classes" - classes of people that the Government thinks need protection, and it includes race, gender, age, nationality, religious beliefs, etc. So long as an employer doesn't discriminate on one of those basis', they're in the clear and can discriminate all day and all night.

Amos Umwhat:

xmacro:

^ There's a fine line between sensible rules and guidelines, and anarchy. Some boundaries are required in any society. Just because I believe a strong military is required to secure freedom, doesn't mean I want a police state; just because I enjoy smoking cigars, doesn't mean I need to support legalizing weed. You can support one thing without going down a slippery slope - it's not an all or nothing proposition.

Amos Umwhat:

Not politcally correct, but true none the less. Sorry if this offends The Right, but it's true.

Political correctness is a creature of the Left.

/derail

Shouldn't be a slippery slope, no, and political correctness is a creature of extremes, be they left or right. The slippery slope arguement is only a fallacy if we don't slide down the slope, as in your example 'legalize pot and we will sink into anarchy', a slippery slope arguement, and we only know by what happens in reality. My arguement, create non-fact based laws that lead to loss of freedom will lead to loss of my freedom, is no longer slippery slope when my freedoms are attacked, which is what this thread is about. Sometimes reality bites, sorry.

What is it with you and reading? First you thought my statement that "there are no responsible drunks" meant I was against alcohol, and now you think my statement that "some boundaries are required to avoid anarchy" means I think weed legalization = anarchy. Seriously - just stop with the exaggerations. I meant what I said, nothing more.

I wasn't saying "legalize pot and we slip into anarchy". I was referring to your slippery slope argument "If you support the freedom to smoke cigars, you need to support the freedom to smoke weed" - it's a bad argument because I can place limits on what I choose to support, and I don't need to go to the extreme with that support, and I don't need to go any further than tobacco in what I choose to smoke. Some limits are required on every activity - the hospital test that bacon.jay's going through are far too restrictive, but your suggestions are too loose.

Lastly, you can drop the holier-than-thou attitude - "Sorry if this offends some on the Right", "Sometimes reality bites, sorry" - the last time I saw these tag lines used was in high school, and it hasn't become any more convincing or "witty" since then.

Amos Umwhat

xmacro:

jship079:

I did not smoke a cigar for a week or two and passed the test and I smoke like 2 to three a week at that time. This *** has to be discrimination

Congrats! Seems you get the best of both worlds - a good job, and you can keep your hobby This may call for a GOF in celebration

Also, technically this IS discrimination, but it's entirely legal. Discrimination is only illegal against "suspect classes" - classes of people that the Government thinks need protection, and it includes race, gender, age, nationality, religious beliefs, etc. So long as an employer doesn't discriminate on one of those basis', they're in the clear and can discriminate all day and all night.

Amos Umwhat:

xmacro:

^ There's a fine line between sensible rules and guidelines, and anarchy. Some boundaries are required in any society. Just because I believe a strong military is required to secure freedom, doesn't mean I want a police state; just because I enjoy smoking cigars, doesn't mean I need to support legalizing weed. You can support one thing without going down a slippery slope - it's not an all or nothing proposition.

Amos Umwhat:

Not politcally correct, but true none the less. Sorry if this offends The Right, but it's true.

Political correctness is a creature of the Left.

/derail

Shouldn't be a slippery slope, no, and political correctness is a creature of extremes, be they left or right. The slippery slope arguement is only a fallacy if we don't slide down the slope, as in your example 'legalize pot and we will sink into anarchy', a slippery slope arguement, and we only know by what happens in reality. My arguement, create non-fact based laws that lead to loss of freedom will lead to loss of my freedom, is no longer slippery slope when my freedoms are attacked, which is what this thread is about. Sometimes reality bites, sorry.

What is it with you and reading? First you thought my statement that "there are no responsible drunks" meant I was against alcohol, and now you think my statement that "some boundaries are required to avoid anarchy" means I think weed legalization = anarchy. Seriously - just stop with the exaggerations. I meant what I said, nothing more.

I wasn't saying "legalize pot and we slip into anarchy". I was referring to your slippery slope argument "If you support the freedom to smoke cigars, you need to support the freedom to smoke weed" - it's a bad argument because I can place limits on what I choose to support, and I don't need to go to the extreme with that support, and I don't need to go any further than tobacco in what I choose to smoke. Some limits are required on every activity - the hospital test that bacon.jay's going through are far too restrictive, but your suggestions are too loose.

Lastly, you can drop the holier-than-thou attitude - "Sorry if this offends some on the Right", "Sometimes reality bites, sorry" - the last time I saw these tag lines used was in high school, and it hasn't become any more convincing or "witty" since then.

I guess I was set off by the holier-than-thou attitude you've presented on this and another thread, or so it seemed, and responded in kind. Not a productive exercise, and I was guilty there, and here as well. My fault. You can support anything you want, the facts remain what they are. Our legal system builds on precedent, some precedents will go down the slope if not stopped. I know people who don't believe we landed on the moon. Evidence based factual arguements don't impress them, cogent logic falls on deaf ears. They cannot question their dogma, they cannot challenge their paradigm, they do not recognize their BS and offer it to others as food for thought. I do not argue with them. My arguement with you is finished, I simply agree to disagree.

xmacro

Amos Umwhat:

I guess I was set off by the holier-than-thou attitude you've presented on this and another thread, or so it seemed, and responded in kind. Not a productive exercise, and I was guilty there, and here as well. My fault. You can support anything you want, the facts remain what they are. Our legal system builds on precedent, some precedents will go down the slope if not stopped. I know people who don't believe we landed on the moon. Evidence based factual arguements don't impress them, cogent logic falls on deaf ears. They cannot question their dogma, they cannot challenge their paradigm, they do not recognize their BS and offer it to others as food for thought. I do not argue with them. My arguement with you is finished, I simply agree to disagree.

Right. So if someone doesn't agree with you, they can't possibly have any evidence on their side. If someone has a different point of view, they can't possibly have arrived at that opinion through logic, and must be wrong. Anyone who holds a different opinion must be dogmatic and unable to see how "enlightened" you are; they must be, to use your own words, "drinking the kool-aid from FOX news"

Elitists like you who can't stomach the fact that reasonable people can disagree on issues are what continues to cause problems in society; to you, anyone who doesn't agree with you "cannot question their dogma" or "challenge their paradigm", to use your words. It's attitudes like that that have caused so much divide in our nation, when one side thinks the other side "doesn't recognize their own BS".

It apparently never occurs to you that both sides can have good evidence for their points and still disagree. It never occurred to you that both sides are sincere in their opinion and have given a lot of thought to what they hold as true - but to you, "cogent logic falls on deaf ears" if someone doesn't agree with you

At least we can agree that this conversation is over.