So is there a way to test for method of nicotine consumption? I suspect Baylor is not ignorant of the fact that the primary problem with cigarettes is that you smoke them. I'm not sure there's an effective way to screen for smokers, though.
He's asking if there's a test that can determine the method used to introduce the nicotine into the body.
I'm aware of mouth swabs to test tobacco use, and I'm sure blood tests can be used to detect nicotine levels regardless of consumption method. TX would know more, though. She pointed out to me that Baylor Health and Baylor University are separate entities; are they unaffiliated, though?
They are unaffiliated now. Baylor University in Waco, TX is different than Baylor College of Medicine here in Houston. They used to be affiliated but have since separated from, I believe, ideological issues. Go figure. As you could imagine, a religious institution like Baylor University wouldn't want to be connected to a bunch a godless doctors and med students. In other news, I had my pre-employment physical today which included a piss and blood test for drugs and a tb screening. They didn't swab my mouth but I'm sure trace amount of tobacco products can be picked up in blood. I haven't smoked my pipe in quite a while so I should be ok.
Both of those tests, though, would pop positive for any kind of tobacco use (well, the mouth swab may or may not pick up a nicotine patch). My point is that while it may be the smoking that is unhealthy, there is no easy, clean way to determine if the nicotine was absorbed through smoking or through another (ostensibly healthier) method.
I can tell all of you that in MY experience, nicotine tests (and drug tests in general) can be inconclusive. I've been tested twice for nicotine/drugs by insurance companies, with two different outcomes. The first time was about six years ago. I was smoking about two packs a week at that time*, and was taking opiates daily (in the form of painkillers from Mexico). When I was told that I would have to take a drug test (blood and urine), I scheduled it as far in the future as possible, and stopped all of my drug and tobacco use. “As far in the future as possible” turned out to be nine days. I lied on the questionnaire and said that I didn’t smoke at all. What I was really worried about were the pills. I had read that it could take up to 14 days to get opiates out of your system. If they saw that I was taking narcotics without a prescription, I’d be fucked for sure, right? When the test came back, I was negative for opiates, but I came out positive for nicotine. Cut ahead a few years, and I’m applying with a different insurance company. I had quit the opiates for years, but I still smoke, albeit at a lower rate (a pack every two weeks.) I didn’t lie on the questionnaire that time, and admitted to my smoking habits. I took the blood and urine tests, AND WHEN THE RESULTS CAME IN, I WAS NEGATIVE FOR NICOTINE. And I had smoked the night before. *It might be important to mention that I smoke all of my cigarettes without filters. I cut the filters off; they taste better that way.
The funniest thing about this is that so many people are bound to complain about this as a violatation of worker's rights. Opinions vary, but I almost forget how great we have it in North America when it comes to worker's rights. The pictures below are of FoxConn a.k.a iPod City. A factory in China the has about 475,000 workers employed at it who work more than twelve hours a day, minimum six days a week for pennies. Not that it really comes to a surprise to most of you. Maybe this will: This is where all of your magical Apple products come from. Not made by angel-aliens from the planet Smiley Pie. Instead, they are made by hand under Big Brother. The nets you see on the bottom photo are to "catch" jumpers since the factory has a horriffic suicide rate because of its subhuman conditions: Spoiler Spoiler ...and we bitch about only getting half an hour for lunch.
I hear the suicide rate were misrepresented in grand new media fashion (ie report only what well get browser clicks with out any context or analytical fact checking on the reporters part).
First chance I've had to chime in since putting this up. The ban is on hiring nicotine users. Prospective employees are tested for nicotine (didn't say how, but most likely urine or serum panels). I can support tobacco-free campuses, but not denying use of the patch, Nicolette gum, lozenges, etc. Maybe 1% of those users were never smokers and just use them for their stimulant effects, but the other 99% are using them to battle the most addictive substance known to man. Yes, they're still using nicotine, but this is considered a harm-reduction intervention, similar to substituting methadone for smack. it's non-intrusive to the workplace, worker, co-workers or patients. Comparisons have been drawn to implementing similar hiring practices to persons with obesity. Many companies (Baylor Health among them) provide Wellness programs that incorporate access to exercise facilities as well as consultations with dieticians, Mindful Eating and other peer support meetings, available to new and old employees alike. Those trying to quit smoking are not given that opportunity. And, since addiction can be defined as a disability under the definitions put forth by the Americans with Disabilities Act, this policy reaks of discrimination and I'm sure it won't be long before the ACLU files a complaint with the DOJ on some person(s)' behalf. Also, the number of smokers in the US has been declining steadily for decades, while the rate of obesity, especially among children, is epidemic. Don't take this as me defending smoking. I inhaled 2+ packs a day for 34 of the past 49 years. Quitting booze, benzos and pot (#1 customer in those categories, too) were a walk in the park compared to nicotine. Meth and crack addicts (2 pf the most addictive drugs) tell me the same thing. The issue here is does an employer have the right to hire or not a person based on a personal choice that is in no way connected to his employment, nor his ability to perform the functions of that job? How would it be any different if the applicant held extreme political views that he or she voiced through advocacy participation in their free time that were contrary to views held by the employer and was denied hiring based on those views?
As long as they're a private entity, of course they do. And they should. Why should your status as an employer change what rights you have as that employer (and yes, I know it does right now, so don't regale me with a bunch of stories about how they can't not hire minorities, etc.), I am merely advocating that employers (private ones) should not lose their rights to employ whom they want. If you have a renovation of your house, should you be forced to hire a contractor you don't want? It's no different. But again, so what? Isn't this exactly what we, as Americans, have wanted for 30 years? As the Chinese say, be careful what you wish for, you might just get it. As Crown said earlier, this is just the first step. More are coming. You too fat? Yup, sorry, can't work here. Support equal wages? Yeah, sorry, don't want you here. Support gay and lesbian lifestyles? Yeah, go work with some fags then. Yes, Americans, this is what you've sown. Don't bitch about what you've reaped.
There's over $3,000 in extra expenses directly connected to employing a tobacco user... can you put a dollar sign on political views like that?
Of course you can (and in fact corporations did this years ago). Let's say you have a potential employee that is pro union, and in fact, has unionized other workplaces similar to yours. Let's further say that the employee organized everyone at that workplace to walk out if they didn't get $10 an hour instead of minimum wage. Let's call it a $2 difference an hour. Over the course of a year, that one employee will cost you (assuming a 40 hour workweek)$320 a month, or over $3,600 a year PER EMPLOYEE. Now let's say I'm an employer and I see what the potential employee did at another shop. Another potential employee did not join a union. Doesn't it make economic sense to hire the non-pro-union employee? And I'm basing that on the numbers above. My point is there are dollar amounts to political views. Or did you think the wealthy got Reagan to get rid of unions because of ideological reasons?
What? Those are protected classes, there is going to be far less ability to discriminate against groups of people based on beliefs and lifestyle down the road. Smokers just happen to be the one class of people no one gives a rats ass about protecting because the product is so demonized.
Your example is nothing close to what katokoch said. There is a huge difference between holding a political view unrelated to the job and actively organizing a company's workforce.
It is a political view, the example you gave was a guy who is actively trying unionizing his employers when kato, I think, was only talking about political beliefs unrelated to the job. Do you not see the difference? How could you put a dollar amount cost for a company on say being strongly for gay marriage in your free time for an employer when the employer is against it?
That's a poorly defined term you've got there. Yes, being pro-union is a political view. So is being a Democrat--so, arguably, is being a terrorist. One of these three things has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on a person's employment liability, while the other two do. Hence it would be ludicrous to fire someone for being a Democrat (yes, I know, unless you're firing them from the Romney campaign), but understandable to fire someone for being a union organizer or a terrorist. You need a narrower term than 'political view.' The Unabomber had 'political views.' It doesn't seem likely to me that any savvy businessman would fire someone for a political belief that had no effect on workplace performance. If someone's making you money, who cares what he thinks at home? People who pull that kind of arbitrary crap usually fuck other things up, too.
Flip it around... lust4life specified political views and not unions, and a political view doesn't specifically pertain to unions. I interpreted him as referring to idiots banging drums in the park to protest non organic stuff or whatever hippies get pissed off about, not unions.