# Missouri Fire/EMS District Bans Employee Smoking



## VentMedic (Jul 12, 2009)

*Missouri Fire/EMS District Bans Employee Smoking*

Sunday, July 12, 2009
http://www.emsresponder.com/article/article.jsp?id=9878&siteSection=1




> In what's thought to be the most aggressive anti-smoking policy among fire departments in the state, firefighters and other employees of the West County EMS and Fire Protection District won't be allowed to smoke on the job or in uniform starting in January.
> 
> Also, all employees hired after Jan. 1 must agree not to smoke or chew tobacco while on- or off-duty.


 


> While smoking already is banned in most workplaces, about 6,000 companies nationwide refuse to even hire smokers, according to the National Workrights Institute, a New Jersey nonprofit.


 
Discussion from 2 years ago:
http://www.emtlife.com/showthread.php?t=4953


----------



## Ridryder911 (Jul 12, 2009)

Good for them!

R/r 911


----------



## TransportJockey (Jul 12, 2009)

I don't see a problem with this


----------



## medic417 (Jul 12, 2009)

:beerchug:


----------



## DrankTheKoolaid (Jul 12, 2009)

*re*

I didnt read the articles but get the premise by the snippets posted.  Even though i am a smoker i agree with what they are trying to do.  The only thing tha peaks an interest is a violation of privacy as im assuming they will periodically be testing blood nicotine levels similiar the what healt insurance companies do when starting new policies.  Whats to say they wont be checking for other things at the same time?

I certainly dont and wouldnt have anything to hide, but what some people do on their off time as long as it does not effect job performance should remain private.  

Ill tell ya a former employer to remain un-named with about 265 employees decided to try and clean house so they did a complete hair analysis of all employees only to fnd so many were positive they had to discard them all.  Otherwise they would have lost over half of the hospitals staff.


----------



## Ridryder911 (Jul 12, 2009)

Corky said:


> I didnt read the articles but get the premise by the snippets posted.  Even though i am a smoker i agree with what they are trying to do.  The only thing tha peaks an interest is a violation of privacy as im assuming they will periodically be testing blood nicotine levels similiar the what healt insurance companies do when starting new policies.  Whats to say they wont be checking for other things at the same time?
> 
> I certainly dont and wouldnt have anything to hide, but what some people do on their off time as long as it does not effect job performance should remain private.
> 
> Ill tell ya a former employer to remain un-named with about 265 employees decided to try and clean house so they did a complete hair analysis of all employees only to fnd so many were positive they had to discard them all.  Otherwise they would have lost over half of the hospitals staff.



I have worked for companies that would not insure smokers and even had "non-drinkers" policies where it was based upon the honor system. In other words, if you had an accident and you were intoxicated; you were not covered. I am sure the same as r/t illnesses that they were to find out that you were a smoker. 

It is not so much privacy as it the costs it places upon the company for the insurance costs. As one that is assisting in reviewing insurance bids for my company, I can assure it is not an easy task to save money and at the same time have a good beneficial plan for the employees. 

R/r 911


----------



## VentMedic (Jul 12, 2009)

Corky said:


> I certainly dont and wouldnt have anything to hide, but what some people do on their off time as long as it does not effect job performance should remain private.


 
Wrong.

This issue had already been decided in the Florida FDs in 1986 with the Heart and Lung Law (112.18 FL statute) which pertained to workmen's comp benefits paid. They found that smoking was one of the factors that is preventable and claims can be denied due to illnesses associated with it even though smoke was also involved in the occupation.

FL 112.18
http://www.flsenate.gov/statutes/in...String=&URL=Ch0112/Sec18.htm&StatuteYear=2004

http://www.jstor.org/pss/3342752


> In 1986 the Professional Fire Fighters of Florida (PFFF), a labor organization of 11,000 members, passed an unprecedented resolution to create a "smoke-free fire service." The PFFF's commitment arose from its (i) concern for the health of fire fighters, (ii) need to address the issue of smoking to protect the fire fighters' "Heart and Lung Law," and (iii) attempt to avert criticism of its proposed presumptive "Cancer Bill." In 1987 the PFFF gained support for its resolution from a council representing chiefs, fire instructors and inspectors, and volunteer fire fighters. Prior to the "smoke-free" resolution, one fire department in Florida required that new fire fighters be non-smokers. Since the resolution passed, 14 departments added this requirement. In 1989 the PFFF succeeded in getting a landmark bill passed requiring that new fire fighters be non-users of tobacco for at least one year prior to application. Important implications of the PFFF's efforts to create a "smoke-free fire service" are also discussed.


 
Now since EMS employees are being included in the PSOB, smoking will also come under some scrutiny. Why should the government pay out benefits for something that the employee had a role in by not assuming responsibility for their own life.


----------



## Sasha (Jul 12, 2009)

Some fds here require you to be smoke free for a year to even interview


----------



## HotelCo (Jul 12, 2009)

Good for that department!


----------



## 46Young (Jul 12, 2009)

Good deal! My dept also has a tobacco ban. The Heart and Lung Bill has relevance here, as well. Cigna has an arrangement with my gym chain that gets me a deep discount on membership. My dept mandates PT every day while on duty. Every station has fitness equipment. Some look like a Gold's Gym! We also have a new program called "Stop Drop and Control High Blood Pressure", which has us check BP/pulse on the first day of each tour with required documentation.


----------



## minneola24 (Jul 12, 2009)

Seeing paramedics in their ambulance smoking would be a little ironic. And considering most kids look up to firefighters/emt's, this is great.


----------



## ffemt8978 (Jul 12, 2009)

Employers controlling what employees do when they are not at work?  Where will it stop?  What happens to employees that are exposed to second hand smoke because their family members use nicotine?  Do the lose their job because of a non-employed family member?

Today it's smoking and drinking, maybe tomorrow they will dictate what type of car you can drive based upon safety statistics/insurance rates.  

Sorry...this is a very slippery slope they are proceeding down.  Just because tobacco is the current "big evil" target doesn't make it any more right.


----------



## usafmedic45 (Jul 12, 2009)

Relax....unless you are hanging around in a massive cloud of smoke (like sticking your head in a bag of cigarette smoke), there is normally a difference in the nicotine levels detected in urine or blood as are commonly used to track such employee abstinence programs.  In fact, most labs purposefully set the cutoff for a positive reported result at below what you would get from being in a smoky bar (which is increasingly hard to find) all night.  This is the same reason that most brief second hand exposures to marijuana will not cause you to test positive on an urine drug screen.  There is a little more thought going into these things than most EMS personnel and the general public have awareness of. 

I really hate when people pull out the "slippery slope" argument simply because they don't think public health issues are of major concern and worth taking away their "right" to self-destructive behavior.  I would imagine someone argued the same thing when they invented the FDA and started pulling heroin out of over the counter products because of concern for public health.  It's a strawman argument usually put forth by persons completely or significantly ignorant of the reasons for the ban.  Sadly, the ignorance is what Martin Luther King, Jr once spoke of in his famous quote: "There is nothing in this world quite so dangerous as sincere ignorance or conscientious stupidity". 

Also, I think you if you want to be in a profession or employed by a particular provider you should not complain about the standards enforced. Would you complain if they told you not to drink off duty while wearing a department shirt (like so many fire and EMS personnel do almost constantly)?  Would you complain if they told you had to wear a dress shirt rather than a t-shirt to increase professional appearance?  Would you complain if they told you that there would be a mandated physical fitness program (beyond just annual testing?) What is the big deal about wishing to increase the health of providers and improve the public image of our professions by removing probably one of the most common hypocritical actions I see EMS and fire providers engaging in while in public?  



> maybe tomorrow they will dictate what type of car you can drive based upon safety statistics/insurance rates.



And that is a bad idea why?  Maybe you shouldn't be able to hand your teenage daughter the keys to a Ford Mustang the day she gets her license.  There is something to be said for keeping the stupidity of our fellow man from being allowed to kill those who are inexperienced, incompetent or simply reckless enough to not handle certain types of vehicles.  Also, it would protect others from those people.  Remember, there is a difference between a right and a privilege and you seem to be forgetting that employment and driving are both examples of privileges not rights.   You have no right to a job in a given profession or a given employment than I have a right to be a moderator on this forum.   It is only a "slippery slope" if you are removing a _right _and for no good reason.  I think trying to reduce the rates of cancer and heart disease- two of the big killers in fire and EMS personnel- is worth the inconvenience and the headache of listening to people whine about lost "rights".


----------



## ffemt8978 (Jul 12, 2009)

usafmedic45 said:


> Relax....unless you are hanging around in a massive cloud of smoke (like sticking your head in a bag of cigarette smoke), there is normally a difference in the nicotine levels detected in urine or blood as are commonly used to track such employee abstinence programs.  In fact, most labs purposefully set the cutoff for a positive reported result at below what you would get from being in a smoky bar (which is increasingly hard to find) all night.  This is the same reason that most brief second hand exposures to marijuana will not cause you to test positive on an urine drug screen.  There is a little more thought going into these things than most EMS personnel and the general public have awareness of.


  That's great...if they actually do that.  No mention is made of this in the article though, so you're assuming that is the case.  But I've got a question then...based upon your argument, that it would take massive amounts of second hand smoke to show up on these tests, then why was second hand smoke such a major cause for the ban smoking movement?  Or was exposure to second hand smoke NOT responsible for cancer in people?



> I really hate when people pull out the "slippery slope" argument simply because they don't think public health issues are of major concern and worth taking away their "right" to self-destructive behavior.  I would imagine someone argued the same thing when they invented the FDA and started pulling heroin out of over the counter products because of concern for public health.  It's a strawman argument usually put forth by persons completely or significantly ignorant of the reasons for the ban.  Sadly, the ignorance is what Martin Luther King, Jr once spoke of in his famous quote: "There is nothing in this world quite so dangerous as sincere ignorance or conscientious stupidity".


  And I hate it when people opposed to the slippery slope argument ignore historical evidence that it does occur and try to sidestep the question by not answering it.  I'm not ignorant of the reasons for the ban...I'm just opposed to the ban - there's a difference.



> Also, I think you if you want to be in a profession or employed by a particular provider you should not complain about the standards enforced. Would you complain if they told you not to drink off duty while wearing a department shirt (like so many fire and EMS personnel do almost constantly)?  Would you complain if they told you had to wear a dress shirt rather than a t-shirt to increase professional appearance?  Would you complain if they told you that there would be a mandated physical fitness program (beyond just annual testing?) What is the big deal about wishing to increase the health of providers and improve the public image of our professions by removing probably one of the most common hypocritical actions I see EMS and fire providers engaging in while in public?


  I have no problems with any of these arguments, but they also go to prove the slippery slope argument that you despise.  Each one of these standards was started with the best of intentions, but we all know the saying concerning paving and intentions.  Taken individually, I agree, none of these is a major issue.  When taken together, they paint a picture of a disturbing trend in our society today.




> And that is a bad idea why?  Maybe you shouldn't be able to hand your teenage daughter the keys to a Ford Mustang the day she gets her license.  There is something to be said for keeping the stupidity of our fellow man from being allowed to kill those who are inexperienced, incompetent or simply reckless enough to not handle certain types of vehicles.  Also, it would protect others from those people.  Remember, there is a difference between a right and a privilege and you seem to be forgetting that employment and driving are both examples of privileges not rights.   You have no right to a job in a given profession or a given employment than I have a right to be a moderator on this forum.   It is only a "slippery slope" if you are removing a _right _and for no good reason.  I think trying to reduce the rates of cancer and heart disease- two of the big killers in fire and EMS personnel- is worth the inconvenience and the headache of listening to people whine about lost "rights".


Who mentioned rights vs privileges?  I never said it was a right for somebody to smoke or drive.


----------



## medic417 (Jul 12, 2009)

Update, No employees may drink soda, coffee, tea or ............ as they all have been found to be harmful.  

While I agree once one freedom is lost it is easier to take more, but as to smoking even if done off duty that stink comes with you to work.  So in this case smoking is detrimental to peoples health even if it is just the residue from that last smoke before work.


----------



## minneola24 (Jul 12, 2009)

medic417 said:


> Update, No employees may drink soda, coffee, tea or ............ as they all have been found to be harmful.
> 
> While I agree once one freedom is lost it is easier to take more, but as to smoking even if done off duty that stink comes with you to work.  So in this case smoking is detrimental to peoples health even if it is just the residue from that last smoke before work.



Your'e right. Just had my haircut done two days ago by a hairdresser that smoked and the smell was hideous and hated being there.


----------



## Aidey (Jul 12, 2009)

I'm ok with this. If people want to smoke at home/off duty fine, but I don't think smoking while on duty is ok. If there is a "clean lung" law like Vent was talking about they need to sign a disclaimer stating they acknowledge that smoking can nullify their ability to file a claim under that law. 

I think it's horribly unprofessional for people to be standing around outside the ambulance smoking. Especially those that do system status, and the ambulances are parked in fairly visible parking lots and such. 

A lot of hospitals also seem to be instituting no smoking on campus policies, and I know right now people at my company over-look that policy at one hospital. The hospital staff even overlooks it because our parking area is fairly private and people can't really be seen. However, I don't think this is ok, and that the policy should be enforced. I think it looks unprofessional when 2-3 ambulance crews are all at the hospital and 1/2 of them are smoking. 

As a non-smoker, it also kind of sucks when your partner smells like cigarettes when you are spending 12 hours sitting with them in an ambulance.


----------



## usafmedic45 (Jul 12, 2009)

> But I've got a question then...based upon your argument, that it would take massive amounts of second hand smoke to show up on these tests, then why was second hand smoke such a major cause for the ban smoking movement? Or was exposure to second hand smoke NOT responsible for cancer in people?



Because nicotine was not the emphasis for the second hand smoke concern or a major carcinogen.  You're assuming the primary testable marker (the other being conitine (the inactive metabolite of nicotine) is correlated with the degree of exposure to toxic chemicals in smoke.  It is like assuming that just because you have a low carboxyhemoglobin level then there is no risk from smoke exposure when we know quite well that cyanide exposure and methemoglobinemia can still kill a smoke-exposed person who has a negative or clinically insignificant COHgb level. 



> That's great...if they actually do that. No mention is made of this in the article though, so you're assuming that is the case.



I doubt you could fire someone- especially in a heavily unionized busines like the fire service- without hard evidence.  Even if they chose to do so, they would open themselves up to a massive lawsuit so I would imagine that like every other occupational smoking ban I have heard of there would be a testing component either on suspicion of exposure or at random or designated intervals. 



> And I hate it when people opposed to the slippery slope argument ignore historical evidence that it does occur and try to sidestep the question by not answering it



I am not opposed to it.  I am opposed to it being used as a strawman argument whenever someone disagrees with a particular intervention.  That is simply the case here.



> I'm not ignorant of the reasons for the ban...I'm just opposed to the ban - there's a difference.



Then try to respond with quantify your opposition more than the intellecutal equivalent of going "...and the next thing you know, they'll be loading anyone who is opposed onto trains bound for Poland".  You're a bright fellow, you can do better than that and I was disappointed to you resort to tactics that are beneath you. 



> I have no problems with any of these arguments, but they also go to prove the slippery slope argument that you despise.



As I said, I do not despise it.  




> Who mentioned rights vs privileges? I never said it was a right for somebody to smoke or drive.



Then be careful how you paint your arguments.  You gave the impression that people would be stripped of their rights to do these things and others through your use of the slippery slope argument. Also, if it is not a right, then it is not given any protected status under the law so therefore you and every smoker out there can complain until you're blue in the face about it (which doesn't take long if you've been smoking long enough  ) and there is no legal standing for it.  



> Each one of these standards was started with the best of intentions, but we all know the saying concerning paving and intentions.



True and all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to stand idle.  Your side of the argument is not the only one with pithy statements. 



> When taken together, they paint a picture of a disturbing trend in our society today.



I suggest you look at the issue of illusory correlation.  Simply put, it's when you see problems, linkages, etc that are not there because of preconceived notions.  In other words, it is the statistical basis for the old adage, "When you're a hammer, everything looks like nails."  It is also when you see connections between events that are not connected, such as provide the basis for conspiracy theories, etc.  

There has been no major ethical erosion associated with taking drunk drivers (including members of my own family who have multiple DUIs on their record) off the road or allowing those of us who choose not to smoke the opportunity to dine or go out in public without having to experience the inside of a house during salvage and overhaul without becoming firefighters and suffer the health detriments thereof.  There have been cases where local jurisdicitions have applied the law in odd ways that are a little draconian (arresting people who are sleeping in the car in the parking lot of a bar for DUI, etc), but those do not negate the overall positive benefit of such regulations.  Every law has unfortunate victims. Would you argue against sex offender registries if you learned that in many places urinating in public is considered cause to register?  This is why there is recourse to amend the laws through contacting your political representatives or taking legal action.  The law is not a rigid unflexible doctrine but a living breathing and adjustable set of codes that change as society changes.  The problems arise when someone stands against the majority and it suddenly seems like the sky is falling for those people. 

Then again, I personally don't care if people smoke and I actually used to smoke myself.  I just don't believe that there is any good argument against it if an employer says "If you want to work here you are not going to smoke" any more than if they say "If you want to work here, this will be what you wear to work" or a valid argument for forcing people who don't smoke to basically take up the habit to avoid inconveniencing those who do.


----------



## usafmedic45 (Jul 12, 2009)

> tea


Nice....

Surprisingly, and you'd never know it by looking at the teeth of your average English person, tea has been found to be one of the few common drinks associated with INCREASED dental health.  



> If there is a "clean lung" law like Vent was talking about they need to sign a disclaimer stating they acknowledge that smoking can nullify their ability to file a claim under that law.



I've always argued that if you chose to do something stupid or obviously hazardous in the eyes of the average person- drink, smoke, skydive, etc- you have no right to legal recourse for mundane issues that might arise.


----------



## VentMedic (Jul 12, 2009)

medic417 said:


> Update, No employees may drink soda, coffee, tea or ............ as they all have been found to be harmful.


 
If you work for an SDA hospital, you probably won't be drinking those items on duty although I believe Florida Hospital has lightened that restriction a little.

The smoking cases have already been to court and tough luck for those who think smoking is a God given right. 



> If there is a "clean lung" law like Vent was talking about they need to sign a disclaimer stating they acknowledge that smoking can nullify their ability to file a claim under that law.


 
They do and that is in their employment contract. Every FF in the state of Florida knows that as well as many hospital employees.


----------



## reaper (Jul 12, 2009)

I think they should ban any use of Motorcycles,fast food, drinking anything but water and the list could go on and on. These are all things that will kill you and cause insurance rates to rise. So ban them all!

Then they should ban the use of perfume, Cologne, body wash and some deodorants. These all can cause Pt's problems and can down right stink up a truck for 12 hours!

Yes, I smoke and yes, I do not care if they ban them or not. I choose where I work and I work where I want. That is my personal choice.

The worst PR mess they created was the smoking ban on hospital properties. Drive by any hospital now a days and you will see Nurses,Dr's and Pt's standing on the sidewalk in front of the hospital smoking. I think that is the worst site there is and is a great image to portray. Rather then being smart, like some hospitals, and making areas for smoking, that is out of site, they make their institutions look like crap.

I agree with no smoking in restaurants and public buildings, I think you have to have courtesy for others!


----------



## VentMedic (Jul 12, 2009)

> The worst PR mess they created was the smoking ban on hospital properties. Drive by any hospital now a days and you will see Nurses,Dr's and Pt's standing on the sidewalk in front of the hospital smoking.


 
The trend in FL hospitals is now the same as the FDs, you are a nonsmoker at the time of hire. 


> they should ban the use of perfume, Cologne, body wash and some deodorants.


That gets you sent home with a reprimand if it interferes with patient care. Happens again and the disciplinary ladder starts with termination in your future. Its in the hospital employee handbook along with jewelry and tattoos.



ffemt8978 said:


> Today it's smoking and drinking, maybe tomorrow they will dictate what type of car you can drive based upon safety statistics/insurance rates.


 
Do you know how many EMT(P)s we may see in our cardiopulmonary labs who want to file for disability because of some health problem? Many weigh over 300 pounds and have a cigarette dangling from their lips on the day they come to be tested. Since the pre-exam instructions specifically states to refrain from smoking at least 4 hours (24 preferable) before the test, I just catch them as they are putting out the cigarette and tell them to get out and come back when they can understand the instructions. They are too stupid to put out the cigarette before we can see them. Of course the COHb will also be present in the blood sample. They will then whine about how difficult and stressful their job is as I'm trying to get their fat arse into the plethysmography booth for their PFT. In realty they may be a Paramedic working for a private BLS ambulance doing scheduled routine transports from 8 - 4. If they are a FF(medic) with a cigarette, they may not get another chance...period.

People need to take responsibility for their own health before someone tells them to. Those on these EMS forums complain about alcoholics and drug addicts but yet some in EMS go on disability and suck up tax payers' money due to poor physical shape by their own doing. Those same EMS providers are also why the out of pocket cost for insurance is high and the company is strained by sick day usage. 

Other companies have complied. FFs get the message. Why is it that EMS which is supposed to be a healthcare profession plays the clueless card? But then, many in EMS do not understand reimbursement and insurance even if these things bit them in their big dyspneic butt.


----------



## reaper (Jul 12, 2009)

I agree with the obese, out of shape providers. Ban the fast food!

I am in great shape, I have smoked for 25 years, that is my choice. I am not looking for disability for a respiratory problem, unless it is caused by a chemical agent.

I have every right to use my insurance, if I need it. I pay the higher rates and will damn sure use it. I don't drink, ride motorcycles, do drugs or stuff my face full of crap. So, I am no different then anyone else, because  almost everyone does one of those things listed.

Nothing affects everyone the same way. You may never smoke and die of lung cancer or COPD. You may smoke like a chimney and never have a health problem a day in your life. So, you can not lump all things into groups.

Again, If a company wants to ban things they can, that is their choice. Just as it is our choice not to work for that company.


----------



## VentMedic (Jul 12, 2009)

reaper said:


> I am in great shape, I have smoked for 25 years, that is my choice. I am not looking for disability for a respiratory problem, unless it is caused by a chemical agent.


 
Do you have a baseline and a recent PFT on file yet? Most aren't aware of how poor the cardiopulmonary function is until their first MI. Don't claim your "good health" is due to smoking and I would be not trusting luck for a long healthy life. When it finally happens, you are no better than the person that you criticize for drinking or smoking too much at 0300. You actually should know better and when you do appear in the PF labs, you will be their "oh woe is me" patient as you are saying "I've always been in great health even though I smoked 25 years". Do you honestly know how ridiculous you sound?


----------



## reaper (Jul 12, 2009)

Yes, my cardiopulmonary is in good health. I am tested every year for work. Sorry, I am not a oh pity me person. If I do have problems down the line, then I know that I caused them. Sorry you are not treating every smoker in the PF labs and that would be wrong to think that.

I take full responsibility for my actions in life and any results from them. I am not forcing them on you or anyone else.

Are we banning products that help cause Diabetes? Products that help cause renal failure? No we are not. They cost just as much in health care costs, so why not lump them in. Why? Because we have the right to choose how we live our lives. I don't tell others how to live their lives and I expect the same in return! How would you like to have someone tell you, that you can not fly? That is a major health risk and a choice you make in life.

Like I said, a company can ban all they want at work. What I do in my own time, is my business. I also have the choice not to work for those companies.


----------



## usafmedic45 (Jul 12, 2009)

> Most aren't aware of how poor the cardiopulmonary function is until their first MI.





> You may smoke like a chimney and never have a health problem a day in your life.



As one of the pathologist I know is fond of saying, "Sudden onset or no history most of the time means someone wasn't paying close enough attention".  



> Nothing affects everyone the same way. You may never smoke and die of lung cancer or COPD.



No, but it can kill you in a number of ways or just plain destroy your quality of life.  Mortality is not the sole measure of health impact in the way a lot of EMS providers like to treat it.  Of course, we as a group have this nasty tendency to clap each on the backs for a code save with all the cognitive function of Terri Schiavo.



> So, you can not lump all things into groups.



This is true, but within reason.  You seem to forget that caveat.


----------



## VentMedic (Jul 12, 2009)

reaper said:


> Because we have the right to choose how we live our lives. I don't tell others how to live their lives and I expect the same in return! How would you like to have someone tell you, that you can not fly? That is a major health risk and a choice you make in life.
> 
> Like I said, a company can ban all they want at work. What I do in my own time, is my business. I also have the choice not to work for those companies.


 
If I have an addiction or health problem that interferes with my job they have every right to tell me I'm off the job. My insurance rates did reflect what I did and luckily the company paid for most of it. And yes, you do take out extra insurance to plan for the welfare of your family. I also no longer hold a private pilot's license due to insurance rates. For the amount I was actually flying it wasn't worth it. I also know I no longer have to fly and since I have suffered no injuries from it, including loss of hearing, my life continues. However, if I had put in as many years smoking as I did in EMS, even though I might be in good health now, that smoking history will follow me. Many of my COPD patients haven't smoked in 20 years but are now spending their retirement years hooked up to an O2 tank. 

If you have an alcohol or drug problem, you will be put on probation while in recovery. If you can not clean up, you are out. Nicotine should not be any different. In fact you are in the same boat as the patients you complain about on the street except many of them can claim a mental illness as their reason for not assuming responsibilty for their life.

As you said you have the right not to work for an employer that you believe to be too strict. The other employees will probably thank you for not infringing upon their right to have clean air and decent insurance rates.

reaper, I love your posts. Stop smoking so we can continue the debates from our rocking chairs.


----------



## minneola24 (Jul 12, 2009)

The Pentagon is thinking of banning tobacco use for the U.S. Military, this will be interesting.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/07/12/military.smoking.ban/index.html


----------



## reaper (Jul 12, 2009)

VentMedic said:


> If I have an addiction or health problem that interferes with my job they have every right to tell me I'm off the job. My insurance rates did reflect what I did and luckily the company paid for most of it. And yes, you do take out extra insurance to plan for the welfare of your family. I also no longer hold a private pilot's license due to insurance rates. For the amount I was actually flying it wasn't worth it. I also know I no longer have to fly and since I have suffered no injuries from it, including loss of hearing, my life continues. However, if I had put in as many years smoking as I did in EMS, even though I might be in good health now, that smoking history will follow me. Many of my COPD patients haven't smoked in 20 years but are now spending their retirement years hooked up to an O2 tank.
> 
> If you have an alcohol or drug problem, you will be put on probation while in recovery. If you can not clean up, you are out. Nicotine should not be any different. In fact you are in the same boat as the patients you complain about on the street except many of them can claim a mental illness as their reason for not assuming responsibilty for their life.
> 
> ...



But that is the whole Plan! I don't want to see the rocking chair.


----------



## usafmedic45 (Jul 12, 2009)

reaper said:


> But that is the whole Plan! I don't want to see the rocking chair.


Not a fan of the idea of having grandchildren?


----------



## reaper (Jul 12, 2009)

Not a fan of getting old!


----------



## usafmedic45 (Jul 12, 2009)

reaper said:


> Not a fan of getting old!


I look forward to be old and cantankerous.  I'm already achieved half that goal at 29!


----------



## DrankTheKoolaid (Jul 12, 2009)

*re*

A ban on smoking in the military is both laughable and and a waste of mine and your taxpayer dollars to have our socalled political leaders even wasting time discussing it.  When i was in the military at least 1/3 and thats being kind, smoked.  Are these pissants that have probably never served their country thinking that people are knockng down their doors to join and risk a chance at an early grave?

Now lets say they were to pass a non smoking ordinance in the military, and lets say a 1/3 leave because of it.  Whos going to fill the void they leave? The flippin coward politicians or their chldren? i think not.  Until youve walked a mile in a soldiers boot's and experienced the REAL stress that they endure.....  Man up join the military and pickup a weapon and join them in the fields, there you can tell them not to smoke.  But be leary of using the latrine alone as frag's mysterously tend to hit latrines when the crap disturbers use them.


----------



## VentMedic (Jul 12, 2009)

Corky said:


> Until youve walked a mile in a soldiers boot's and experienced the REAL stress that they endure.....


 
So you are going to deal with stress using nicotine, an addiction and excuses?


----------



## DrankTheKoolaid (Jul 12, 2009)

*re*

No thats not how i deal with stress and to be honest ive quit smoking before and made it a year without.  Then i picked up a beer, big mistake..... Anyways i personally am trying to quit again.  And if you read a little bit further into why they are talking about banning cigarettes in the miliary, it's not just GI health it's also because of the lost tax revenue and subsidization as GI's are not taxed in PX's.  If the hypocrits in government want to really solve it once and for all they wil ban all tobacco related products, in the U.S. period.  Of course that wont happen because the taxation on the tobacco industry is what keeps alot of the government programs afloat.  And without it our national, federal, state and local government economies would tank.


----------



## usafmedic45 (Jul 12, 2009)

Before you bust a blood vessel over this, perhaps you should look at who is advocating this.  It came from the Pentagon at _the request of the Army surgeon general_ and several "pissants" who have "risked a chance at an early grave" as you so eloquently put it.  To provide a little backstory as to why this was done (at least the research behind it), perhaps you should look at the amount of sick call and convalescent leave is taken because of upper respiratory infections, bronchitis and cardiac isses among smokers.  Also, if you were so inclined you could look at the number of people who get evac'ed out of Iraq, Afghanistan and other theaters for non-combat related issues.  There is a very high correlation with smoking and the loss of combat readiness at an individual level.  



> Until youve walked a mile in a soldiers boot's and experienced the REAL stress that they endure.....



I have been in the military, I've been under fire and still think the ban is a nothing short of a great idea.  



> But be leary of using the latrine alone as frag's mysterously tend to hit latrines when the crap disturbers use them.



Yeah, those are exactly the type of people I want representing my country.  Someone unstable enough to think that fragging a latrine is a good response to "No, you can't have a cigarette".  Perhaps the military is better off without them?


----------



## minneola24 (Jul 12, 2009)

Yeah, tobaco for soldiers is a huge stress relief I hear. Also, your point on it will cost alot, it probably will to stop it but read this:



> The study says that tobacco use costs the Pentagon $846 million a year in medical care and lost productivity. The report estimates that 37 percent of soldiers use tobacco.


----------



## VentMedic (Jul 12, 2009)

Corky, have you ever talked to an older veteran with his voice synthesizer?

Over the past 30 years, with my roots for RT in the VA hospital, I have dealt with patients from WWII, Korea, Vietnam and Desert Storm. Most of them now say the same thing. They wish they knew at 18 what they know now or they wish someone has kicked some sense into their head to not take up a habit that would cause them such pain later. At 18 it is much easier to quit than at 38 or 48 when being hooked up to a ventilator in a hospital forces you to quit.



> Of course that wont happen because the taxation on the tobacco industry is what keeps alot of the government programs afloat. And without it our national, federal, state and local government economies would tank.


 
While money from the cigarette tax provides some income for the U.S., do you seriously believe it will make that much difference for our national deficit. The land used for tobacco could easily be converted to another crop just as this government has done to other farmlands.


----------



## DrankTheKoolaid (Jul 12, 2009)

*re*

USAF, your mistaking representing and serving their countries.

  These soldiers are putting their lives on the line serving our country and fighting for individual freedoms.  Only to have someone arrogant enough to even suggest TAKING AWAY one of there own personal freedoms they are trying to defend.  You know, so what if it cost that much to provide healthcare to our soldiers they are worth every penny.  America is in the business of war and 846 million is nothing but a drop in the military budget bucket.  If they want to look at saving on some of the actual wasteful spending how about looking into some of the contracts with the vendors.   Until then our government need to stay out of personal lives and decisions

As a matter of fact why dont they ban alcohol for soldiers? And in the country for matter. Im on my phone or would google some stats, but alcohol related healthcare and deaths are at least as much if not more then tobacco related costs.  Why you ask? Because we are a country of hypocrites and know that it's going to happen anyways so the government keeps it legal simply to keep it taxed for a steady source of revenue.


----------



## VentMedic (Jul 12, 2009)

Corky said:


> USAF, your mistaking representing and serving their countries.
> 
> These soldiers are putting their lives on the line serving our country and fighting for individual freedoms. Only to have someone arrogant enough to even suggest TAKING AWAY one of there own personal freedoms they are trying to defend. You know, so what if it cost that much to provide healthcare to our soldiers they are worth every penny. America is in the business of war and 846 million is nothing but a drop in the military budget bucket. If they want to look at saving on some of the actual wasteful spending how about looking into some of the contracts with the vendors. *Until then our government need to stay out of personal lives and decisions*


 
I find the fact that you are arguing for something that can do harm to an 18 y/o absurd. Is it not bad enough they risk losing their lives in war but you are also encouraging them the chance to have a lifetime of suffering if they survive. What is with some in this profession? Is there truly not enough education about healthcare? 

We should be glad that the government has gotten involved in helping to curb smoking. 18 y/os will have one less problem that will affect their future and those who have been making excuses for years will now have the support they need to quit.


----------



## minneola24 (Jul 12, 2009)

Corky said:


> USAF, your mistaking representing and serving their countries.
> 
> These soldiers are putting their lives on the line serving our country and fighting for individual freedoms.  Only to have someone arrogant enough to even suggest TAKING AWAY one of there own personal freedoms they are trying to defend.  You know, so what if it cost that much to provide healthcare to our soldiers they are worth every penny.  America is in the business of war and 846 million is nothing but a drop in the military budget bucket.  If they want to look at saving on some of the actual wasteful spending how about looking into some of the contracts with the vendors.   Until then our government need to stay out of personal lives and decisions
> 
> As a matter of fact why dont they ban alcohol for soldiers? And in the country for matter. Im on my phone or would google some stats, but alcohol related healthcare and deaths are at least as much if not more then tobacco related costs.  Why you ask? Because we are a country of hypocrites and know that it's going to happen anyways so the government keeps it legal simply to keep it taxed for a steady source of revenue.



I agree with you on the alcohol ban. It is a dangerous drink and kills many and doesn't do to much good although they tried that before and it didn't go so well.


----------



## DrankTheKoolaid (Jul 12, 2009)

*re*

Dont get me wrong here, as i know smoking is bad for everyones health.  As an American i DONT need my government or anyone else to decide it for me, it is an individual choice that our forefathers died defending.  It's called the right to personal freedom and if you are not fighting to defend it then maybe you should get off your high horses and take a look at the big picture of what being an American means.


----------



## EMTinNEPA (Jul 12, 2009)




----------



## MSDeltaFlt (Jul 12, 2009)

I used to smoke.  I loved smoking.  Didn't really want to quit.  I always knew, of course, that I would if I had a good enough reason to.  Then I was informed that I was surgically missing my L3 because my neurosurgeon took it out in pieces; about 8 of them I think.  Did you know that nicotine impedes bone growth?  Most people couldn't care less.  I was one of them.  Until it was my bone whose growth was being impeded; a major load baring vertebrae.  I can't be on disability and hooked on oxycontin.  I'm not even 40 yet.  *I will not be defeated*.  So I quit.  Glad I did.  I am now hooked on working out.  I live at the gym.  The endorphin rush from living life is more fun to be addicted to than any nicotine or alcohol or any other chemical out there.

Just my thoughts.


----------



## DrankTheKoolaid (Jul 12, 2009)

*re*

Vent, you seem to think my opinon is based on poor educaton.  Im quite aware of the health concerns. It's not my point at all and i am not advocating smoking to anybody.  What i am advocating is an Americans right to personal freedom and choice, which the original story is trying to supress.


----------



## VentMedic (Jul 12, 2009)

Corky said:


> Dont get me wrong here, as i know smoking is bad for everyones health. As an American i DONT need my government or anyone else to decide it for me, it is an individual choice that our forefathers died defending. It's called the right to personal freedom and if you are not fighting to defend it then maybe you should get off your high horses and take a look at the big picture of what being an American means.


 
High horse?  I am a health care professional.

How many of those BS calls you get for SOB by the same people are veterans? I would probably say many of them are. Yet, you still encourage smoking and probably still complain everytime you see one of these patients. Even those in the medical profession that do smoke would NOT advise anyone to continue smoking especially if they had the opportunity or some motivating factor to quit. 

There was a recent thread about obese patient and EMS. Many in EMS can not understand how people could let themselves get that fat. Some are directly related to physiological causes and some of it is from lack of will power. Why do those in EMS criticize the obese and still are advocates for smoking? 

Part of being a health professional is the ability to be an advocate for good health and healthy habits. Even while you yourself are struggling with your own addictions, you must still teach others. Someday you might even take your own advice.


----------



## ffemt8978 (Jul 12, 2009)

This thread is reopened provided everyone can remain on topic and civil about it.


----------



## CAOX3 (Jul 14, 2009)

I just quit smoking, less then a year. 

I dont like the idea of an employer trying to control what I do with my off time.  Smoking, drinking or skydiving its my choice.

If you want to forbid me to smoke on duty thats fine.  However if I choose to smoke off duty I should be able to.


----------



## Ridryder911 (Jul 14, 2009)

CAOX3 said:


> I just quit smoking, less then a year.
> 
> I dont like the idea of an employer trying to control what I do with my off time.  Smoking, drinking or skydiving its my choice.
> 
> If you want to forbid me to smoke on duty thats fine.  However if I choose to smoke off duty I should be able to.



Then the employer should be able to deny you either insurance or employment, yes you have a choice. Why should they pay extra premiums to cover your poor habits that has been proven (and you are quite aware of) to prmote illness and death? 

This should not even be a debate among or  from health care providers. 

R/r 911


----------



## Shishkabob (Jul 14, 2009)

Ridryder911 said:


> Then the employer should be able to deny you either insurance or employment, yes you have a choice. Why should they pay extra premiums to cover your poor habits that has been proven (and you are quite aware of) to prmote illness and death?
> R/r 911



Exactly.  In agreement 100%


----------



## Sasha (Jul 14, 2009)

How can anyone afford to smoke? They are like six dollars a pack here!


----------



## reaper (Jul 14, 2009)

How can anyone afford to drink? A 12 pack of beer is around $10.00 and they drink it faster then I can smoke a pack of cigarettes.


----------



## Shishkabob (Jul 14, 2009)

Alcohol (in moderation) has proven medical benefits.


Smoking does not.


----------



## reaper (Jul 14, 2009)

Wine have proven benefit. I have never seen a study that shows beer having a medical benefit!


----------



## Shishkabob (Jul 14, 2009)

Point stands ^_^



You can drink alcohol in moderation.  It's impossible to inhale a toxic, poisonous substance in moderation.


----------



## Sasha (Jul 14, 2009)

reaper said:


> How can anyone afford to drink? A 12 pack of beer is around $10.00 and they drink it faster then I can smoke a pack of cigarettes.



I couldn't tell you, I don't drink! Beer and cigs... god is it a wonder people are in so much debt?


----------



## Sasha (Jul 14, 2009)

reaper said:


> Wine have proven benefit. I have never seen a study that shows beer having a medical benefit!



and you can get the same benefits from red grapes!


----------



## usafmedic45 (Jul 15, 2009)

> I have never seen a study that shows beer having a medical benefit!



Not a reader of the New England Journal of Medicine, eh?  I believe in 1999....December or so, if memory serves, there was an article citing a 20% decrease in the risk of stroke associated with light to moderate consumption of beer.   

There are also studies linking moderate beer consumption to increases in high-density lipoprotein (HDL or "good cholesterol) and decreases in homocysteine levels (elevated levels may predispose to coronary events) as a result of the significant levels of vitamin B6 found in many beers.  Wines are actually associated with slight increases in homocysteine levels but the risk likely offset by the other positive effects of wine consumption. 

There are also studies out of one of the major heart centers in Dallas (I don't recall which one though) citing a significant decrease in coronary atherosclerotic disease among beer drinkers.  This was attributed to being a result of unfiltered beer having similar similiar levels of polyphenols as red wine and several times the level seen in white wine.


----------



## usafmedic45 (Jul 15, 2009)

> and you can get the same benefits from red grapes!



At a higher price.  You get two or three glasses out of a standard wine bottle.  A good bottle of wine will set you back around $15.  Then again, a six pack of _good_ beer will set you back about the same.


----------



## fortsmithman (Jul 15, 2009)

I'm a non smoker.  Here in the NWT a pack of cigarettes costs nearly 15.00 CDN after using an online currency converter it's 13.20 US.


----------



## triemal04 (Jul 15, 2009)

usafmedic45 said:


> At a higher price.  You get two or three glasses out of a standard wine bottle.  A good bottle of wine will set you back around $15.  Then again, a six pack of _good_ beer will set you back about the same.


Remind me never to move to Indiana...I can get a six-pack of good beer for $7.00 here...of course I do live in the land of micro-brews where people take their beer drinking seriously.  :beerchug:


----------



## usafmedic45 (Jul 15, 2009)

triemal04 said:


> Remind me never to move to Indiana...I can get a six-pack of good beer for $7.00 here...of course I do live in the land of micro-brews where people take their beer drinking seriously.  :beerchug:


It depends on your definition of "good beer".  Usually things other than Bud, Bud Light, Coors, Honey Brown, Michelob, and other swill are between $9-15 for a six pack.  We do not get a lot of good microbrews made locally here (sadly) so you have to pay the added cost for the transport.  Also, I like European import beer which adds additional cost.  For most things, Indiana is a pretty cheap place to live.


----------



## triemal04 (Jul 16, 2009)

Apparently I am spoiled...even a 6-pack (or 4-pack if you go for the pint can's) or Guinness runs for well under $10...and a decent Czech Pilsner is only about $8.


----------



## TRowe (Aug 4, 2009)

My cities Fire/EMS guys have had this in place for awhile I think. The LEO's are still catching up but there was some news a couple years ago about a local PD being the first in the area (PD not fire) to enforcement zero tolerance for smoking on or off duty. They do test and it can result in a suspension. 

Im torn on this. Sure we need to be in the best shape possible. And I would never dream of smoking in uniform or on duty, but say I go to a bar to celebrate my promotion or something. When I drink I like to have a smoke. If I were in that local PD, I could get fired for that. Not sure exactly the Fire agencies around here and their specific policies, but I know your not allowed to do it. The Sheriff Dept. I do SAR for has no policies except no smoking while in Uniform (on duty or off, wearing your uniform, you cant smoke) 

But good for them.


----------



## usafmedic45 (Aug 4, 2009)

> on duty or off, wearing your uniform



Why would you be wearing your uniform off duty?


----------



## Shishkabob (Aug 5, 2009)

usafmedic45 said:


> Why would you be wearing your uniform off duty?



To / from work or work related event ^_^


----------



## firecoins (Aug 5, 2009)

minneola24 said:


> Seeing paramedics in their ambulance smoking would be a little ironic. And considering most kids look up to firefighters/emt's, this is great.



kids have to look up to firefighter/emts. Kids are short.


----------



## usafmedic45 (Aug 5, 2009)

Linuss said:


> To / from work or work related event ^_^


Ah, I guess I'm just odd in that I always changed out of my uniform when leaving work.  Just a personal policy I guess....


----------



## usafmedic45 (Aug 5, 2009)

firecoins said:


> kids have to look up to firefighter/emts. Kids are short.


*rimshot* :lol:  Thank you, he'll be here all week.....be sure to tip your waitstaff and try the veal.


----------



## ResTech (Aug 5, 2009)

I see the basis for employers not wanting their providers to smoke and for many good reasons.... both health and non-health related. I'm not quite so sure though any company should be dictating what their employees can do on their off time as long as it doesn't involve anything involving moral turpitude. 

If your gonna ban smoking than why isn't drinking alcohol also banned? Alcohol is a known social problem that causes long term health problems, accidents, and death. 

Prohibit it on-duty, but off-duty its a personal choice... not your employers.


----------



## DawnParr (Aug 5, 2009)

I think it's an awesome idea, even tho it will open other doors, i think it will be a start on making america healthy again, or my home city in accordance to the article.


----------



## EMTinNEPA (Aug 5, 2009)

All I can say is that I'm glad I work for a company where the Director of Operations and Assistant Director of Operations will join the on-duty crews for a cigarette break every morning.


----------

