Children's Hospital Bans Smoking by Staff

The Associated Press ^ | Dec 5, 7:34 AM EST | The Associated Press

[arasina]

I no longer drink alcohol. My choice, for various reasons. I don't like a lot of things about alcohol and it has the potential to be very dangerous. That said, I would never support a new prohibition. What would smoke gnatzis who are frequent drinkers of alcohol say if their freedom to do so were infringed in the same way they have done with cigarettes?

You're right. We never got to vote on the right to smoke. Why don't legislators just put it to the test and propose a ban? They won't do that. It's easier to sneak in the regulations.

I do think private hospitals, however, have every right to ban smoking on the premises of their personal property, just as bars and restaurants should also have the right to allow smoking on theirs.

[xrp]

BTW, you sound just like a smokenazi, to me.

You're very wrong. I believe smokers should certainly be allowed to smoke in their own house, in their own car and in open spaces. I believe that taxes on cigarettes are WAY too high. However, I also believe that a private employer can set restrictions that their employees must adhere to, in this case, not smelling like ass when serving their customers (patients).

If you were dining at a restaurant and your server unloaded some loud, rotten egg smelling farts while refilling your wine glass, would you tip the same as if he/she hadn't farted?

[Wheee The People]

And I DON'T REMEMBER EVER VOTING ON THE RIGHT TO SMOKE!

You want to vote on someones private property rights? OK, have it your way. Florida voted to constitutionally restrict smoking.

[Revolting cat!]

What about smoking by the patients?

[xrp]

I'm a Socialist!? LOL! Where'd you come up with that?

You're in opposition to a private employer setting standards for their employees based on a chosen lifestyle. Therefore, you would advocate using the power of government to establish a false 'right' to smoke against your private employer's wishes. Private employer supporter vs non-private employer supporter. Gee, yea, WHEREVER did I come up with socialist?!?!?!

[DumpsterDiver]

"If employees still want to smoke, they'll have to walk a couple of blocks until they're off the sprawling hospital grounds."

That is quickly followed up with:

"Patients should not have to contend with the lingering scent of cigarette smoke on staff members returning from breaks, said Keith Goodwin,"

Give Keith a few months and the employees who smoke and "walk a couple of blocks until they're off the sprawling hospital grounds" to do so will be ordered to either quit smoking or they'll lose their jobs.

[Cultural Jihad]

If you can come up with a way whereby no one is ever affected by the actions of others, then please post it. As a suggestion, in the meantime smokers can make use of these available products between their breaks.

[Arkie2]

Government restricts the right of employers to discriminate against anyone based on race. Presumably you support the right of a company to ignore that? The government restricts the right of employers to discriminate on the basis of sex. Presumably you support the right of employers to do so? As I understand it, the smoking area is outside already. Additionally, patients and visitors aren't prohibited from smoking in these designated areas, just employees. I guess the patients and visitors don't bring the fumes back in with them. I also fail to see how smoking further away from the building is going to inhibit odors asociated with smoking. The clothing will still absorb the fumes. This is harrasement, pure and simple. If it weren't smokers, there would be sympathy for the people affected but since they're smokers it's OK. You illustrate my point perfectly. Feel free to hate smokers. Fat people are next. Hopefully you're not overweight. You could be next on the approved list of folks it's OK to despise.

[xrp]

Government restricts the right of employers to discriminate against anyone based on race. The government restricts the right of employers to discriminate on the basis of sex.

You must not have read the part of my post where I state 'chosen lifestyle'. Find me a single human who chooses his/her race or sex (sex changes don't count, those people still are XX or XY). You make a conscious choice to smoke. I believe it should go far as to allow employers to refuse employment to smokers.

I guess the patients and visitors don't bring the fumes back in with them.

Patients pretty much only interact with themselves, but no, a patient staying at a health facility should not be allowed to smoke, especially since non-smoking medical staff would have to be taking care of him. As far as visitors, they only visit particular invidividuals within the establishment, with that person's permission. If I were a patient and told I had visitors and they smelled like smoke (yes, I'd ask first), I'd say I wasn't receiving visitors at that time.

This is harrasement, pure and simple.

Whoa, calm down there Jesse Jackson!

Feel free to hate smokers.

I don't. MANY of my friends smoke. I don't. However, the overall point of my post, which you still seem to fail to understand, is that a private employer should be able to set restrictions on their employees' drug use, especially considering it is a health facility.

Fat people are next. Hopefully you're not overweight. You could be next on the approved list of folks it's OK to despise.

Thank you for your concern, but I just my yearly physical and according to the results I am in execellent condition for my age group.

[Judith Anne]

"If you were dining at a restaurant and your server unloaded some loud, rotten egg smelling farts while refilling your wine glass, would you tip the same as if he/she hadn't farted?"

Nope. But that's internal body gas, not cigarette smoke. So far as I know, it doesn't come in packs or cartons, you can't buy it over the counter, and it isn't taxed.

You're very wrong. I believe smokers should certainly be allowed to smoke in their own house, in their own car and in open spaces. I believe that taxes on cigarettes are WAY too high. However, I also believe that a private employer can set restrictions that their employees must adhere to, in this case, not smelling like ass when serving their customers (patients).

My employer makes a lot of rules that I adhere to: I don't use any illegal medications OR even legal medications or alcohol that may impair my ability to do my job, while working. I maintain a weight that allows me to do the hard physical work of lifting, turning patients, and being on my feet all day (yes, that's a work rule). I never smoke on the hospital premises or during my 12-1/2 hour shift. I never smell like smoke, even to non-smokers. I don't wear artifical fingernails, I get enough sleep that my ability to do my job is not impaired (another actual rule). I don't wear my nametag on a lanyard, so that patients who may be disoriented/combative don't strangle me. I follow each and every rule about medications and documentation. I follow the Nurse Practice Act for my state. I never talk about cases.

I have no problem with rules. I obey rules. But I remember that it was Hillary Clinton who banned all smoking in the White House. I remember that it was Hitler who banned smoking in Germany. And I remember that Hillary is a socialist, and Hitler a fascist.

And I remember it is people and posters like YOU who use disgusting gutter language to describe the odor of cigarette smoke, which I happen to like. It's a legal product, legally obtained, legally used and WAAAAAY overtaxed, supposedly to pay for the higher medical costs of smokers (ONE DIME! SHOW ME ONE DIME! My hospital has had to sue to get any extra money for treatment of COPD patients) and to keep children from taking up the habit. BILLIONS for that seems a bit much, especially with nattering busybodies all around fully willing to demonize secondhand smoke, which the WHO says causes NO harm.

[eastforker]

One KOOL morning Miss Pall Mall was walking down Chesterfield lane,she met up with Phillip Morris.He eventualy stuck his King Size L&M into her Flip Top Box.If she doesn't look like a Camel in 9 months it will be a Lucky Strike.

[xrp]

I have no problem with rules. I obey rules. But I remember that it was Hillary Clinton who banned all smoking in the White House. I remember that it was Hitler who banned smoking in Germany. And I remember that Hillary is a socialist, and Hitler a fascist.

What's this got to do with anything? Why do you government lovers keep bringing government into this? This thread is about a private employer, NOT GOVERNMENT.

Your other points are valid, WHICH I AGREE WITH, just understand that this is a private employer who should be allowed to set guidelines and restrictions for their employees based on something their employees CHOOSE to do.

[Judith Anne]

What's this got to do with anything? Why do you government lovers keep bringing government into this? This thread is about a private employer, NOT GOVERNMENT.

If you think this is not about government, you are clueless. Where do you think that the lawsuits against tobacco companies were pursued? In state and federal courts, that's where. Where do you think the business-killing antismoking regulations come from? From city councils and state legislators. Who do you think is collecting taxes like mad on cigarettes? Taxes that are up to 10 or more times the cost of the manufacture of the product? Governments, that's who! Who is enforcing the collection of those taxes? Private citizens?

You're clueless, you have nothing to contribute to this discussion except a disgusting analogy and I have nothing more to say to you. Maybe some of the other freedom warriors around here will deign to notice you. I'm done.

[xrp]

You're clueless, you have nothing to contribute to this discussion except a disgusting analogy and I have nothing more to say to you. Maybe some of the other freedom warriors around here will deign to notice you. I'm done.

Give me a break. You're the clueless one. The article was clearly about a private employer setting standards for their employees. If you want tot talk about government, lawsuits, regulations, etc, etc, then go find one of the threads in FR related to the NYC ban on smoking and post there. I've already done so and you will see that my posts VEHEMENTLY defend a private business's RIGHT to have a business that allows smoking. Also you apparently failed to read my other posts where I said that tobacco products are unfairly taxed and regulated. There was a study done, I don't recall the source, but it cited that the high taxes on smoking actually are causing smokers to subsidize the health care industry. In short, they put in more money than they take out. Yes, I have a problem with that!

But again, you, a drug addict, see a "no smoking" sign somewhere and your emotional, knee-jerk Jesse Jackson like response is to cry out that you are being oppressed and that your rights are being trampled on.

To summarize: A private employer should be able to set guidelines for their employees. An employee also should be able to go find another job if he/she does not like the guidelines set down by the employer.

[em2vn]

Smoking is a legal undertaking.What will the hospital seek to stamp out next, overweight employees, fatty foods or soft drinks in the cafeteria. Maybe the hospital will mandate decaf coffee only within the hospital proper.
If the hospital follows its line of reasoning to its final conclusion it will prohibit sick people from entering the facility. If people don't want to be around someone who smells of tobacco smoke, who would want to be around a sick person who might pass an illness on to them.

[Arkie2]

Substitute sexual orientation as a chosen lifestyle then. Same thing. You also can't discriminate on the basis of religion. I contend that's a chosen lifestyle. If the hospital allows anyone to smoke on hospital grounds then they must allow the employees, either that or ban smoking for everyone. It's a case of discrimination pure and simple. You're obviously to simple minded to see it though.

[Tall_Texan]

Where I work, I can always tell when co-workers are returning from a smoke break. The odor permeates even though the building is no-smoking.

This is a CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL, remember? Tiny lungs. Breathing tubes, etc.

Not sure if moving them off the property makes a big enough difference, but I can see where there is more of a health risk at issue than your typical bar or restaurant.

[Judith Anne]

But again, you, a drug addict, see a "no smoking" sign somewhere and your emotional, knee-jerk Jesse Jackson like response is to cry out that you are being oppressed and that your rights are being trampled on.

Take that back right now or I'm hitting the abuse button.

[Wheee The People]

If you think this is not about government, you are clueless.

I think you are trying to make it about the government. Do you object to private property owners making their own rules for their facilities?

Why is it that when it comes to taverns that the smoke advocates loudly scream PROPERTY RIGHTS? Then when it’s about a private property choosing to exercise their rights the argument shifts?

The answer seems to be that it's more about addiction than property rights...