runamok wrote:Jay wrote:I wonder if it's possible to "cheat" on a nicotine test by using a urine sample from a nonsmoker. Guess not since the employer still verifies the DNA assosciated with that cup of urine.They don't check DNA on a standard random or pre-employment test. Nobody's paying for that.

I would tend to agree. They aren't going to pay for a DNA test. They are just checking for Nicotine levels. Actually they are checking for Cotinine levels.Cotinine is a metabolite of nicotine.

"The word 'cotinine' is an anagram of 'nicotine'. It is used to measure the grade of tobacco smoking."

"Cotinine has an in vivo half life of approximately 20 hours, and is typically detectable for several days to up to one week after the use of tobacco. The level of cotinine in the blood is proportionate to the amount of exposure to tobacco smoke, so it is a valuable indicator of tobacco smoke exposure, including secondary (passive) smoke. People who smoke menthol cigarettes may retain cotinine in the blood for a longer period.[1] Race may also play a role, as black people routinely register higher blood cotinine levels than white people.[2] Several variable factors, such as menthol cigarette preference and puff size, suggest that the explanation for this difference may be more complex than gender or race.

Drug tests can detect cotinine in the blood, urine, or saliva." via Wikipedia

I contacted the law firm in the post above, and they did not answer any legal questions I had, but wanted to know all the information about the company an myself etc. to persure a possible case. I presume that they are more of a "pounce" law firm. Meaning looking for a possible quick kill.

I am just curious as to the laws in Arizona pertaining to an Employer dictating what an employee can or can't do outside of work. Even if the activity is legal.

Thanks for the good responses.

JR

Jay wrote:I wonder if it's possible to "cheat" on a nicotine test by using a urine sample from a nonsmoker. Guess not since the employer still verifies the DNA assosciated with that cup of urine.They don't check DNA on a standard random or pre-employment test. Nobody's paying for that.

Andrew The Cowboy wrote:Good Ole Walt did a lot of good for the world. Unfortunately he loved his tobaccy tooo much and died of the big C. Fortunatly though, he had enough money to have his body cryogenicly frozen until scientists figure out how to cure lung-cancer and freezer-burn


Coming in theator near you, THE RETURN OF WALT DISNEY!, rated R for retardedChances are Walt didn't die from smoking. Smoking prevents lung cancer and other diseases. Along with the SHS smoke lie, everybody has been fed the lie about smoking and cancer.

One thing thats extremely important is to educate smokers how healthy tobacco is. The less additives added and minus the filter, more so.
http://www.vialls.com/transpositions/smoking.html

That sounds just about as dumb as an employee agreeing to neva drink alcohol on OR off of the job. Not smoking on the job is one thang. But agreeing to neva use nicotine period is outrageous.

I wonder if it's possible to "cheat" on a nicotine test by using a urine sample from a nonsmoker. Guess not since the employer still verifies the DNA assosciated with that cup of urine.

Don't forget Ontario either, Darkseid! When Casino Windsor unionized workers just recently signed a new 3-year labor contract with the casino, the new deal I read about calls for a wage freeze the next 2 years, and only 1 wage increase that'll occur in the 3rd year of the contract. This is btw, the SAME casino that laid off 300+ people, when the province-wide Ontario smoking ban took effect in May 2006. (and sorry I don't right off the top of my mind remember where I read it, but it was just earlier today)

The Illinois ban has also severely hurt Illinois casinos. One IL casino got hurt by the ban so badly(in Metropolis, IL, right across the river from Kentucky in the SE part of Illinois), that they laid off about 30 workers.
http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=716554

Good article I found about bar owners in the city of Charleston, West Virginia, and in Kanawha County fighting back against the local health department(in Kanawha County) that chose to pass a countywide ban last November. Though it is a somewhat short article, enjoy:
http://www.cigaraficionado.com/Cigar/CA_Features/CA_Feature_Basic_Template/0,2344,2436,00.html

gilster wrote:The solution, according to the Calgary casino operators and the politicians, is to find a way to force or otherwise coerce the native casinos to comply with the provincial smoking ban and prohibit smoking in their casinos. Les Hagen, executive director for the anti-smoker group ASH (Action on Smoking and Health), is in agreement, saying: "There should be health protection for all hospitality workers".
Les Hagen's quote makes me laugh really hard, since virtually no one in the 40%-45% of ban-less communities in America(and not counting the additional percentage of local areas, and/or states that chose to only impose limited smoking bans, making the total percentage of areas with comprehensive bans UNDER 50%!) that are doing fine without smoking bans are crying out loud for one. Where's all the outcry in the many cities without total/comprehensive bans for one, such as in *St. Louis, *Milwaukee, *Casper(WY), **Indianapolis, **Atlanta, **Wichita(KS), and ***Amarillo, TX?
* - a city that was smart enough NOT to enact any ban at all.
** - only prohibited smoking in 18 and under businesses, and though this isn't perfect to me(I'd prefer exterior signage laws stating if a business is smoke-free, has a mixed smoking/non-smoking policy, or smoking throughout), I like this solution FAR MORE than a total smoking ban.
*** - has no local ban at all, and local voters were smart enough to vote down 2 referendums within the last 3 years that would've imposed an unnecessary, comprehensive city ban!

gilster wrote:Alberta’s casinos aren’t the only ones losing money due, at least in part, to the smoking bans being implemented across the country. Casino Windsor workers in Ontario were forced to accept a new three-year contract which included a wage freeze in the first two years with an hourly raise of 30 cents per hour in the third year.

The casino has seen revenues drop in recent years due to the rising value of the Canadian dollar and the Smoke Free Ontario Act. Across the river, in Michigan, casinos may still cater to smokers, giving Michigan an advantage in attracting smoking clientele. Casinos located on native land in Ontario are also exempt from the smoking ban.
What were Canadian provinces thinking when they blindly bought the anti-smoking BS and lies that bans would bring more non-smokers to casinos? (and of course, we know that never exactly pans out anywhere near the prediction of antis, as any who make it to casinos spend MUCH LESS money than the smokers who used to go to these casinos did) I'm hardly surprised that the union representing Casino Windsor workers had to agree to a wage freeze for the first 2 years of their new contract, since banning smoking is only gonna result in decreased casino revenue! Just look at what occurred to one Illinois casino in southern IL(Metropolis, IL), where 30 employees were laid off:
http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=716554

gilster wrote:The Great Canadian Gaming Company, which operates casinos in Halifax and Sydney, managed to offset losses by reducing staff and shortening operating hours. Between 100 and 120 jobs were cut in Halifax alone. They have no competition from native casinos. Milton Woensdregt, Great Canadian’s chief financial officer, said that the problems in Nova Scotia included severe weather, the smoking ban and the province’s anti-gaming messaging.
Don't forget that Nova Scotia is one of the more anti-smoking provinces in Canada, since in addition to having a comprehensive smoking ban, they were one of something like 8 provinces that've required retailers to sell tobacco products behind closed/concealed displays, and not open ones(like it used to be throughout Canada, and still is in all U.S. states). That's probably another reason RIGHT THERE why NS casinos aren't getting the same business they used to get, since by NS passing a province-wide ban, they've (in essence) thrown out an unwelcome mat to any smokers that visit there.

Props to Prince Edward Island for being the only eastern Canadian province still without a comprehensive ban, at least for now! (and however little time left we know that'll last for...)

gilster wrote:Economic impact studies conducted prior to implementation of the smoking bans warned of economic losses in these areas, but they were ignored. According to Ontario’s Ministry of Health Propaganda, the only studies which suggested any adverse consequences to casinos, or the hospitality industry in general, were those sponsored by tobacco interests or the hospitality industry. So, government relied solely on studies done by the anti-smoker groups and implemented the smoking bans on their assurance that economic losses would be short term and that non-smokers would start flocking to the non-smoking venues.

It hasn’t happened.

Officials with the Alberta Gaming and Liquor Commission said they would prefer to see First Nations casinos follow the rest of the province. "The whole idea was to protect all Alberta from second-hand smoke," commission spokeswoman, Christine Wronko, commented on the smoking ban. "The First Nations are working with federal legislation, and we have no say in it at all."

There are, in fact, two problems with the position of the casino operators and the politicians. One is that they have not yet proven that secondhand smoke is a serious health hazard, and two, native communities across the country will be wary of any deal in which they are required to surrender treaty rights.

As far as leveling the playing field, the second of these problems is justifiably the bigger of the two.

Maybe they should deal with their first problem first; stop kowtowing to the anti-smoker fanatics, review the science, and ban the bans.
I love the statement at the end of this article! Since obviously(though I know anti-smoking politicians won't give 2 s****), any TRUE fair-minded politician would've long sensed the junk science coming from the anti-smoking tent.

And btw, there have been some real studies out there that've shown that revenues truly went down after government-imposed state(or Canadian province), or local city/county/town bans. This page has NUMEROUS pdf files on the damage local and/or state bans have done to private businesses:
http://banthebanwisconsin.com/Projects_View.aspx

Another good page, from The Smokers Club site:
http://www.smokersclub.com/banloss3.htm

Thanks go out to gilster for posting this interesting article here!

Thank you all for all the informative responses! I would tend to agree with all of you a bit. The most bothersome thing to me is that :

A: There appear to be 2 sets of rules for employees concerning Nicotine. Upon further investigation supposedly employers can have as many sets of rules for individuals as they please. Personally, I think that continuity across the board will make for a "healthier" working atmosphere.

and..

B: This is a perfectly legal activity to partake in. All 50 states allow you to smoke as long as you meet the minimum age requirements. I can understand smoking while at work policies, but to tell me what I can or can't do in my own home that is within the law. Just seems kind of sad to me.

BTW, I do live in a Right To Work State and have looked into the law a bit, but was unable to find anything about "Employers cannot prohibit you from engaging in legal activities outside of the workplace" I am curious about this as well.

JR

Depends on what state you are in. Here in MN we have a "right to work" law that says employers cannot prohibit you from engaging in legal activities outside of the workplace. I know that Michigan (think Weyco) and quite a few other states do not have a law of this type in place. It is legal to discriminate against smokers in those states.

It's one thing to ban smoking, but if they ban the use of a legal activity while not at work or for that matter nicotine patches to quit smoking one would think that would have to be illegal.
Of course that was before we became the U.S.S.A
Not to mention that, according to all the health nazis, those not smoking will show a nicotine positive from breathing the SHS from those smoking.
If they ARE able to get negative results from the ones breathing SHS wouldn't we be able to use that to prove our point and overturn the bans?
There's my 4-1/2 cents.

http://fightantismokertyranny.blogspot.com/2008/08/smoking-bans-wont-harm-economy.html

Monday, August 25, 2008
Smoking bans won't harm the economy . . .

Two Calgary gaming companies are demanding the province close a loophole in the Alberta smoking ban that permits gamblers to light up in First Nations casinos.

The problem, of course, is that the loophole isn’t in the Alberta anti-smoker legislation.

The $40-million Grey Eagle Casino which opened last December is situated on land belonging to the Tsuu T'ina Nation. The $60-million Nakoda Entertainment Resort, which opened this spring, was built on land belonging to the Stoney Nakoda Nation.

Both casinos invoked federal bylaw exemptions for Native lands, as is their right.

The Deerfoot Inn and Casino, and the Elbow River Casino, both in Calgary, report that earnings are down between 5% and 25% respectively. The Deerfoot Inn and Casino, claims it made almost a million dollars less in the second quarter of 2008, a loss of more than five per cent compared to last year. Now, Gamehost Income Fund which owns the Deerfoot Inn and Sam Switzer, owner of the Elbow River Casino want the province to “level the playing field”.

"People who smoke like to gamble, and of course they'll go where they are able to smoke if the option is there for them to do it," said Craig Thomas, Gamehost's chief executive.

Harry Chase, Alberta MLA (Member of the Legislative Assembly), is sympathetic to the plight of the non-native casino owners. "I would love to see a blanket ban," he said. "Being able to play the federal regulations against the provincial regulations is an unfair advantage."

The solution, according to the Calgary casino operators and the politicians, is to find a way to force or otherwise coerce the native casinos to comply with the provincial smoking ban and prohibit smoking in their casinos. Les Hagen, executive director for the anti-smoker group ASH (Action on Smoking and Health), is in agreement, saying: "There should be health protection for all hospitality workers".

Alberta’s casinos aren’t the only ones losing money due, at least in part, to the smoking bans being implemented across the country. Casino Windsor workers in Ontario were forced to accept a new three-year contract which included a wage freeze in the first two years with an hourly raise of 30 cents per hour in the third year.

The casino has seen revenues drop in recent years due to the rising value of the Canadian dollar and the Smoke Free Ontario Act. Across the river, in Michigan, casinos may still cater to smokers, giving Michigan an advantage in attracting smoking clientele. Casinos located on native land in Ontario are also exempt from the smoking ban.

But, forcing casinos on native reserves to prohibit smoking isn’t the solution. It may level the playing field as far as the Calgary casino operators are concerned, but it will not bring smokers back to their casinos in any great numbers. It will simply mean that the native casinos will suffer similar losses in revenue as their non-native counterparts.

Smokers still want to smoke. And, if they have to leave the tables or the slot machines to have their cigarettes, they will. That means they’ll spend less time (and money) gambling while they trot outside to have their smoke.

The Great Canadian Gaming Company, which operates casinos in Halifax and Sydney, managed to offset losses by reducing staff and shortening operating hours. Between 100 and 120 jobs were cut in Halifax alone. They have no competition from native casinos. Milton Woensdregt, Great Canadian’s chief financial officer, said that the problems in Nova Scotia included severe weather, the smoking ban and the province’s anti-gaming messaging.

Economic impact studies conducted prior to implementation of the smoking bans warned of economic losses in these areas, but they were ignored. According to Ontario’s Ministry of Health Propaganda, the only studies which suggested any adverse consequences to casinos, or the hospitality industry in general, were those sponsored by tobacco interests or the hospitality industry. So, government relied solely on studies done by the anti-smoker groups and implemented the smoking bans on their assurance that economic losses would be short term and that non-smokers would start flocking to the non-smoking venues.

It hasn’t happened.

Officials with the Alberta Gaming and Liquor Commission said they would prefer to see First Nations casinos follow the rest of the province. "The whole idea was to protect all Alberta from second-hand smoke," commission spokeswoman, Christine Wronko, commented on the smoking ban. "The First Nations are working with federal legislation, and we have no say in it at all."

There are, in fact, two problems with the position of the casino operators and the politicians. One is that they have not yet proven that secondhand smoke is a serious health hazard, and two, native communities across the country will be wary of any deal in which they are required to surrender treaty rights.

As far as leveling the playing field, the second of these problems is justifiably the bigger of the two.

Maybe they should deal with their first problem first; stop kowtowing to the anti-smoker fanatics, review the science, and ban the bans.
Posted by The Old Rambler at 12:23 AM

I would say it is legal, if employees don't like it they can seek employment elsewhere.

Might want to contact this law firm:
http://www.cmht.com/investigation_smokers.php

Hello,

I work for a company who has gone Nicotine free as of Jan. 1 2008. The rules are that if you were hired before Dec. 31 2007 you can still smoke on site with no disciplinary action. However, if you were hired after Jan. 1 2008 you are not allowed to use ANY kind of Nicotine and risk termination. The pre-employment drug testing now requires a Nicotine test as well. They are also performing random drug screenings as well, including Nicotine.(only for new hires after Jan.1 2008) This last Friday I was asked to sign a 2 part contract. The top half was stating that I would not do any illegal drugs etc. The second half was to sign to say that I would not use any Nicotine. This really bothered me! Is this legal? I know that basically while working for an employer that they can do pretty much anything, but this seems awfully hypocritical and possibly illegal. Any legal whizzes out there with an answer?

Thanks

I do find it odd that only cigarettes are subject to such Nazi-like back taxes. I have been shopping on eBay since that site was launched and I have never paid any taxes on my purchases there.


Where are the tobacco lobbyist when we need them?????????????????????????

Are the major players really OK with their products increasing in price by 100 fold?

http://www.pr-inside.com/freedom-to-choose-welcomes-new-research-r769883.htm

Freedom To Choose Welcomes New Research On Lung Cancer
2008-08-23 12:07:41 -

A new study by scientists at the Environmental Chemistry department at Louisiana State University concludes that a new form of air pollutant, created from the fine particle residues in automotive exhaust pipes, smokestacks and household chimneys, has been identified which replicates the damage to humans caused by cigarette smoke. ‘Inhaling these pollutants exposes the average person up to 300 times
more free radicals daily than from smoking one cigarette'. (1) (2)

Experts at the pro-choice group Freedom2Choose have acknowledged the conclusions of this report, presented at the American Chemical Society only this week, noting that it seeks to explain the disparities with the claims of tobacco control. It is also reflected in many other studies conducted over the last 50 years which have been hidden behind the Tobacco Control movement.

Andy Davis, Freedom2Choose chairman, comments: 'The conclusions of this study come as no surprise to scientists involved in this type of research. Air-borne pollutants have been a known cause of lung-cancer for over 50 years now. The Medical Research Council, back in 1957, found that up to 30% of all lung-cancers were attributable to air-pollution and this was before the great volumes of traffic appeared on our roads.' (3)

The findings announced by Dr H Barry Dellinger, Ph.D. reflect those of Dr Kitty Little's study in 1998, a research scientist at Oxford, which also forged the link between diesel fumes and lung-cancer. Her evidence concluded that ‘diesel fumes contain four known carcinogens; lung cancer is rare in rural areas, but common in towns; cancers were more prevalent along the routes of motorways; the incidence of lung cancer has doubled in non-smokers over past decades; and that there was less lung cancer when we, as a nation, smoked more.' She also concluded with a damning statement stating, ‘Since the effect of the anti-smoking campaign has been to prevent the genuine cause from being publicly acknowledged, there is a very real sense in which we could say that the main reason for those 30,000 deaths a year from lung cancer is the anti-smoking campaign itself'. (4)

Freedom2Choose believe that the Tobacco Control movement has, on the basis of uncertain epidemiology, already branded and convicted smokers as citizens who harm others with its relentless 'passive smoking' campaign.

Andy Davis continues, 'There should be concern for both non-smokers and smokers alike, with choice being given. We are already witnessing many unwelcome outcomes of the blanket smoking ban with the accelerating decline of our hospitality industry and associated job losses. We certainly believe that choice is missing from the current ban and have devised a traffic light system, whereby smoking can be forbidden, restricted or permitted as part of our campaign, with full use of modern air management systems.' (5)

The current ‘blanket' smoking ban legislation in force within the UK is one of the most stringent within Europe and Freedom2Choose is campaigning for a reform to place the UK more in line with the majority of the other EU countries.
www.freedom2choose.info

References:

(1) www.inthenews.co.uk/news/science/new-pollutant-mirrors-smoking-d ..

(2) www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-08/acs-nda072308.php

(3) fds.oup.com/www.oup.co.uk/pdf/0-19-926030-3.pdf Page 45

(4) www.second-opinions.co.uk/diesel_lung_cancer.html

(5) www.freedom2choose.info/docs/F2CNewsletter2-2008.pdf Page 2

Contact Information:
Freedom2Choose

22 Glastonbury House
Priestfields
Middlesbrough
TS3 0LF

Contact Person:
John Baker
Secretary
Phone: 0845 643 9552
email: email

Web: www.freedom2choose.info


Press Information:
Freedom2Choose

22 Glastonbury House
Priestfields
Middlesbrough
TS3 0LF

Contact Person:
John Baker
Secretary
Phone: 0845 643 9552
email: email

Web: www.freedom2choose.info

Jay wrote:UPS agreed to stop delivering any tobacco a few years ago actually. Screw the UPS. I hope those mothas ain't delivering alcohol!

Interesting. I think that may only be actual ready made cigarettes they won't deliver. I get my tobacco shipped to me every month via UPS. AND the driver just drops the package on the doorstep, doesn't even knock or ring the bell, and I've never had to sign for it. But then, the return address gives no indication that it is from a tobacco vendor either.

"It's amazing how it is ONLY cigarettes that are subject to this. You can buy anything else you want online, not pay taxes on it, but it is ONLY cigarettes that have such a ban on them. "

Hypocrites!!!

----Lynda

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have won/purchased close to 450 items on Fleabay in the last four years. I have paid taxes on TWO items, only because the sellers insisted upon it.

"Get a grip! We live here too. Didn't your mama ever teach you how to share? compromise? respect? You know, common courtesy and morals?"

Apparently not, smokem.

I was just invited to go to what looks like a fun conference in Hawaii which will be held in September. I respectfully declined, and I told the organizer why.

First, since I still smoke cigarettes, I don't fly on airplanes anymore.

Second, since Hawaii has their repressive "smoke-free" laws, I wouldn't have a good time.

I'll just stay home and enjoy my life, no stress.