Marijuana.com

Buzzby · 09-01-2006, 09:20 AM

Tobacco, the New Workplace Drug
Laura Thompson | Oswego County Business | Aug/Sept 2006

Random drug testing in the work environment has become a widely accepted fact of employment across America. While once considered controversial and invasive, most of the American workforce now accepts the possibility of random worksite drug testing. When applying for a job today, it is common to be told drug testing may be required.

A recent trend is expanding the concept of "drug" use in the workplace as well as in the privacy of your own home. As anti-smoking laws and legislation sweep the country, some employers are taking matters a step further. They are classifying tobacco as an undesirable substance in their workforce — and they are prohibiting their employees from its use, at work or at home.

The most recent player in the United States to announce a tobacco-free workforce is Scotts Miracle-Gro. In December the company announced it will begin random testing of workers for tobacco use. Scheduled to begin in October 2006, positive results from these random nicotine tests could result in employee termination.

While CEO Jim Hagedorn has emphasized that the company’s focus is on employee health, this policy is viewed as a drastic measure by many. Tobacco is not an illegal substance and this policy creeps into the privacy of employee homes and off-hours.

Hagedorn has repeatedly stated the company will be working closely with all smoking employees to assist them in cessation of tobacco use. The company has recently invested in employee fitness centers and programs, all geared toward a healthier, more active workforce.

Still, those employees unable or unwilling to comply with the October deadline face termination, unless they work in a state that offers legal protection to smokers. Miracle-Gro is headquartered in Marysville, Ohio, with facilities, offices and warehouses scattered across the country. They employ 5,300 people, nationwide.

Twenty-nine states, and the District of Columbia, offer some legal protection to smokers against employer harassment or dismissal due to tobacco use. New York is among them. No federal legislation protects smokers.

The move to designate tobacco as a workplace drug is driven in part by escalating healthcare and insurance costs. Smokers, as a group, tend to develop prolonged and expensive illnesses linked to tobacco use, such as cancer and respiratory diseases.

Public opinion is behind such policies, for the most part. As tobacco related laws and restrictions sweep the country, limiting tobacco use and access has become widely accepted. Most of New York state smoking cessation programs, for example, emphasize limiting public use of tobacco and raising the cost of purchasing the same.

While Scotts is the largest US employer to announce such a policy, it is not the first.

Weyco, a medical benefits administration firm, located in Okemo, Mis., initiated a similar policy in September, 2003. Recently, four members of its 190-person workforce refused to be tested for tobacco use. That refusal cost them their jobs.

In November of 2005, The Centers for Disease Control banned smoking on all of its campuses as well as in government vehicles. The CDC, however, stopped short of prohibiting tobacco use amongst its work force.

In December of 2005, The World Health Organization announced it would no longer hire smokers in any of its international worksites. No plans for nicotine testing were announced, however; WHO plans to rely on a direct question added to the normal application. Additionally, no action has been announced for those persons already employed who use tobacco products.

In New York state, the law which offers smokers some protection is titled "The Lawful Activities Statute." This is a loosely written statute which has not, to date, been legally tested. It was designed to protect employees from employer supervision of their private lives, and legal activities.

According to Walt Pellegrini, of the NYS Governors Office of Employer Relations, no specific division has enforcement jurisdiction over this statute.

"If an employee were dismissed for tobacco use in their private, off-duty time, they would have to go to the courts and raise this law as a shield against their dismissal," said Pellegrini. He further noted he knows of no case where this has occurred, to date. "This law is untested, to the best of my knowledge."

Pellegrini went on to say he disagreed with employer attempts to control employee use of legal products, on their own time.

"A policy that discriminates against a legal act with no nexus to the job is bad business," he said. "It smells—and not of smoke. I’d love to see this policy challenged."

Pellegrini added that there are many employers who will ask prospective employees if they smoke. "It’s not illegal, in New York state, to not hire someone because they smoke. Smoking is not a protected item. Likewise, an employer can refuse to hire someone because he doesn’t like the way the person looks. We can’t control that."

Legal issues arise, however, when an established employee is suddenly subjected to employer controls over private and legal actions.

"What’s next?" asks Pellegrini. "We’re firing you because you’re a Scout leader, and we disagree with their policies toward homosexuals? Or because you belong to a certain church? If we allow this type of life invasion by employers, where does it end?"

Another official within the NYS hierarchy, who asked not to be identified, disagreed.

"Doing something dangerous is not a civil liberty," said this official. "Smoking marijuana is not a civil liberty. Riding a motorcycle without a helmet is not a civil liberty. Smoking is a dangerous activity."

This official went on to say, "You don’t have a right to a particular job. Your employer is not telling you that you can’t smoke. They are saying if you want to do that, you can’t work here."

The official also acknowledged the possible legal problems with a tobacco free employer stance. "Alcohol, for example, is also legal, and equally implicated in expensive health problems, when abused. Will the next step involve an Alcohol Free workforce, and random testing for the same? How about unhealthy diets? We don’t know where this will lead."

Theoretically, under state employment law, an employee dismissed for engaging in a legal activity would be eligible for unemployment insurance payments. Numerous attempts to speak with officials in both local and state offices, however, went unanswered.

Forty-five million Americans continue to smoke.

Smoking-related health care costs, nationally, exceed $167 billion, annually. This total includes both lost productivity costs and actual healthcare costs.

Smoking, on average, reduces life expectancy by 14 years.

xxdr_zombiexx · 09-01-2006, 04:51 PM

[zombienote: I haven't posted here in a couple years but I got some auto-generated birthday greetings in my inbox today and I saw Buzzby's post on tobacco and had just written the comments below on a thread at Smirking Chimp and thought, it might fit here pretty well.

Thanks to reggie the dog for the "crack of tobacco" comment, and to ovid (@ smirkingchimp) for the "tobacco cancer" term. I love it.]

U.S. report: More nicotine in cigarettes - AP - 8.30.2006

Quote:

BOSTON -- The level of nicotine that smokers typically consume per cigarette has risen about 10 percent in the past six years, making it harder to quit and easier to get hooked, according to a new report released Tuesday by the Massachusetts Department of Health.

[zombienote: Hey....feel free to smoke up this new super-potent crack tobacco, develop and strong addiction that has a high probablity of shortening your life due to tobacco cancers, but don't smoke pot!

How much does tobacco cancer cost Americans in healthcare costs?

How many lives and families are ruined by tobacco cancer in america every day?

When will John Walters step up to the plate to denounce this tobacco cancer menace?

Since some people are often fond of making the argument that "cannabis has other chemicals in it, let's treat tobacco the same way:

Robert Wood Johnson Foundation

Quote:

When asked about contents of cigarette smoke, 79 percent did not know that it contained lead; 86 percent did not know it contained radioactive materials; 67 percent did not know it contained ammonia; and 66 percent did not know it contained arsenic, according to the findings of the survey.

Cummings said questions about the safety of nicotine also revealed lack of basic information, as 67 percent either did not know or incorrectly believed that nicotine is a cause of cancer and 54 percent believe that reducing nicotine makes cigarettes less dangerous. Yet, 65 percent of respondents did not know that nicotine patches were less likely to cause a heart attack than cigarettes

But you know "experts": there's always disagreement

Quote:

Until now, scientists assumed tar and chemicals in tobacco, which are known lethal carcinogens, were the primary culprits. The traditional view of the development of tobacco-related tumors, including those in the bladder, pancreas and kidneys, is that carcinogens cause genetic changes in cells that build up and ultimately trigger tumor growth.

But the new study suggests nicotine plays a leading role by commandeering a communication system critical for maintaining healthy cells, and that nicotine exposure is setting the stage even before genetic changes occur.

And over in The UK

Quote:

Lung cancer kills approximately one person in the UK every 15 minutes and about 90% of lung cancers are caused by smoking.

Tar and toxic gases are thought to be the main cancer-causing substances in tobacco smoke.

But researchers at the University of Minnesota Cancer Center in Minneapolis, found that under certain conditions nicotine could be converted into nicotine-derived nitrosamino ketone (NNK) - a known lung carcinogen.

The team found that mice developed tumours in their lungs when given NNK by injection and in their drinking water.

Researcher Steve Hecht also analysed the urine of smokers and former smokers who were using nicotine replacement therapy.

He found that a chemical was present which could possibly change into NNK under acidic conditions, such as in the stomach.

He said the research was still at an early stage but could have implications for the long-term use of nicotine replacement therapy

And from the New Scientist here in 2006:

Quote:

Rather than initiate cancer, nicotine seems to make existing cancers more aggressive, he says. Previous studies have found, for example, that breast cancer is more likely to spread to the lungs of patients who smoke than those who do not. And blocking the receptors for nicotine on the surface of aggressive cancer cells in a laboratory dish halts their growth (see Nicotine speeds the growth of lung cancers).

Cigarette smoking can nevertheless trigger the development of cancer, stresses Chellappan. By-products of nicotine and other compounds are to blame, though, rather than nicotine itself.
One pack a day

Although it was known that nicotine makes cancers more aggressive, relatively little is known about how it has this effect. To explore this question Chellappan and his colleagues looked at the specific molecules in cancer cells that interact with nicotine.

They exposed human lung cancer cells to an amount of nicotine equivalent to that present in the bloodstream of a person who smokes one pack of cigarettes a day. This stimulated the cells to replicate. A closer look revealed that nicotine caused a molecule called Raf-1 to bind to a key protein called Rb, which normally suppresses tumours

So....one probably SHOULDN'T smoke tobacco, even if it is legal.

Meanwhile, Cannabis cancer risk played down

Quote:

Cannabis smoke is less likely to cause cancer than tobacco smoke, a leading US expert says.

Dr Robert Melamede, of the University of Colorado, said that, while chemically the two were similar, tobacco was more carcinogenic.

He said the difference was mainly due to nicotine in tobacco, whereas cannabis may inhibit cancer because of the presence of the chemical THC.

*****

Dr Melamede said whereas nicotine activated carcinogenic compounds, THC - one of 60 cannabinoids derived from the cannabis plant - had been shown to inhibit them in mice cells.

"Compounds found in cannabis have been shown to kill numerous cancer types including lung, breast, prostate, leukaemia, lymphoma and skin cancer."

This has been known since at least 1974-1975: And apologies - it's full of big words and scientific stuff:

Antineoplastic activity of cannabinoids.

Quote:

Lewis lung adenocarcinoma growth was retarded by the oral administration of delta9-tetrahydrocannabinol (delta9-THC), delta8-tetrahydrocannabinol (delta8-THC), and cannabinol (CBN), but not cannabidiol (CBD). Animals treated for 10 consecutive days with delta9-THC, beginning the day after tumor implantation, demonstrated a dose-dependent action of retarded tumor growth. Mice treated for 20 consecutive days with delta8-THC and CBN had reduced primary tumor size.

And Inhibition of Glioma Growth in Vivo by Selective Activation of the CB2 Cannabinoid Receptor1

Quote:

The development of new therapeutic strategies is essential for the management of gliomas, one of the most malignant forms of cancer. We have shown previously that the growth of the rat glioma C6 cell line is inhibited by psychoactive cannabinoids (I. Galve-Roperh et al., Nat. Med., 6: 313–319, 2000). These compounds act on the brain and some other organs through the widely expressed CB1 receptor. By contrast, the other cannabinoid receptor subtype, the CB2 receptor, shows a much more restricted distribution and is absent from normal brain. Here we show that local administration of the selective CB2 agonist JWH-133 at 50 µg/day to Rag-2-/- mice induced a considerable regression of malignant tumors generated by inoculation of C6 glioma cells

and, not that anybody really cares about this stuff, CANNABINOIDS: POTENTIAL
ANTICANCER AGENTS

Quote:

Cannabinoids — the active components of Cannabis sativa and their derivatives — exert palliative effects in cancer patients by preventing nausea, vomiting and pain and by stimulating appetite.

In addition, these compounds have been shown to inhibit the growth of tumour cells in culture and animal models by modulating key cell-signalling pathways.

Cannabinoids are usually well tolerated, and do not produce the generalized toxic effects of conventional chemotherapies.

So, could cannabinoids be used to develop new anticancer therapies?

Perhaps they could help develop new medicines, but not in the USA.

Reefer Madness Uber Alles, here.

So...really......which toke's the joke?]

**dedbr** · 09-03-2006, 05:38 PM

a work study done by a company I worked for in the seventies that said tobacco was a major cause of work loss.

Where these folks been?

Probably waiting for the lawyer's to say it's OK, they can get away with it.......

Medical products employer's have been doing this because of sterilization, too......germs in the OR's.....

Some Where In Ded Land...........

09-01-2006, 09:20 AM	#1
Buzzby Buddhist Curmudgeon Join Date: Aug 2004 Posts: 14,126 Grams: 42,231.09 Groans: 33 Groaned at 42 Times in 35 Posts Thanks: 483 Thanked 3,469 Times in 1,754 Posts Stock Portfolio Total Value: 0.000 Gain/Loss: 0.000%	NY: Tobacco, the New Workplace Drug Tobacco, the New Workplace Drug Laura Thompson \| Oswego County Business \| Aug/Sept 2006 Random drug testing in the work environment has become a widely accepted fact of employment across America. While once considered controversial and invasive, most of the American workforce now accepts the possibility of random worksite drug testing. When applying for a job today, it is common to be told drug testing may be required. A recent trend is expanding the concept of "drug" use in the workplace as well as in the privacy of your own home. As anti-smoking laws and legislation sweep the country, some employers are taking matters a step further. They are classifying tobacco as an undesirable substance in their workforce — and they are prohibiting their employees from its use, at work or at home. The most recent player in the United States to announce a tobacco-free workforce is Scotts Miracle-Gro. In December the company announced it will begin random testing of workers for tobacco use. Scheduled to begin in October 2006, positive results from these random nicotine tests could result in employee termination. While CEO Jim Hagedorn has emphasized that the company’s focus is on employee health, this policy is viewed as a drastic measure by many. Tobacco is not an illegal substance and this policy creeps into the privacy of employee homes and off-hours. Hagedorn has repeatedly stated the company will be working closely with all smoking employees to assist them in cessation of tobacco use. The company has recently invested in employee fitness centers and programs, all geared toward a healthier, more active workforce. Still, those employees unable or unwilling to comply with the October deadline face termination, unless they work in a state that offers legal protection to smokers. Miracle-Gro is headquartered in Marysville, Ohio, with facilities, offices and warehouses scattered across the country. They employ 5,300 people, nationwide. Twenty-nine states, and the District of Columbia, offer some legal protection to smokers against employer harassment or dismissal due to tobacco use. New York is among them. No federal legislation protects smokers. The move to designate tobacco as a workplace drug is driven in part by escalating healthcare and insurance costs. Smokers, as a group, tend to develop prolonged and expensive illnesses linked to tobacco use, such as cancer and respiratory diseases. Public opinion is behind such policies, for the most part. As tobacco related laws and restrictions sweep the country, limiting tobacco use and access has become widely accepted. Most of New York state smoking cessation programs, for example, emphasize limiting public use of tobacco and raising the cost of purchasing the same. While Scotts is the largest US employer to announce such a policy, it is not the first. Weyco, a medical benefits administration firm, located in Okemo, Mis., initiated a similar policy in September, 2003. Recently, four members of its 190-person workforce refused to be tested for tobacco use. That refusal cost them their jobs. In November of 2005, The Centers for Disease Control banned smoking on all of its campuses as well as in government vehicles. The CDC, however, stopped short of prohibiting tobacco use amongst its work force. In December of 2005, The World Health Organization announced it would no longer hire smokers in any of its international worksites. No plans for nicotine testing were announced, however; WHO plans to rely on a direct question added to the normal application. Additionally, no action has been announced for those persons already employed who use tobacco products. In New York state, the law which offers smokers some protection is titled "The Lawful Activities Statute." This is a loosely written statute which has not, to date, been legally tested. It was designed to protect employees from employer supervision of their private lives, and legal activities. According to Walt Pellegrini, of the NYS Governors Office of Employer Relations, no specific division has enforcement jurisdiction over this statute. "If an employee were dismissed for tobacco use in their private, off-duty time, they would have to go to the courts and raise this law as a shield against their dismissal," said Pellegrini. He further noted he knows of no case where this has occurred, to date. "This law is untested, to the best of my knowledge." Pellegrini went on to say he disagreed with employer attempts to control employee use of legal products, on their own time. "A policy that discriminates against a legal act with no nexus to the job is bad business," he said. "It smells—and not of smoke. I’d love to see this policy challenged." Pellegrini added that there are many employers who will ask prospective employees if they smoke. "It’s not illegal, in New York state, to not hire someone because they smoke. Smoking is not a protected item. Likewise, an employer can refuse to hire someone because he doesn’t like the way the person looks. We can’t control that." Legal issues arise, however, when an established employee is suddenly subjected to employer controls over private and legal actions. "What’s next?" asks Pellegrini. "We’re firing you because you’re a Scout leader, and we disagree with their policies toward homosexuals? Or because you belong to a certain church? If we allow this type of life invasion by employers, where does it end?" Another official within the NYS hierarchy, who asked not to be identified, disagreed. "Doing something dangerous is not a civil liberty," said this official. "Smoking marijuana is not a civil liberty. Riding a motorcycle without a helmet is not a civil liberty. Smoking is a dangerous activity." This official went on to say, "You don’t have a right to a particular job. Your employer is not telling you that you can’t smoke. They are saying if you want to do that, you can’t work here." The official also acknowledged the possible legal problems with a tobacco free employer stance. "Alcohol, for example, is also legal, and equally implicated in expensive health problems, when abused. Will the next step involve an Alcohol Free workforce, and random testing for the same? How about unhealthy diets? We don’t know where this will lead." Theoretically, under state employment law, an employee dismissed for engaging in a legal activity would be eligible for unemployment insurance payments. Numerous attempts to speak with officials in both local and state offices, however, went unanswered. Forty-five million Americans continue to smoke. Smoking-related health care costs, nationally, exceed $167 billion, annually. This total includes both lost productivity costs and actual healthcare costs. Smoking, on average, reduces life expectancy by 14 years.

09-03-2006, 05:38 PM	#3
dedbr Always Faithful Join Date: Mar 2001 Posts: 6,942 Grams: 35,431.45 Groans: 11 Groaned at 22 Times in 15 Posts Thanks: 2,469 Thanked 2,284 Times in 1,031 Posts Stock Portfolio Total Value: 0.000 Gain/Loss: 0.000%	I can remember.... a work study done by a company I worked for in the seventies that said tobacco was a major cause of work loss. Where these folks been? Probably waiting for the lawyer's to say it's OK, they can get away with it....... Medical products employer's have been doing this because of sterilization, too......germs in the OR's..... Some Where In Ded Land........... __________________ "We have met the enemy, and he is us" .......... Pogo (for Prez...) Remember to check out our most wonderful Posting Guidelines!

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes	Rate This Thread
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode	Rate This Thread:

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
CA: Keeping Cannabis Clubs Closed	newgrowerNY	The Drug War Headline News	1	01-08-2007 10:52 AM
MEPS testing questions	trayofcoke	Urine Testing	3	10-26-2006 01:56 PM
What Kinda Chronic are YOU?	Drakmar	Places and People	28	06-01-2003 11:51 PM
Stash Busted....What should I do?	Mtg_dk	Places and People	2	05-15-2002 08:04 PM

New To Site?	Need Help?
Register to Participate View Forum Leaders Contact Us	Frequently Asked Questions Did you forget your password? Mark Forums Read

Remove Advertisements Marijuana.com Sponsor
Marijuana.com Advertisement	<a rel='nofollow' href='http://adserver.marijuana.com/www/delivery/ck.php?n=a78e9dba&cb=INSERT_RANDOM_NUMBER_HERE' target='_blank'><img src='http://adserver.marijuana.com/www/delivery/avw.php?zoneid=6&cb=INSERT_RANDOM_NUMBER_HERE&n=a78e9dba' border='0' alt='' /></a>

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

Marijuana.com

Hot Products: