[Kim]

I would like to get ya'lls opinion on something that is bothering me. I'm a physician in Arkansas. The Arkansas Leg just passed a law banning the smoking of tobacco on all hospital property in the State. Before this it was legal to smoke outside like in the parking lot or in your car. Now the law excluded Psych patients and the VA and also allows physicians to write an order that their patients can go outside and smoke.

I am well aware that smoking is bad for a persons health as is anyone with a function level IQ. However, the hospital where I admit patients has decided to go futher and not allow even with a physicians order any smoking. This is the part I have problems with.

Let me give a recent example. I had a young patient I admitted last week who is a type 1 diabetic with a glucose level of 900(I was surprised she was not in a coma). About 4 hours after admitting her the nurse called and said the patient wanted to go outside and smoke and if I did not let her she would leave. (I believe she would have and I have other patients like her). I let her go out and smoke. She stayed and got her glucose controlled and sent home.

I asked the other physicians if they thought that their zeal to force their patients to not smoke would make them feel quilty or responsible if with their "new super rules" (that they all support) this young girl left and died. They all said it was totally her choice.

I am really irate that their zeal to stop smoking would override the real emergency (in this case a glucose of 900) that needs to be solved. I think that is a totally unreasonable attitude and they have forgotton "first do no harm". I was aghast at their attitude. :eek:

[4570Rick]

Damn nanny states. :fire:

[Sindawe]

Looks like the Nicotine-Nazis strike again. :cuss:

[Jammer Six]

Works for me.

How do I get smoking outlawed here?

What was their strategy?

How can I get Washington State to adopt similar laws?

How can I ge Washington State to adopt laws that apply to more public spaces?

How can I get smoking outlawed wherever I have to breathe?

Why is it limited to hospitals?

Why do physicians rate special treatment?

Thanks for your answers!

[Justin]

Kim, why do you hate the children so much?

[VARifleman]

How could anyone support this? I don't smoke, I despise it, but I hate smoking bans and I ESPECIALLY hate the taxes. All the organized crime rings come to MY state to buy cigarettes for those socialist states causing crime in MY state.
[/rant]

As for the girl, I have no idea what any of that means, but it sounds bad. I don't see how they can expect a patient's health to get better when they are under the stress of withdrawal. Stupid stupid people.

[Kim]

They all seem to be excited and giddy about this. I think it is going to cause problems caring for some patients. I just don't see what the big deal is. The hospital should not be a prision for the patients. It is over the top. I have decided that I will inform my patients of the situation and that they need to complain loudly to the Administrator and Hospital Board. And I mean call them at 2 am and give them a piece of their mind from their hospital room. After all the customer is always right! :D

[Vernal45]

Insert GUNS where Smoking is, and its a different ball game. I am against smoking, but I will fight for your right to smoke. BANNING smoking only sets a precedent to ban other behavior, maybe someday Carrying a concealed weapon will be deemed bad behavior, a health risk.

[Kim]

Jammer-----Doctors are not getting special treatment the patients are by law. Everyone else including doctors,visitors etc do not get to smoke by law. The law excluded patients. The hospital went one step futher than the law. The law excluded patients for the reason I stated. They are ill and have no choice but the be there. Others can leave. If some patients are forced to leave(to smoke) they could be dead..............

[jefnvk]

Sorry, hospitals are the one place I wouldn't mind seeing smoking banned. Or at least restricted to somplace out of the area that the general public has to go through. Pretty much everywhere else, I am pretty much of the feeling that if you don't like the smoke, don't patronize it.

Too many dumb people take the NO SMOKING signs to mean move 5 feet over. Watched one day a lady blowing her smoke right in the face of an old guy standing outside the front with an oxygen tank waiting for his ride. I should not be subject to smoke the one place I go to get healthy.

As for the diabetic lady, let her go. My doctor made it clear that if I was not caring for myself and do things like that, he would drop me. That is his standard practice with his patients, if they can't follow directions, he isn't going to keep them as patients.

People need to learn that they can't always have it their way. If I go into the hospital with glucose of 900, that is an emergency. I shouldn't be allowed to go take a smoke break. I'd be expecting to lie there and follow the doctor's orders exactly.

[Kim]

The hospital has a special place away from the public. I'm sorry but I disagree with your physician. Even a drug addict needs medical treatment as does the alcoholic and the obese and those nasty gun owners. Would I not treat someone like this with a broken leg, acute MI etc just because I disagreed with something they did in their life. Not me. I did not go to medical school to take care of saints. There are none. :rolleyes:

[Strings]

I can deal with the hospital banning smoking near doors, in the parking lot, whatever. However, the moment they try telling me what I can or can't do IN MY OWN VEHICLE, there's gonna be a fight...

A friend and I both had problems with that at a local highschool: him when picking up his little sister, me picking up my sis-in-law. Invariably, some teacher would want to tell us off for smoking on school grounds. And we'd both reply "my car doesn't qualify"...

[106rr]

It is necessary to ban smoking in all hospitals for infection control. While many people will wash their hands after using the toilet none will wash after smoking. The smoker puts his/her hand up to their mouth a couple of hundred times a day. Ten to twenty puffs per cig and twenty cigs a day -- you do the math. The infection rate has to be controlled. Their hands move from their mouth to the patient or to the person they visit. Smokers are the most pernicious disease vectors in the hospital. Please think these things through. Shooters above all should be expected to understand the future consequences of actions. Safety ALWAYS comes first. You can no more call back a bullet than you can call back an infection. The infection is far more dangerous than any errant bullet.
Even the most backward physician should understand infection control.

[VARifleman]

Are you a doctor? Because it seems Kim is...

[peacefuljeffrey]

So, doctors are actually stupid, sheeple after all. :barf: Your colleagues are stupid, Kim. Sorry.

This is never gonna stop unless people ACTIVE OPPOSE it. It's difficult. I can't even say that I myself could bring myself to do something drastic to oppose it.

I do know that where I work, I am not subject, for example, to drug tests. (I work in a newspaper advertising office.)

And I know that if, for some stupid reason, management changed policy and subjected me to mandatory random drug tests, I would LOUDLY QUIT MY JOB AND DO SO IN A VERY PROFANE MANNER. (And believe me, with the quality of my work above and beyond my nearest competitor, they would miss me. I am very valuable to my office.)

This is the kind of sacrifice I am talking about having to possibly make in order to oppose intolerable laws.

[Art's Grammaw stopped by, with a mop.]

-Jeffrey

[peacefuljeffrey]

Sorry, hospitals are the one place I wouldn't mind seeing smoking banned. Or at least restricted to somplace out of the area that the general public has to go through. Pretty much everywhere else, I am pretty much of the feeling that if you don't like the smoke, don't patronize it.

Too many dumb people take the NO SMOKING signs to mean move 5 feet over. Watched one day a lady blowing her smoke right in the face of an old guy standing outside the front with an oxygen tank waiting for his ride. I should not be subject to smoke the one place I go to get healthy.


Hey, why does it seem that you never have a problem with the authorities extending and increasing their control over the rights of people?

You don't like the fact that idiots stand right beside the no-smoking areas and smoke not-far-enough-away? So the only solution is to ban smoking entirely, even to the point of not allowing it on a 6'x6' tiny patch of grass at the end of the parking lot?

Is it so difficult for you to understand that there are solutions to the problem you describe that don't have to go that far? How about creating an actual "smoking zone" with an actual clearly delineated perimeter and anyone found smoking outside it is subject to penalty? Put that zone wherever you want to. But you don't have to support seizing every citizen's life by the privates and dictating that they may not do stuff just because it's stuff that you choose not to do. :fire:

It sounds really stupid to treat hospitals as sacrosanct because they're "the one place I go to get healthy." Cigarette smoke encountered in passing at a hospital does not damage you any more than cigarette smoke encountered anywhere else you claim you're not as hot to see it get banned from. The only difference is the fact that hospitals are for treating sickness? That makes the difference for you? :rolleyes: Consider the fact that people often pick up -- and die from -- lethal infections at hospitals. Maybe we should make catching germs illegal and solve the problem that way. Makes sense, doesn't it?

But really, if the issue you have is that the people smoke too close to entrances, put up signs that say they may not do that (under some penalty proscribed by the legislature), and DESIGNATE THE ONLY FREE-SMOKING AREAS, and MAKE SURE THEY'RE ADEQUATELY FAR AWAY FROM WHERE NON-SMOKERS WILL ENCOUNTER SMOKE!

DUH!

-Jeffrey

"Grammaw's Return Visit" now playing...

[peacefuljeffrey]

It is necessary to ban smoking in all hospitals for infection control. ... Smokers are the most pernicious disease vectors in the hospital.


Cite, please.

<Grammaw>



Please think these things through.


LOL


Even the most backward physician should understand infection control.

So you're a doctor? <Grammaw>

-Jeffrey

[jdberger]

WOW! :what: I thought that I got hot during discussions.

[Monkeyleg]

Why, oh why, do I ever get myself involved in smoking arguments?

Maybe it's because I smoke.

I have absolutely no, zero, not one problem with non-smokers wanting smoke-free areas.* After all, smokers constitute only about 25% of the population. It's not like we were negroes or something. ;)

What ticks me off is that it seems that there cannot be a common ground. It's either "my way or the highway." Nevermind that there used to be a common ground. Somebody--and I'm not naming names--seems to have taken the hill.

The analogy to guns is too far off, as there are other issues closer. Fast food, perfumes, etc.

The analogy about gun ranges is right on, though. Make sure your state has a range protection act. The do-gooders will move in next to the "bang-bang" sounds, then work to shut the range down.

Back in 2000, my wife and I went on a sort of "second honeymoon" to New Orleans. We went to one of our favorite restaurants, and waited for seating in the smoking section. The non-smoking section was entirely empty.

Anywho, we were about halfway through our appetizers when this guy got up from his table--in "our" smoking section--and started reading me the Riot Act about the hazards of smoking, how it was disturbing his meal....you get the idea.

I told him that he could have any table he wanted in the no-smoking section. I didn't tell him that I had a .45 under my coat, nor did I make any threatening moves with my steak knife, although he deserved both for his outrageous behavior.

The act of smoking is voluntary, just like whistling tunes from the musical "Oklahoma." There are times for discretion.

But there are also times when the government should butt out. (Pun intended).


*Caveat: when the government decrees that smokers must stand at least 25 feet from a public building--especially in a state like Wisconsin, where the temp's get down to below zero frequently--that government should be taken out and shot. Promptly.

[Monkeyleg]

Oh, hell, as long as everyone else is going to keep chiming in on this discussion. (I can't sleep due to pain from surgery last Friday--ban doctors now!).

Every September, my wife and I go to Cedarburg Harvest Fest. It's essentially a cheese and wine fest for the yuppy types, and a place where farmers can charge 4X their usual price for corn, peppers, etc.

Anywho, my wife and I are walking along the main street, both of us smoking. I hear a comment from behind.

"Let's just stop here and wait until those two smokers are out of the way."

I turned to see three sizeable middle-aged women glaring at us. Had it been Birmingham in the 1960's, we might have been lynched. (On second thought, these three probably would have been lynched).

At any rate, I turned to the most substantial of the three and said, "Madam, considering your girth, I suspect that second-hand smoke is the least of your health concerns."

So, what's my point? None, other than there's a whole yuppified, neveau-gentrified subset of society who can't publicly complain about Negroes (though they do at home), Mexicans (though they do at home), Jews (though they do at home), or other ethnic groups.

Instead, they drink their lattee's, frappee's, grandee's, or whatever else passes for coffee in their circles and complain about smokers and gun owners. Yeah, we're open season for those who need to quarantine their prejudices. It says so, right in the NY Times.

If ever there was a group who needed to understand Franklin's statement that "we shall all hang together, or we will suredly hang separately," it should be gun owners.

Yet the concept seems lost on far too many.

[Mongo the Mutterer]

Monkeyleg good on you:

"Let's just stop here and wait until those two smokers are out of the way."

I turned to see three sizeable middle-aged women glaring at us. Had it been Birmingham in the 1960's, we might have been lynched. (On second thought, these three probably would have been lynched).

At any rate, I turned to the most substantial of the three and said, "Madam, considering your girth, I suspect that second-hand smoke is the least of your health concerns."

I quit smoking (for the third and last time) last August, my fiance still smokes. We would have been a bit more abrupt with your three ladies. My fiance would have probably invited them to dance, or asked them to perform acts of love on themselves.

It amazes me how people can be rude, and then say they value "political correctness" and "diversity". Two things over my life have gotten me over the edge -- hypocracy (sp?) and lying. One other, too, the condescending elite's view of how everyone's life should be beyond their own. :barf:

Get well from the surgery. Docs do good work, as our friend Kim who started this thread does. Begone smoking Nazis! If they don't like it, they can leave the area silently.

[BioDemon]

Du! What rights are we going to have left in 20 years! I'm not a smoker but believe in personal freedom! Why are all our tax dollors getting spent by people that just want to build pyromids to force there personal opinion on others? My personal opinion is that people sould be able to make a personal decition! It's almost to the point that each State is it's own country! Why don't we just outlaw cars because car accidends are the nomber one cause death here in America? Or outlaw motercycles because they don't have seatbelts? Or am I just giving board lawmakers something to do with our tax dollers? How could some one with our tax dollers think that if some one perked next to them smoking would kill them? Perhaps carma catches up some day when a cigerette deprived indevidual crashes into them as think they reach the safty of the hospital parking lot. Why not outlaw tatoos because some law maker hates them or even body peircings?
What happenend to live and let live? Are We a Free Country?

[JerGun]

Monkeyleg -


I was a bit upset (read f'n pissed) when I heard about S.M.O.'s smoking ban crap. Not even in MY car?....come on now!

I've been to areas that have banned smokers (Most everywhere), and found that the smokers' (standing right otside the doors - BECAUSE THAT IS WHERE THE ASHTRAYS ARE) smoke was drafting right in the door whenever someone would walk in, including St. Mary's E.R. doors, although it is a double door. I think that is unacceptable for a hospital.

The Point: There should be a designated area for smokers, with safeguards taken to keep smoke away from those who would be bothered by it - for whatever reason, be it immediately medical or otherwise.

Unfortunately, the Oz. Co. soccer moms will stop at nothing (apparently) to make me angry and, unfortunately, they seem to have a remarkable success rate.

BTW, Cedarburg has been going downhill (IMO) for a while now. The old Coast to Coast store is gone, and that tears me up. The old D.Q. got moved down the street to where Hardees/ BK used to be, and I could go on forever....like the fox farms being destroyed.......Is Don's Resale still there?.....The last time I drove through there was last year on the way home, and got held up on Bridge St. by Maxwells because some looky-loo couldn't figure out the light was green until the second time around. :cuss:

[Waitone]

What I find interesting about Dr. Kim's post is the side by side comparison of zero tolerance (on the part of staff weenies) and bald-faced reality faced by the good doc. The one who had to deal with the reality of human nature is the one who sees zero tolerance as unrealistic. Yet those who control the flow of money are the ones who think it ok to impose conditions destined to fail. Does the patient's decision making process make sense? Nope, pretty stoopid in my view. Does the ZT goons thought process make sense in view of the reality of human nature? Nope.

It seems to me the ZT goons just inserted themselves in the doc/patient relationship (like that just doesn't happen :uhoh: ). And would be liable before the bar should something happen to the patient even if the injury had nothing to do with smoking.

The other thing that surprises me is how fast fangs drop on seemingly rational people when public smoking is discussed.

[JerGun]

Kim -

I SO agree with you. I'm looking forward to (hopefully) becoming a CRNA (7+ years of factory work is ENOUGH). The more I get into this line of work, the more I realize how great the responsibility really is.
(It's also challenging, interesting, awesome, but that's another forum)

As a healthcare professional, you need to be able to prioritize.

You (IMO) made the right decision.

For anyone (read: ANYONE ) to deny a patient to do ANYTHING that a DOCTOR says is OK is WRONG .

Doctors don't take a two year course at a technical college to boss shop employees around for the remainder of their tenure - Their education is extremely challenging, and NEVER ending. (These people know what they are talking about) Part of their training involves very quick, sometimes instant, decision making abilities - decisions that could mean life or death. (Or multi-million dollar lawsuits)

My sister is alive today because a doctor, unfortunately unequipped given the situation, immediately realized a need and met it. There were NO politics involved with that doctor taking his pen apart and shoving the hollow into my sister's throat. I know a bunch of folks who are glad he did, probably including a few of the children she teaches today.

People NEED to get off of their 'high horse' , pull their heads out of their own opinion, and let the professionals have their say.


I can't believe that your fellow physicians disagreed with you - THAT is truly a shame.

[JerGun]

MONKEYLEG -

Sorry, I forgot to say: I hope you are feeling better and, yes, <up the> doctors - it's the anesthetists who fix the pain they cause! :neener:

AND, you are more than welcome to shoot with us, just PM me, let me know when you are available!!

[Old Fuff]

The Old Fuff doesn't smoke, and except for a short experiment during his teen years never has. I can understand that as public policy smoking should be discouraged, but I have always been interested in the fact that while our government is 100% against the practice they haven't outright prohibited tobacco because they are making too much money off the taxes they get.

Rather a double standard I think.

I side with "Doctor Kim" on this matter, and am absolutely flabbergasted and not a little outraged that some of his colleagues apparently would find having a patient die for lack of treatment is better then letting her go outside and smoke a cigarette. I don't know of any studies that have shown that tobacco smoke released into the open air (as opposed to a closed room) is a serious health hazard, and I am sure that other pollutants are far more deadly. Automobile emissions might be an example, but no one has suggested that we go back to horse and buggies.

Sometimes common sense has to overcome zero tolerance, and this was an excellent example.

[Art Eatman]

I have no problem with strong opinions. My Grammaw don't got no problem with strong opinions. :D

But some of y'all gotta do a bunch better about cleaning up your acts. She'll be coming around with a bar of lye soap, doing some mouth-washing, folks don't behave.

Does anybody realize that it's physically impossible to smell or breath "second hand" smoke if the smoker is downwind? Have any of the smoking Nazis ever heard of exhaust fans? Controlling of the vents of a central HVAC system?

I've been part owner/manager of a couple of folk-music nightclubs. It was no problem to figure out which way the air currents moved and create smoking/no smoking areas. And this was long before any laws or rules about smoking in ANY public place. I just worked this out as a courtesy to my customers.

In the old days, there were certain places one just didn't smoke, because it just wasn't proper. Grocery stores, for instance. Inside hospitals except patients in their rooms. It was uncommon in department stores, "just because". You get the drift...

I travel a good bit. I just assume that when a restaurant or a city or a state does this no-smoking anywhere in a public place "thing", they don't want my money; I don't go there.

:D I own some land where rock-hounding is popular because of ease of access. "Non-smokers not allowed." :D

Art

[Flyboy]

Does anybody realize that it's physically impossible to smell or breath "second hand" smoke if the smoker is downwind? Have any of the smoking Nazis ever heard of exhaust fans? Controlling of the vents of a central HVAC system?
Amen.

I ate at a very nice local restaurant a couple of times that had the smoking section as a sort of balcony above the non-smoking section. They also had a cigar steward, with a nice selection (including pre-embargo Cubans). Being my birthday, and being as how I do enjoy an occasional cigar, I decided to enjoy one; one of my friends did as well. Ergo, after dinner, we went upstairs to the smoking section, and found several other people up there enjoying their smokables of choice.

Know what? I didn't know it was a smoking section until after the meal, when the steward came around. Even when I got up there, I couldn't smell a thing. Matter of fact, when I set my cigar down on my ashtray, four feet from my nose, I could just barely smell it.

That's ventilation. And it was dead-silent, too. It's really not that hard to do, either; just a little bit of planning.

As far as hospitals go, I'm generally with Kim and Art on this one. I would also add any place where oxygen is being used--and if you can't figure out why, please try it in your own home for a demonstration. That said, several of the smaller hospitals I've visited in Oklahoma (I worked in healthcare for a couple of years) had smoking lounges: glassed-in rooms areas, with a door that closes, where patients and staff can go to smoke. You look through the glass, and the entire room is a hazy grey-white, but you know what? Can't smell a thing. We need more rooms like that, not fewer.

[armoredman]

Two types of people can be legally discriminated against without fear of reprisal from any lieberal organization - smokers, and law abiding gun owners. I qualify on both counts.

[benEzra]

I don't smoke, can't stand the smell of tobacco smoke, but think total smoking bans are outrageous. No smoking IN the hospital, or within xx feet of the entrance? Fine. No smoking on any hospital property?? Ridiculous.

When my son was at Boston Children's Hospital, I noticed that they did have a smoking section, but that they intentionally treated smokers like pariahs, putting them in a school-bus-stop like enclosure at the very edge of the property, in a dark alley near some loading docks and right next to the street. It was unheated, of course, and temps were near zero with snow on the ground. It's like the medical professionals want to treat smoking like leprosy used to be viewed, with smokers shunned and denigrated and vilified. Unclean, Unclean! :fire:

BTW, it seems the more ridiculous smoking policies get, the less they are actually obeyed. My 6 y.o. son was hospitalized this past weekend for pneumonia, and when he was finally discharged I had to buckle him into his carseat in the midst of a cloud of cigarette smoke, which was making my still-weak son cough and hack. Had there been a nearby smoking area, maybe the smoker wouldn't have been standing there next to the street...

I side with "Doctor Kim" on this matter, and am absolutely flabbergasted and not a little outraged that some of his colleagues apparently would find having a patient die for lack of treatment is better then letting her go outside and smoke a cigarette.
That is absolutely outrageous, IMHO. "Just let her die, she's a smoker." :banghead:

[torpid]

Smoking restrictions and firearm restrictions.

In my experiences, the "anti mindset" is the same regarding both issues, with all "reasonable safety" legislation being introduced to further their eventual goal of prohibition.

.

[auschip]

Austin just passed an ordinance that bans smoking in most bars, but it is for the children. :scrutiny:

What really gets me, is when cigarette smokers complain about cigars and pipes. Pot meet kettle.

[halvey]

However, the hospital where I admit patients has decided to go futher and not allow even with a physicians order any smoking. This has been a regulation for years at the hospital my mom works at.

They are proposing a 75 cent fee per pack here. It's for the children. :eek:

[critter]

Since this thread started in Arkansas and is on smoking:
Chanel 7 (KATV) from Little Rock reported this am that last night, the city council of Pine Bluff Arkansas voted (4-4 tie broken by the mayor) to BAN ALL SMOKING in all public buildings in the city. Now, as I understand it, that is all buildings OPEN TO THE PUBLIC, not just publically owned buildings. It includes restaurants, motels, bars, stores, hospitals, ---you name it.

Several business have already said they are moving outside the city to a nearby suburb.

[ravinraven]

"The greatest loss of life in the U. S., excluding war, is the result of the public education system. When you willfully REFUSE to teach a child how to think, opting instead to fill the young ones head with politically correct nonsense, the child grows up an idiot. Idiots act stupid, and stupid actions cost lives."

In line one:"...U.S., excluding war, is..."

Remove ", excluding war,..."

Methinks the government schools are deadly in their failure to teach history, math, government, court system and so many other REAL areas that people must know and understand to get long in life.

How To Become Sheeple is the core curriculum now. Deadly.

And as far as smoking bans. Just another excuse to get MORE LAW IN YOUR FACE. [I said that very loudly a couple years ago at a county legislature meeting up here and got onto every TV station around the are. hehhehheh.]

Smoking is a health hazard. The nanny state is a worse health hazard. Smoking regs gets more law in your face. That is the reason for the whole restriction thing. Health issues are merely window dressing to get the non-thinking, government skool "edukated" sheeple to feel good while taking their little bite out of liberty.

Another thing I said at that county legislature meeting that made me an immediate hit with the smoking ban crowd was "You people and your take-a-bite-out-of-liberty program are doing much more damage to this country than Mohammad Atta and his sky full of murdering Islamofacists."

There were two dummybroads sitting right in front of me who had just given a sheeple speech before it was my turn to rant. Boy were they ever in love with me when I got done. hehhehhehheh.

rr

[106rr]

I might point out that I have seen people who use cocaine actually discriminate against smokers. The smoking is public and coke use is private. This seems to be the pinnacle of hypocrisy.
In California, smoking has become increasingly associated with lower income people, this one of the reasons for the prejudice here. The attitude on smoking is somewhat hypocritical especially here in CA. We have 13% of our population smoking in middle income areas and 18% in lower income areas. Nevada has the highest population of smokers at 21%. I believe that Utah has the lowest percentage but I don't have the exact figures for them. I don't know the rate of cocaine abuse but I'll bet CA is right up there with Washington,DC.
There are some industries where smoking paraphernalia is simply prohibited. Oil refineries, explosive production and chemical plants are some that come to mind. There are others where smoking is restricted such as fire departments, airline pilots, public transport drivers, etc.
These rules are made for public safety. The hospital rules are also for public safety.
An appropriate gun to smoking comparison would be firing a pistol in a hospital not carrying concealed. I think you have a right to carry under the constitution. You don't have the right to shoot it for personal satisfaction in the hospital.

[Standing Wolf]

As far as I'm concerned, doctors and hospitals are far, far more dangerous than cigarettes could possibly be.

[VARifleman]

So...are you a doctor 106? You were acting like you knew all the dangers of it for medical reasons... :banghead:

[jefnvk]

That is absolutely outrageous, IMHO. "Just let her die, she's a smoker."

No, the fact that she cares so little about her health that she would leave treatment for a serious problem to go smoke is why I would let her leave. If she cared enough about her health, she'd put off the smoking until she was treated and released.

What really gets me, is when cigarette smokers complain about cigars and pipes. Pot meet kettle.

Or when hunters rally against EBR's.

And I am all for letting people smoke in their car in a hospital parking lot. Just not anywhere that the general public is walking through.

As for bars, restaurants, casinos, motels, etc. if I don't like it, it is my right to not patronize that place anymore.

[Art Eatman]

Y'know, a lot of people complain about a right not to smell someone else's cigarette smoke, even outside.

For some reason, though, none of these antis give a hoot about the fact that I find a lot of non-smokers' Sweet Stinkum for the Pits to be offensive. Or "Come Here, Darlin'" aftershave.

An outdoor whiff of even a paper mill isn't as jangling as being in an elevator with some anti-smoking doofus who goes to the barber shop to get his oil changed, and stink up the whole place for everybody.

I won't even get into the subject of bathing...

:)

But the capper on the deal is one restaurant operation I know of (Knew of? It's gone now.) where the majority of the clientele were pot smokers. But walk in with a store-bought cigarette? You'd have thought it was the second coming of Satan!

:D, Art

[106rr]

Art E;
I attended a wedding in an old mission church (no modern ventilation) here in CA. People thought the wife and I were all choked up about the ceremony. We sat in the next to the last row with our kleenex in heavy use. A person sat down just behind us and the cheap cologne was gagging both of us. Smoking is certainly not the only pollution! You're right about the unfair prejudice from drug smokers. Crack users here are switching to little blow torch devices because they believe that butane lighters like Bic cause health problems! Seems the butane hydrocarbons are indeed smog but I wonder what the crack fumes are doing to their health. We actually have a situation where crackheads look down on smokers!
VA R;
Please stop banging your head! I taught smoking cessation for years for HMOs. Yes I do have some knowledge of the subject. No I am not a doctor but I haven't said anything that wasn't common knowledge in the medical community. Our largest HMO has banned smoking for infection control reasons. There is a big economic issue for HMOs because they know smokers cost more to insure than non smokers. It costs $1200 a year for them, their figures, not mine. If they employ the smoker they lose about $4,000.00 a year in productivity,their figures not mine. The productivity losses are taught in most business schools and most agree. However they save on retirement because most smokers die at a younger age also taught in business schools. I will concede that California is weird.

[Flyboy]

In California, smoking has become increasingly associated with lower income people, this one of the reasons for the prejudice here. The attitude on smoking is somewhat hypocritical especially here in CA. We have 13% of our population smoking in middle income areas and 18% in lower income areas. Nevada has the highest population of smokers at 21%. I believe that Utah has the lowest percentage but I don't have the exact figures for them. I don't know the rate of cocaine abuse but I'll bet CA is right up there with Washington,DC.
...
These rules are made for public safety. The hospital rules are also for public safety.
Not so much. I suggest a quick look at http://www.pipes.org/Articles/history.html. I posted that over in the thread on the Raich discussion, but it applies here as well. It's about the Us v. Them psychology of prohibition. A good read.

[106rr]

I think we have overlooked the insurance issue. If the hospital rules allow a diabetic to smoke it would put the liability on the hospital. In this case the doctor has to take all of the liability.
In diabetes, one of the things that happens is that the red blood cells get a sticky outer coating. This makes them stick to each other and eventually block blood vessels. In smoking the result of the carbon monoxide is that the body develops an unusually high number of red blood cells. Thus, in the smoking diabetic we have a condition with lots of sticky cells that will eventually block blood flow. No doctor will advise a diabetic to smoke.
If an addict demands to use a harmful substance, it is a problem of liability. It matters little that the substance is legal or not, tobacco or smack.
Most hospitals don't like the doctor to allow the addict to hold the hospital hostage for drugs.
The patch can be prescribed if there is a withdrawal problem. If the doctor gives the patch to a diabetic with a blood glocose of 900 he will be sued. The nicotine constricts the blood vessels. The blood vessels are now carrrying a higher load of red blood cells, made sticky by the diabetes, through a narrowed opening. A heart attack may well ensue.
Prohibition doesn't work and I won't support it for tobacco, alcohol, guns, etc. The issue is not possesion of tobacco but whether or not you can set it on fire in a public place,

[Jammer Six]

So...are you a doctor 106?
Ad hominen, the last, desperate refuge. :rolleyes:

By that logic, no one but those with doctorates in political science could vote.

I love it when it goes like that... :cool:

[jdberger]

Ad hominen, the last, desparate refuge.

I prefer to use the adage that the first person to mention Hitler, Nazis or Stalin loses. :neener:

[Art Eatman]

Tienes cuida'o, hombres! Don't go gettin' personal!

:), Art

[Jammer Six]

I prefer to use the adage that the first person to mention Hitler, Nazis or Stalin loses.
Yup, Goodwin's law. It's always worked for me. :D

[Flyboy]

Godwin. And is Mao still fair game or not? :D

[Jammer Six]

Godwin?

I stand corrected. :D

I'm pretty sure Mao is fair game. The only additions I've ever heard of involved black helicopters, and I'm not sure it was adopted.

[jdberger]

Yup, Godwin's Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law) . And no, Mao isn't mentioned. :D

[Strings]

So we can safely call 'em "anti-smoking Chinese Communists", but not "anti-smoking Nazis"? Y'all is confusing me... ;) :neener:

[Farnham]

I hate to admit this, but...

I was once shot in the foot...with a pellet gun :uhoh: . I didn't bother goin' to the hospital for a couple days, figured no way a .177 hole in my hoof was going to kill me. I decided (well, actually, my wife decided) that once I had red lines running up my leg and a massively swollen foot, I oughtta go get it checked out.

NEVER AGAIN...NEVER, I SAY! :fire:

After sitting in a little room for almost 13 hours after being summarily inspected and admitted (against my wishes, just give me some penicillin in the big honkin' pill form and turn me loose) I was shown to my cell on the third floor. I stayed there to receive intravenous antibiotics, as the dox said I didn't need a bone infection, and gunshot wounds drag boot and sock and foot funk into the hole (and subsequently into the bone, I've got a great X-ray of it).

I didn't receive any antibiotics (or breakfast) that morning, and saw nobody until I rang the buzzer to remind them it was 4 hours past time to get the much vaunted intravenous antibiotics, and an hour past lunchtime. I tried to nap some that afternoon, but with the IV still stuck in my arm (even though the bag was empty) I didn't sleep so well. Of course, the nurses beating the crap out of the violently demented old lady next door didn't help, either.

The doctor who admitted me went on vacation the next morning, the nurses once again forgot I was there to recieve antibiotics, and I was getting tired of having an empty needle jammed in my arm (oh yeah, the elderly nurse sternly warned me about pulling the damned thing out). I'd quit smoking months before this, but about this time (3 hours after I was told the physical therapy lady would be in shortly to teach me to walk on crutches) I needed a Marlboro or a Semtex vest. :banghead:

I got up, snagged my bottle of Vicodin, my pants and shoes, and went to the cigarette machine (ironic, eh?) by the magazine stand, and went outside to light up (had to ask a fairly demented looking old lady for a light...made me wonder). Called the wife from a gas station and went to work the next day.

I guarantee that if any hospital personnel had told me I couldn't go outside, I would have beaten them to death with the nearest wheelchair/IV stand/potted plant/patient. Seriously.

I recommend you tell them to let the patients smoke.

[joab]

In diabetes, one of the things that happens is that the red blood cells get a sticky outer coating. This makes them stick to each other and eventually block blood vessels. In smoking the result of the carbon monoxide is that the body develops an unusually high number of red blood cells. Thus, in the smoking diabetic we have a condition with lots of sticky cells that will eventually block blood flow. Then a diabetic shuld have enough sense not to smoke

Personally I would love to see an enforced govermental crackdown on all tobacco product.
I'm too weak to quit on my own

[JPM70535]

Having just returned from a vacation in Alaska, I am a bit behind in my reading of treads on THR, howver, this is one I just have to respond to.

Every time the right to smoke comes up, regardless of the location, certain responses are a given, one, that Smoking will most certainly be equated to Gun Rights. and that any action taken that restricts smoking is just another example of runaway Govt, and next on their list will be (insert your own pet peeve). What I almost never hear regarding smokers rights is an old response that is, I feel, most appropriate. Your freedom to smoke ends where my freedom to breathe clean air begins. Certain locations being excluded (bars, Pool halls, Cigar Bars, etc.) I have the right to expect smoke free air whereever I choose to travel, and that certainly includes Hospitals and their surrounding grounds.

As a former smoker I sympathize with those who still smoke. It is a very hard addiction to beat, however, my right to clean air trumps your right to smoke, and it has absoutely nothing to do with guns.

JPM

[jefnvk]

In diabetes, one of the things that happens is that the red blood cells get a sticky outer coating. This makes them stick to each other and eventually block blood vessels. In smoking the result of the carbon monoxide is that the body develops an unusually high number of red blood cells. Thus, in the smoking diabetic we have a condition with lots of sticky cells that will eventually block blood flow.

That was never explained to me. You know this for a fact, because no one has ever mentioned so much to me? I've gotten the dangers of alcohol many times, but never the dangers of smoking.

As for farnham, you obviously thought that the medical attention wasn't important enough to sit areound not smoking. Obviously the fact that you are sitting here telling us the story (assuming that you aren't footless) proves that. If the lady doesn't think that not smoking is not a good idea, and smoking is more important that getting her 900 mg/dl sugar fixed, she should be free to walk out that door, just as you did. Now, this is assuming her mind was working.

When I first went to the hospital, I was at 530. I was more out of it than someone higher than a kite. Chances are, this lady wasn't thinking straight. Letting her go out and smoke probably isn't the solution, just as letting her walk out the door isn't the solution if she was not thinking straight. I dunno what hospitals can legally do in a case like this regarding restraints or drugs that would knock her out, but that was probably the right answer.

And I have yet to figure out just how you get to 900, there is usually negligence or neglect involved in that. 200-300, yeah, that could happen accidently. But 900? That must involves not taking insulin for a long time.

[c_yeager]

This is a national trend among hostpitals right now. They have ZERO problem with the potential of someone dying as a result of this. You see, they honestly believe that they will make countless people quit, and 1000 lives "saved" from cancer trumps the odd patient who walked out on their medical care.

Im gonna save some time on this argument that has been happening here for a long time.

A) I have a right to smoke, just like with guns.
B) You dont, the constitution doesnt say you do.
A) Banning cigarettes is like banning guns and we should be against it.
B) You 'right' to smoke violates my right to clean air.
A) The constitution doesnt say anything about clean air either...
B) You dont have the right to give me cancer
A) cars give you more cancer, ban them first
B) Your a nazi
A) your a nazi

Moderator = Thread locked

Who calls who a nazi first is actually based on a random element and doesnt really matter.

[106rr]

jefnvk;
Narrowed arteries/sticky red blood cells/too many red blood cells -- Yes I do know this for a fact, it is the common result of smoking with diabetes. It is probably the leading cause of amputations, heart attacks, stroke, and believe it or not impotence. You cannot pick which blood vessel clogs with the sticky cells. If the clog occurs in your neck on the way to the brain we call it a stroke. If the clog occurs in an artery on the way to your heart, we call it a heart attack. If it occurs on the way to your genitals we call it a tragedy! Viagra will work well for diabetics unless there is a major blockage of the blood supply.
Diabetes is a tremendously complex disease and I don't have sufficient education to fully understand all of it. Almost all my education hinges on smoking and it's interaction with health. You might want to call your local hospital and ask for the Heath Education Department. You can also check
<www.diabetes.org> or <www.diabetesscv.org> these people are free and will have the information for you.
Good Luck

[Sindawe]

In diabetes, one of the things that happens is that the red blood cells get a sticky outer coating. If ya'll excuse the topic drift for a moment, what about diabetes produces the sticky out layer of RBC? Do them come out of the bone marrow that way, or does it occur after the RBCs have been circulating for awhile?

[Crosshair]

*raises hand*

Everyone realises that car exhaust is much more harmfull than tobacco smoke since most people are exposes to it for much longer periods of time than tobacco. I don't think the poor air quality in some big cities is from tobacco either. Technicaly the most damaging substance to the human body are Oxygen radicals. That is correct, breathing oxygen is hazardous to you're health.

http://www.squattle.com/oxidation.html

[jefnvk]

106, thanks, I'll have to check into that.

Sindawe, probably the incredible increase in sugar levels is what causes it. No insulin means that your body isn't able to use the glucose floating around in the blood stream, so it just floats around. Thta woul be my guess, anyways.

[c_yeager]

We really should do something about this out of controll sugar consumption in America. Diabetes is starting to become an epidemic, not to mention obesity. Anyone wanna pass some laws? I think the best place to start is restaraunts, they are licensed and that makes them easy to regulate. (familier?)

[ravinraven]

...force everyone to buy public eating licenses. They can have no-notice check points along the road, or along the sidewalk, and weigh you. If you weigh too much, they suspend your license and send you to diet/nutrition class.

If you show up at a restaurant, a special diet team has to check your license for past eating violations before they find you a seat. If you are obviously overweight and they serve you, they get closed for a year.

That should take care of the fat problem.

Now. What can we do about all the time that's being wasted in the country by old fuds like me playing Free Cell on this damn machine. Someone should be sued for that!

rr

[peacefuljeffrey]

I don't smoke, can't stand the smell of tobacco smoke, but think total smoking bans are outrageous. No smoking IN the hospital, or within xx feet of the entrance? Fine. No smoking on any hospital property?? Ridiculous.


Well, the reason, as is apparent to me, is that this is not about protecting non-smokers from having to smell/inhale smoke -- it's about the hospital folks expressing their moral outrage, alongside their arrogance and contempt.

If all they were trying to do was keep the smoke away from those who don't want to experience it, they would simply set up a designated smoking area or two. And they would do it in a place that was not so out-of-the-way and inconvenient that its selection was not a clear slap in the face of the human dignity of the smokers who wish to use it. (So, in other words, if the hospital admin puts the smoking section right out behind the garbage dumpsters, they are saying in no uncertain terms, "We think you're $#it. Kiss off."

Obstinate refusal to treat even those horrid smokers as human beings gives lie to the idea that doctors are compassionate and humanist. The ones in charge, apparently, are contemptuous, arrogant, and spiteful. They are making an AGENDA-DRIVEN POLITICAL-IDEOLOGICAL STATEMENT, here. And they are attempting to dictate the lifestyles of others who are not necessarily like them. It's an abuse of power. Just imagine if they had the political or economic clout to bar fast food restaurants from your town. Imagine if they had the power to ban streetbikes, or skydiving, or anything else that brings damaged humans to them for emergency care. Their attitude is, "We know what's best for you, and we're going to force it on you."

Sound familiar?

-Jeffrey

[peacefuljeffrey]

As a former smoker I sympathize with those who still smoke. It is a very hard addiction to beat, however, my right to clean air trumps your right to smoke, and it has absoutely nothing to do with guns.

JPM,
Please relate what you said above with the notion that the hospital could, without much trouble, designate a smoking area that is guaranteed far enough away from traffic areas as to keep anyone who doesn't want to breathe smoke from having to.

They are clearly refusing to do so.

Designating a far-from-the-front-door smoking area does not deny you your "right" (please cite where this right is codified and guaranteed, btw) "to clean air."

Assuming that you even have such a right, I don't see why you would not still be able to breathe clean air if there were a small area at the far end of the parking lot where smokers could light up. There is no reason for the hospital to ban ALL smoking from ALL of the property unless their reason is simply to vindictively spite, harass, intimidate, condemn, belittle, abuse, and $#it on smokers.

BTW, I'm a lifelong non-smoker. I am not saying this stuff because I am personally affected by it. But as with the issue of constitutional rights, if I stand by while others lose rights that I don't personally used, I am still harmed by the loss of those rights.

-Jeffrey

[c_yeager]

Jeffrey has it right. The only reason they are banning smoking accross the entirety of their property is because they dont have the authority to ban it over the span of the entire country. The goal isnt to provide clean air, its to not let people smoke.

[jefnvk]

We really should do something about this out of controll sugar consumption in America. Diabetes is starting to become an epidemic, not to mention obesity. Anyone wanna pass some laws? I think the best place to start is restaraunts, they are licensed and that makes them easy to regulate. (familier?)

:D

And it is Type 2 Diabetes that you need to control. That is the sweeping epidemic due to sugar use. Type 1 just happens, nothing you can do about it.

[Old Fuff]

Perhaps we have a Nanny State issue here. The government, other authorities, etc. have decided people shouldn't smoke because in their view smoking is harmful. They are probably right, and if the truth were known probably many smokers would agree. But they are addicted, and as is often the case with Nannies they are long on dictating about what people should do, but short on helping them accomplish what they are demanding. Obviously ending the addiction is easier for some then others.

I do see a relationship between firearms and smoking. The anti-gun Nannies have decided that guns are bad, and therefore having or using them should be prohibited. In a sense some people are addicted to guns (I know I am). This means nothing to the anti-gun Nannies who have decided what's best.

There is an attitude here, on the part of some anti-smokers, that they have a right and responsibility to impose their views on those who smoke. They have all the rights; the smoker's have none. What they say, the rest must do. End of discussion.

I am not a smoker. But I don't know if that in itself give me a right to demand that others don't smoke - any more then the Democrats in California have any right to tell people that live there what kind of guns they can or can't own.

Last but not least, if in the Government's view smoking is so bad why don't they flat out prohibit growing tobacco, manufacturing cigarettes, and smoking them? The answer is simple - they don't want to give up the tax money they're collecting. Sort of a double standard isn't it?

[Nathaniel Firethorn]

Overheard in the :Statename: legislature:

"Hey, Al. We've got problems."

"Tell me about it. Massive budget deficits from all the governor's buddies and party hacks that are padding the payroll."

"We need a distraction."

"Yeah, let's ban something. Junk food at schools?"

"Got that last week. How about cellphones while driving?"

"In the works, but Cingular and T-Mobile want us to water it down so it's worthless. Concealed gun licenses?"

"If we squeeze those anymore, our cops would have to carry cucumbers. Hey, I know! Let's hit the smokers!"

"Yeah, that's it! My aide's all over it like stink on a Hav-A-Tampa."Repeat until everything that is not prohibited in :Statename: is compulsory.

- pdmoderator

[106rr]

Please remember that they are not prohibiting tobacco. They prohibit setting tobacco on fire in a public place. You can easily use snuff, patch or nicotine gum.
The nanny state objection is hitting home. I wonder how far they can go with this. Mostly it is driven by economics, In Canada, where they have socialized medicine, the tax on cigs is set at a level that pays for the medical care of smokers. They cost about $10.79 Canadian a pack. The smokers pay their own way instead of freeloading on the other insured as they do in the USA. One of the major objections to smoking in the USA is that smokers use an inordinate amount of medical resources. Indeed smoking seems to age the body about 15 years. All of the organs seem to respond like they are 15 years older than their actual age. So if the smoker is 50 years old the organs respond as though they are 65.
The motorcycle helmet laws were also based on insurance issues. Motorcycle accidents are the single greatest cause of quadriplegia. When people are totally crippled they lose their insurance and become a burden to the state. Bikers complain about the nanny state too.

[106rr]

Jeffnvk;
There is a recent study that indicates high fructose corn syrup as the probable culprit in the type two epidemic. We have had sugar for centuries and we have not had this much trouble with type two Diabetes before. Some years ago, many soft drink companies "reformulated" their product to use HFCS instead of sugar. HFCS is far far cheaper than sugar and is not subject to price fluctuations like sugar.
The per capita consumption of HFCS skyrocketed. It is now incorporated in bread, cereal, soft drinks, candy and many so called fruit drinks. The only reason it is used is to increase profits. The rise of type two diabetes and the consumption of HFCS seem to be in parallel motion.
I do understand that your post was sarcastic and I appreciate the style. Banning sugar instead of letting the people make a choice is stupid. I'll bet California puts a tax on it first! We lead the nation in nanny stupidity!
BTW -- Veterans who served on the ground in Vietnam who get diabetes are entitled to compensation. The Agent Orange screwed up your pancreas and caused diabetes. Check with your local VA.

[Waitone]

In Canada, where they have socialized medicine, the tax on cigs is set at a level that pays for the medical care of smokers. No, actually the level of taxation is such that it breeds a black market in cigarettes. Long before 911 the FBIbATFEDEA stung a cell of Hezbolah. They were smuggling cigarettes out of north and south Carolina where taxes are minimal and into Detroit IIRC. Not known if they were then shipped across to Canada but I'd be surprised if at least some didn't make it. Buy low, sell high. Use the margin dollars to sponsor terror activities. Keep raising taxes on socially acceptable products and at some point the black market takes over. If government was smart it would try to figure out the optimum level of taxation and go no farther. But no, we want to tax the snot out of social pirahs. . . . .today its cigarette smokers, then cigar smokers, then snuff dippers, then candy bars, and milk duds, Coke Coler, then moon pies, then nabs, then sling shots, then bb guns, then .22lr, then .38spl. then, then, then, and then.

Start down this road and there is no logical barrier to including other legal products.

[Jammer Six]

Jeffrey has it right. The only reason they are banning smoking accross the entirety of their property is because they dont have the authority to ban it over the span of the entire country. The goal isnt to provide clean air, its to not let people smoke.
Got that right.

Here in Seattle, it's now banned in a number of public places, (I can never keep it straight if it's banned in bars or not, it seems to me that it is, but only in a few suburbs, or something.) it's banned in my home, and smoking on one of my crews during the work day will get you laid off.

Slowly, but surely, we're gaining.

[auschip]

smoking on one of my crews during the work day will get you laid off.

Pretty harsh. What about on their breaks? What about if they don't smoke, but you know they are smokers? Are you against dipping also?

[Matthew748]

Second hand smoke can be annoying. I smoke, but there are times when I refrain out of choice. I hate poorly ventilated, closed rooms filled with smoke as much as most non-smokers.
Since society is taking the stance that one person must abstain from a behavior because it violates another person's rights, there are a lot of things I would like to see changed. Chief among them is alcohol consumption. I am of the belief that alcohol should only be consumed at home and only when the person will not be out driving. I have had a lot of near misses on the roads due to drunkards. I find it odd that most people get whooped up into a fury over smoking while casually poisoning their liver and brains with booze and creating unsafe situations for others on the road.

[Jammer Six]

The crews have always been advertised as non-smoking.

It's a considerable advantage, and has resulted in the decision going our way more than once.

If I find out you're a smoker, you have to go away, whether you smoke or not.

Fortunately, as the non-smokers (and CERTAINLY the ex-smokers) here will tell you, it simply isn't possible for a smoker to hide his or her habit for an eight and a half hour workday, day after day.

No, I don't care if you chew. At least in theory.

But if you spit, you're going away. Since most chewers spit, I just let anyone who uses tobacco go. It's easier.

My discussion with Matthew, below, illustrates the point nicely:

Matthew, I agree about drinking.

A strict Libertarian view is that drinking and driving is fine, as long as you don't interfere with someone else. Since drinking and driving increases your chances of doing just that, it would seem to be a poor choice, but the strict Libertairian view, as I understand it, is that it IS your choice, and you should be held accountable for real consequences, not for possible or even probable consequences.

Again, the theory is prettier than the reality, because the reality is that a drinking driver is less able to deal with blown tires, failed brakes, or anything else.

So, like the chewer who says he won't spit, I'm against all tobacco use and all drinks for a person who will be driving later that evening.

I enforce both views to the limits of my authority. :cool:

[jefnvk]

There is a recent study that indicates high fructose corn syrup as the probable culprit in the type two epidemic. We have had sugar for centuries and we have not had this much trouble with type two Diabetes before. Some years ago, many soft drink companies "reformulated" their product to use HFCS instead of sugar. HFCS is far far cheaper than sugar and is not subject to price fluctuations like sugar.

Eh, it's all semantics. To me, its all sugar. Just clairifying that not all diabetes is the same, one of my pet peeves. I tell someone I am diabetic, and I get 'Oh, one too many Mountain Dews, huh?'. Seeing how type one is only like ten percent or so of diabetics, most poeople don't realize there is a big difference in the two.

[Kim]

I knew I would get a bunch of different opinions. Some expected some not. I've decided when I have a patient that decides to walk out the door because of this when it is dangerous for them to leave the hospital I will tell them the name of the Administrator and recommend they give him a call. I will write a note in the chart such as. ------------- Due to rules set by this hospital Administration ( not required by law) my patient who was under my care for a potentially serious and life threatening illness decided to leave due to the fact they were denied the privilage to go outside in nature and smoke tobacco. Patient did sign that it was aganist my advice for them to leave. However ,I would preferred to have been allowed to write an order allowing the patient to go outside in nature and smoke tobacco as this order would at this time been in the best interest of the patients current medical condition." :evil: Lets see how the Administrator likes those warmed over beans.

[Kim]

Oh as a funny note. One of the physicians who is sooo for this new rule rides his Harley without a helmet and tends to light up a cigarette when he drinks his whiskey. Kinda reminds me of that ole C&R song "Harpers Valley PTA". Now if Arkansas passed a mandatory helmet law for motorcyle riders he would be complaining LOUD(and breaking the law). But , then his ox would be getting gored. :neener:

[c_yeager]

Please remember that they are not prohibiting tobacco. They prohibit setting tobacco on fire in a public place. You can easily use snuff, patch or nicotine gum.

By the same token a ban on ammunition isnt a direct restriction of the right to keep and bear arms. Nothing in the constitution addressess free access to ammunition, only to the weapons that fire it.

[ravinraven]

...that should lead to early death which not only ends the medical costs, but eases the social security problem. Dead folks don't collect.

can anyone figure out which way is cheaper: Good health with long life and gradually increasing med expence and much social security or short life with extra health costs and no social security collected.

Hmmmm..... Anybody good with differentiaol equations? Maybe we could come up with a computer program.

Bottom line. Smoking regs, etc get the sheeple a little more used to being sheeple.

rr

[Old Fuff]

Kim:

>> Lets see how the Administrator likes those warmed over beans. <<

I like the thought, but the most likely reaction on the part of the hospital's administration will be to get rid of you.

However, go forward with the knowledge that a lot of people are on your side.

[Firethorn]

Smoking is one of the things that I've had a change of opinion on. Well, maybe not so much a change of opinion, just a clarification and mellowing.

When I was a kid, I was very much anti-smoking. I heard all the warnings and stuff. As I love my grandmother (the only smoker left in the family that I saw regularly), I used to steal her cigarettes. I knew that they were bad for her, and I wanted to keep her around!

I have since quit that behavior, though I do make it known that I'd like her to quit.

On the other hand, I believe it shouldn't be part of the government's responsability to keep people from harming/killing themselves. Thus, while I have no problem with indoor smoking bans for public places, and allow absolutly no smoking in my house or car, I have no problems with people smoking away from me, in their car(I'll just avoid riding with them), or in a room designated for such(which I'll simply stay out of).

As I'm familier with science and engineering, I know there are all sorts of filtration systems that would allow smoking, and you'd have to practically stand over the cigarette to get a whiff of it. Thus, I find mandatory bans in restraunts outrageous. Especially those with no 'seperation clause', that would simply state that there has to be a seperate non-smoking section.

[Kim]

Yea maybe they would "get rid of me". But see this is a small town of about 5,000. We do not operate on a big city model. I suspect most would be on my side. Plus what are they going to get rid of me for------------stating my clinical opinion. That is what physicians do. The question is if a patient leaves and has a bad outcome who is responsible. Not me, Could be the patient or the hospital or a little of both. Surely they know about Covering your legal butt. Plus if they did somehow get rid of me------I might throw a party. No more Call Yea. I do not need the hospital as much as they need me.( As a matter of fact if I did not have to take call I would do better financially). I just can not imagine letting a 19 year old patient leave that is in a life threating situtaion just because the hospital refuses to let her go outside and smoke. Good grief I can write an order to let a patient out on pass anytime(go to wedding,funeral etc) but heaven forbid letting one walk outside and smoke.

[benEzra]

...that should lead to early death which not only ends the medical costs, but eases the social security problem. Dead folks don't collect.
I believe a study has been done, taking into account the costs of long-term care, and people who die early of smoking-related lung cancer tend to "cost" less...all such studies are rather subjective, though.