Smokers

[NewYorker9]

---

Members do not see this ad.

I believe it would be highly hypocritical for a physician to smoke and then tell his patients that they need to change their lifestyles to prevent future ailments. In addition, anyone (whether in health care or not) that smokes will be spending less time at work and also have the stench with them at all times

 

[JokerMD]

asdf

 

[knightstale4]

To be honest, I think it's terrible for physicians especially to smoke - how are you a good example for your patients when you suffer an addiction, make no attempts to stop it, and knowingly put others at risk for inhaling carcinogens?

Granted, there are some considerate smokers. You know, the ones who only smoke in designated areas and who make sure their smoke doesn't blow in anyone's face. These people are also usually mindful of where their cigarette butts end up. I have less of a problem with those smokers.

But smokers on the whole I find to be complete a**holes. They swing their lit cigarettes as they walk; I've seen one accidentally shove the lit end into a kid's eye before! They don't pay attention to where their smoke goes and it ends up blowing right into a bunch of people's faces. They smoke around children and the elderly and improperly dispose of cigarette butts. What makes throwing a cigarette on the ground more acceptable than a gum wrapper or a receipt? Not to mention that a lot of the time they don't even stamp them out. How many fires per year are started just because some idiot dropped a lit cigarette?

I honestly have no idea why people start smoking, and I find people who do to be incredibly stupid. Whatever the reason you started, you're going to have to deal with the consequences. Sickness, premature aging, etc. It's all on you.

I don't even date smokers. No matter how awesome someone is, if they smoke, I'm saying no. I don't want to deal with their crap.

So yeah, I'm harsh. But I have my reasons.

👍 I agree with every word here. Smokers in general are rude and inconsiderate, and if smokers have the right to smoke, I have the right to clean air; and since we have a "your freedom ends where my nose begins" policy, it's difficult to understand why an idiotic habit like smoking is even legal. It should, at the very least, be banned in public areas. To each his own, I agree. But if God forbid I get lung cancer from second hand smoke, are all the smokers going to help me pay my insurance and hospital bills? I didn't think so .

I don't think she necessarily was saying that smokers are bad people but that they exhibit ass-holish behavior regarding smoking ettiquette.
I too have noticed this.

However, I know that saying that smokers are evil is not reasonable because I have met plenty of smokers who are nice people just like there are nice non-smokers. I just wish that some displayed more considerate ettiquette when smoking.

👍 Some people here are twisting what we are saying. I don't think smokers are evil or bad. I do call their common sense and courtesy into question though when they pick up a habit they know is harmful to themselves, others, and the environment.

 

[McBatCommander]

I believe it would be highly hypocritical for a physician to smoke and then tell his patients that they need to change their lifestyles to prevent future ailments. In addition, anyone (whether in health care or not) that smokes will be spending less time at work and also have the stench with them at all times

It would only be hypocritical if the doctor acted like his lungs aren't capable of suffering the same damage. But seriously, doctors provide a service, not a favor, and they're not obligated under any morals that go beyond keeping JUST the patient safe. If you're looking for someone to be god and share values, go to church and pray to be healed.

And it doesn't take 4 years of medical school to know that smoking can kill you/harm you. We're all just as guilty.

 

[McBatCommander]

👍 I agree with every word here. Smokers in general are rude and inconsiderate, and if smokers have the right to smoke, I have the right to clean air; and since we have a "your freedom ends where my nose begins" policy, it's difficult to understand why an idiotic habit like smoking is even legal. It should, at the very least, be banned in public areas. To each his own, I agree. But if God forbid I get lung cancer from second hand smoke, are all the smokers going to help me pay my insurance and hospital bills? I didn't think so .



👍 Some people here are twisting what we are saying. I don't think smokers are evil or bad. I do call their common sense and courtesy into question though when they pick up a habit they know is harmful to themselves, others, and the environment.

It's as easy as walking 10-15 feet away. You can't smoke in restaurants anymore (sans Alabama atm), and anywhere where there are smoking places, they are small and clearly labeled. It's almost a chore to get caught in the wind of a smoker. And if you're with your friends or family, ask them nicely to move, or put it out. If they don't, then they are inconsiderate.

 

[chman]

👍 I agree with every word here. Smokers in general are rude and inconsiderate, and if smokers have the right to smoke, I have the right to clean air; and since we have a "your freedom ends where my nose begins" policy, it's difficult to understand why an idiotic habit like smoking is even legal. It should, at the very least, be banned in public areas. To each his own, I agree. But if God forbid I get lung cancer from second hand smoke, are all the smokers going to help me pay my insurance and hospital bills? I didn't think so .

God help me.

I'm sure you must wear a gas mask everywhere since you are so concerned about your air, after all, cars are spilling way more toxins into the air.

As far as your second hand smoke comment, I encourage you to do some real research into this issue and not just take everything at face value. Please read my earlier post and watch the video. I think smoke smells bad, but the truth is that someone smoking outside is not going to hurt you in the slightest.

I find your comment about it being legal, or rather should be illegal,even more disturbing. Yes, smoking is annoying to many and causing major public health issues, but it is also a matter of freedom. What else should we ban; trans fat, motorcycles, alcohol, etc? I think we should ban perfume, after all I'm allergic to it. See where I'm going?


👍

Some people here are twisting what we are saying. I don't think smokers are evil or bad. I do call their common sense and courtesy into question though when they pick up a habit they know is harmful to themselves, others, and the environment

Yea, people are twisting what you are saying. You're just saying that smokers stupid people who have no consideration for others.

 

[addo]

👍 I agree with every word here. Smokers in general are rude and inconsiderate, and if smokers have the right to smoke, I have the right to clean air;

Well then stop driving, flying, or using any means of transportation that relies on internal combustion.... Thats a start- then you can stop buying all products that depend on fossil fuels for their manufacture.

I am not a smoker, but that argument was just weak.

 

[Overmjnd]

smokers are jokers

 

[McBatCommander]

smokers are jokers

Take that back, guy.

 

[chman]

smokers are jokers

They're worse than brokers wearing loafers watching Al Roker.

 

[Bacchus]

The problem lies in our youth starting to smoke. Why are they doing it? Why are the public health campaigns not working? 95% of lung cancer is attributed to smoking. Lung cancer is hard to detect. Smoking is shunned. Where is the message being stop or where has the youth's resistance gone?

 

[chman]

The problem lies in our youth starting to smoke. Why are they doing it? Why are the public health campaigns not working? 95% of lung cancer is attributed to smoking. Lung cancer is hard to detect. Smoking is shunned. Where is the message being stop or where has the youth's resistance gone?

I can just give you my experience. For one, whether it be anti drug adds or anti smoking adds they are either, unrealistic, a scare tactic, misrepresenting, or trying to hard to relate and come off foolish. Our youth are not dumb, and they see this misrepresentation and don't take the message seriously.

I think an affective commercial would have a real smoker say; this is how I started---> this is what happened. Most kids start because they think it's cool, and because they want to rebel, usually because of other issues in their life. Obviously the first is easier to fix.

Lastly, the judgment centers in the brain are not fully developed, so long term consequences are not a priority.

 

[chman]

Now this is something to be angry about:


[YOUTUBE]pCxff1Dyy2w[/YOUTUBE]

 

[knightstale4]

Well then stop driving, flying, or using any means of transportation that relies on internal combustion.... Thats a start- then you can stop buying all products that depend on fossil fuels for their manufacture.

I am not a smoker, but that argument was just weak.

You're honing in on an aspect of my argument as opposed to approaching it holistically. If you carefully read what I wrote, I referenced the environment in only one place. I mentioned the clean air in the sense that I have the right to air that doesn't induce cancer.

 

[knightstale4]

It's as easy as walking 10-15 feet away. You can't smoke in restaurants anymore (sans Alabama atm), and anywhere where there are smoking places, they are small and clearly labeled. It's almost a chore to get caught in the wind of a smoker. And if you're with your friends or family, ask them nicely to move, or put it out. If they don't, then they are inconsiderate.

Why should I walk 10-15 feet away? Why can't the smoker smoke 10-15 feet away where other people are not being inconvenienced? And no, it is not a chore to get caught in the wind of a smoker. I live in a big city, and there are smokers galore here with no restrictions. I am just confused why the onus is on me to ask a smoker to not be inconsiderate. I would imagine that falls under common courtesy and to a degree, under common sense.

 

[knightstale4]

God help me.

I'm sure you must wear a gas mask everywhere since you are so concerned about your air, after all, cars are spilling way more toxins into the air.

As far as your second hand smoke comment, I encourage you to do some real research into this issue and not just take everything at face value. Please read my earlier post and watch the video. I think smoke smells bad, but the truth is that someone smoking outside is not going to hurt you in the slightest.

I find your comment about it being legal, or rather should be illegal,even more disturbing. Yes, smoking is annoying to many and causing major public health issues, but it is also a matter of freedom. What else should we ban; trans fat, motorcycles, alcohol, etc? I think we should ban perfume, after all I'm allergic to it. See where I'm going?


👍Yea, people are twisting what you are saying. You're just saying that smokers stupid people who have no consideration for others.

I am going to take the NIH on face value on this one 😎.
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Tobacco/ETS

Also, your examples are not relevant to this situation. I am asking smokers to not smoke or at least do it in relatively quarantined spaces because it impacts my health directly. I could care less about trans fat, motorcycles, and alcohol.

• Trans fat- If someone chooses to eat unhealthy, it is their perogative. Someone being overweight or having an unhealthy lifestyle doesn't impact me directly.
• If someone is driving a motorcycle, they are putting themselves at risk, so again, I don't really care.
• And alcohol--don't care unless they drink and drive, which in fact is illegal.

And twisting of the words still applies. I never said smokers are stupid, only that they exercise poor judgment when they choose to pick up a habit like that.

 

[chman]

I am going to take the NIH on face value on this one 😎.
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Tobacco/ETS

Also, your examples are not relevant to this situation. I am asking smokers to not smoke or at least do it in relatively quarantined spaces because it impacts my health directly. I could care less about trans fat, motorcycles, and alcohol.

• Trans fat- If someone chooses to eat unhealthy, it is their perogative. Someone being overweight or having an unhealthy lifestyle doesn't impact me directly.
• If someone is driving a motorcycle, they are putting themselves at risk, so again, I don't really care.
• And alcohol--don't care unless they drink and drive, which in fact is illegal.

And twisting of the words still applies. I never said smokers are stupid, only that they exercise poor judgment when they choose to pick up a habit like that.

Sure, no big deal, "scientific" studies have been fabricated. Why not take them at face value? It's not like they took a bunch of random studies, compiled them, and lowered the confidence intervals. It's not like a federal judge threw out the results, yet we still rely on the studies anyway. Silly me, thinking critically and whatnot.

Pointing out the hypocrisy of being scared of cigarette smoke outside (which is pretty much the only place they are permitted) when there is an enormous amount of toxins from cars is relevant. It shows how psychologically conditioned people have become when scare tactics are used. By the way, even the propaganda against second hand smoke doesn't go so far as to say smoking outside has any impact on your health.

My last point was about freedom, not health. Sure, banning smoking is fine as long as it's not your freedom. Freedom is not a matter of convenience.

 

[Janieve]

Sure, no big deal, "scientific" studies have been fabricated. Why not take them at face value? It's not like they took a bunch of random studies, compiled them, and lowered the confidence intervals. It's not like a federal judge threw out the results, yet we still rely on the studies anyway. Silly me, thinking critically and whatnot.

Pointing out the hypocrisy of being scared of cigarette smoke outside (which is pretty much the only place they are permitted) when there is an enormous amount of toxins from cars is relevant. It shows how psychologically conditioned people have become when scare tactics are used.

My last point was about freedom, not health. Sure, banning smoking is fine as long as it's not your freedom. Freedom is not a matter of convenience.

Dude, chillax. Yeah, we know scientific studies are fabricated - we've all heard about vaccines and autism, homosexuality being a disease, etc. We know that. And we know that automobiles produce toxins. So do cows - more so than said automobiles. And yet we're not jumping on top of non-vegetarians or people who don't carpool.

Why?

Because while those things are also choices, they're necessary ones. You have to get around. You have to eat. Sure, you could bike everywhere and be an eco-sensitive vegetarian, but let's face it - for some people, those aren't really options.

Smoking, however, is an unnecessary choice. What do you have to do that smoking permits? What basic need is met by lighting up a cigarette (aside from relief from withdrawal symptoms)? All that you're doing when you light up a cigarette, puff it for ten minutes, and flick the butt onto the ground is polluting the air for those around you, damaging your body, feeding your addiction, and littering.

Not attacking anyone here. Just clarifying points.

TL;DR: We know studies can be fabricated and that there are other sources of environmental toxins than just cigarettes. The difference is that there have been so many studies on the effects of cigarettes and that the other sources are societal and biological necessities.

So CHILL, dude.

 

[chman]

Dude, chillax. Yeah, we know scientific studies are fabricated - we've all heard about vaccines and autism, homosexuality being a disease, etc. We know that. And we know that automobiles produce toxins. So do cows - more so than said automobiles. And yet we're not jumping on top of non-vegetarians or people who don't carpool.

Why?

Because while those things are also choices, they're necessary ones. You have to get around. You have to eat. Sure, you could bike everywhere and be an eco-sensitive vegetarian, but let's face it - for some people, those aren't really options.

Smoking, however, is an unnecessary choice. What do you have to do that smoking permits? What basic need is met by lighting up a cigarette (aside from relief from withdrawal symptoms)? All that you're doing when you light up a cigarette, puff it for ten minutes, and flick the butt onto the ground is polluting the air for those around you, damaging your body, feeding your addiction, and littering.

Not attacking anyone here. Just clarifying points.

TL;DR: We know studies can be fabricated and that there are other sources of environmental toxins than just cigarettes. The difference is that there have been so many studies on the effects of cigarettes and that the other sources are societal and biological necessities.

So CHILL, dude.

I'm not freaking out, I'm making points. If you could here my tone it would be calm

Evidently a lot of people don't know about phony science because they think that someone smoking outside is going to give them cancer.

Smoking may not serve a purpose like a car, but for a smoker it is a necessity. Regardless of why they started (usually as a teenager when the brain has not yet developed consequence and decisions fully), they need to do it. Addiction is not a choice, it is a disease, as you will find in the diagnostic statistics manual for mental disorders. Choice is not a part of the equation until active addiction has been broken.

I can agree that there are smokers who need to think more about others, just like there are non smokers who do. I'm sure when you see other litter on the ground you define it by category of people. "Those darn snickers eaters." I think categorizing the group as a whole is wrong. I'm not saying you, or anyone who has posted does this, but people do judge smoker's morals just from their bad habit, and that's not cool.

PS I haven't heard of cows upping the carbon levels and contributing to the greenhouse effect. I know they release methane into the air, but yea. Interesting, I will have to read about that.


I realize I'm being a bit of a sarcastic arse, but this kind of thing just bugs me. It bugs me that people get so upset over some things when other things are not given a second thought, and the fact that this attitude usually stems from our media...I won't get started on that since I probably wouldn't stop. Lastly, it bugs me as a scientist when money can influence decisions and conformation bias so obvious is let slide by "professionals." This discredits all of us.

 

[addo]

Smoking, however, is an unnecessary choice. What do you have to do that smoking permits? What basic need is met by lighting up a cigarette (aside from relief from withdrawal symptoms)? All that you're doing when you light up a cigarette, puff it for ten minutes, and flick the butt onto the ground is polluting the air for those around you, damaging your body, feeding your addiction, and littering.

Yea we should probably relax, but this is where the patriot would stand up and say "this is a free country, lady".

But seriously, who is to say what is necessary and what is not? I agree that it is not necessary to smoke, but my friend who smokes a pack a day disagrees on that one, and I can live with that. Telling a smoker that smoking is not necessary, is like telling a religious nutjob that hell doesnt exist, or that religion is not necessary.
Also, why dont we stop using transportation and everything that pollutes altogether, except for what is strictly necessary? Nobody is going to get anywhere with an argument like that, and nobody would even agree on whats "necessary", but it follows from what youre saying.

Be a little tolerant, and as long as they are not smoking indoors, or in your house, or even in crowded spaces outside then smoking shouldnt concern you in the least bit, not even enough that you come rant about them on SDN- given that they dont litter, but thats a completely different issue, which you are legally not allowed to do anyways.

 

[Janieve]

Yea we should probably relax, but this is where the patriot would stand up and say "this is a free country, lady".

But seriously, who is to say what is necessary and what is not? I agree that it is not necessary to smoke, but my friend who smokes a pack a day disagrees on that one, and I can live with that. Telling a smoker that smoking is not necessary, is like telling a religious nutjob that hell doesnt exist, or that religion is not necessary.
Also, why dont we stop using transportation and everything that pollutes altogether, except for what is strictly necessary? Nobody is going to get anywhere with an argument like that, and nobody would even agree on whats "necessary", but it follows from what youre saying.

Be a little tolerant, and as long as they are not smoking indoors, or in your house, or even in crowded spaces outside then smoking shouldnt concern you in the least bit, not even enough that you come rant about them on SDN- given that they dont litter, but thats a completely different issue, which you are legally not allowed to do anyways.

I live in the biggest city in my state right now, and before that I lived in Tokyo. Both places, it's hard to avoid smokers. I open the door to walk outside my building - whoosh, smoke in my face. I wait for the crosswalk to turn - whoosh, smoke in my face. I walk down the street, any street - whoosh, smoke in my face. It doesn't matter where I go; there's always smoke blowing straight at me. My lungs are damaged from a severe case of pneumonia already, and cigarette smoke makes it worse.

And towards your other arguments, in my city, there are more pedestrians and bikes than cars already, and there's a vegan shop on every corner. It's also an alternative fuels hub and has first-rate public transportation. So yeah, I see a future where we're not using fossil fuels and where food production and such does not harm the atmosphere so badly. Do I see a future without tobacco? Nope. People will always think it's 'necessary'.

And trust me, I know how a smoker views their addiction. To them, it's the most important thing in the world. My mother had a heart attack after smoking 33 years, had to stay in the hospital for a week, and the moment she got out, what was the first thing she asked for? "I'd like to visit my friends"? "I'm tired - let's go straight home"? No, the first words out of her mouth were, "Let's stop by a gas station so I can get a pack of cigarettes". She's since managed to quit, but she still struggles.

Again, I'm a harsh ass, but I have had a lot of time and a lot of reason to formulate my opinion on this. It's not like I b*tch out individual smokers every chance I get or hold protests and such; I just have an opinion. The most I'll ever do is say, "excuse me, could you smoke somewhere else? This kid and I have lung problems" or "could you not throw that butt on the ground? There's a bin right there."

 

[surftheiop]

Being a doctor who smokes would be depressing, you would finish residency and then probably only have like 20-35 years before you develop tons of major health problems and/or die


0 years is the start of the study with men in their 40s/50s

http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content-nw/full/168/18/1968/IOI80093F1

 

[45408]

I'm sorry, but unless you're lying, you're pre-med. Far from the person to trust about that statement.

He's still right. The one smoker I knew in my class (of 200) dropped out. There were a few "I smoke when I drink" types, but that was it.

 

[45408]

I just can't believe the cognitive dissonance that must go on inside a physician's head when they smoke. Either that or the nicotine bliss just outweighs the idea of having your arteriosclerotic legs covered in venous stasis changes amputated under MAC because your crappy lungs would never tolerate general anesthesia.

Same goes for obesity, but the difference is that eating is something that we all need to do several times a day. I can see how you can just eat more than you need to on a consistent basis. Smoking is something you never need to do, and you have to go out of your way to do it at all.

 

[Kaustikos]

He's still right. The one smoker I knew in my class (of 200) dropped out. There were a few "I smoke when I drink" types, but that was it.

Well, yeah, I know. But I mistakingly thought he/she was a presumptuous premed, no offense.


And it's sickening how right Bacchus is, though, about lung cancer.


Anyways, smoking's cool! Do it, kids!

 

[LawNonTrad]

To be honest, I think it's terrible for physicians especially to smoke - how are you a good example for your patients when you suffer an addiction, make no attempts to stop it, and knowingly put others at risk for inhaling carcinogens?

I'll admit that I judge smokers pretty harshly. I've seen what it can do - my mother smoked for 33 years and had a heart attack at age 50. My grandfather smoked through his entire adult life and ended up with cancer - his doctors were convinced it was because he smoked. And my cousin had a baby with cystic fibrosis; she can't take him out to family gatherings because everyone smokes and it irritates his condition.

Granted, there are some considerate smokers. You know, the ones who only smoke in designated areas and who make sure their smoke doesn't blow in anyone's face. These people are also usually mindful of where their cigarette butts end up. I have less of a problem with those smokers.

But smokers on the whole I find to be complete a**holes. They swing their lit cigarettes as they walk; I've seen one accidentally shove the lit end into a kid's eye before! They don't pay attention to where their smoke goes and it ends up blowing right into a bunch of people's faces. They smoke around children and the elderly and improperly dispose of cigarette butts. What makes throwing a cigarette on the ground more acceptable than a gum wrapper or a receipt? Not to mention that a lot of the time they don't even stamp them out. How many fires per year are started just because some idiot dropped a lit cigarette?

I honestly have no idea why people start smoking, and I find people who do to be incredibly stupid. Whatever the reason you started, you're going to have to deal with the consequences. Sickness, premature aging, etc. It's all on you.

I don't even date smokers. No matter how awesome someone is, if they smoke, I'm saying no. I don't want to deal with their crap.

So yeah, I'm harsh. But I have my reasons.

Why single out smokers? What about obese doctors? Aren't they setting a terrible example for their patients as well? Especially because I doubt that most doctors who smoke do so in front of their patients, but every single patient of an obese doctor knows that their doctor is obese. The surgeon general of this country is obese. What a great example for our children. But it's fine, right? Because she doesn't smoke. And if it's not fine that they're obese, then why is it that we focus all of our attention on smoking? Obesity kills more people than smoking now. Sure, we pay lip service to obesity and talk about more recreation time for kids, but when you have lots of doctors that are obese, doesn't really seem like the message is getting through.

I know people who smoke and I don't see them sticking cigarettes in the mouths of their children. But I do see obese people taking their children to McDonald's four times a week. If smokers who smoke in front of kids are child abusers then so are obese parents.

Besides, smokers save us money by dying early and not collecting Social Security. They also pay through the nose in cigarette taxes in most states. Maybe we need an obesity tax.

They are related issues despite what you may think. Smokers are thinner on average. Smoking and being a normal weight carries equivalent health risks to being an obese non-smoker.

 

[45408]

Why single out smokers? What about obese doctors? Aren't they setting a terrible example for their patients as well? Especially because I doubt that most doctors who smoke do so in front of their patients, but every single patient of an obese doctor knows that their doctor is obese. The surgeon general of this country is obese. What a great example for our children. But it's fine, right? Because she doesn't smoke. And if it's not fine that they're obese, then why is it that we focus all of our attention on smoking? Obesity kills more people than smoking now. Sure, we pay lip service to obesity and talk about more recreation time for kids, but when you have lots of doctors that are obese, doesn't really seem like the message is getting through.

I know people who smoke and I don't see them sticking cigarettes in the mouths of their children. But I do see obese people taking their children to McDonald's four times a week. If smokers who smoke in front of kids are child abusers then so are obese parents.

http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showpost.php?p=10060528&postcount=74

Besides, smokers save us money by dying early and not collecting Social Security. They also pay through the nose in cigarette taxes in most states. Maybe we need an obesity tax.

They waste our money by going on constant smoke breaks and being less productive too.

They are related issues despite what you may think. Smokers are thinner on average. Smoking and being a normal weight carries equivalent health risks to being an obese non-smoker.

Source?

 

[Perrotfish]

Intersting story: today I found out the hospital I'm working at will no longer be hiring smokers for ANY position within the hospital, whether doctors or cleaning crew. When you apply they're going to give you a blood test to see if you've had any nicotine in the past 30 days and, if you pop positive, they won't hire you.

It had nothing to do with setting an example, though. Apparently they found out that another hospital nearby did the same thing and was able to have a huge reduction in their health insurance budget.

 

[Janieve]

Intersting story: today I found out the hospital I'm working at will no longer be hiring smokers for ANY position within the hospital, whether doctors or cleaning crew. When you apply they're going to give you a blood test to see if you've had any nicotine in the past 30 days and, if you pop positive, they won't hire you.

It had nothing to do with setting an example, though. Apparently they found out that another hospital nearby did the same thing and was able to have a huge reduction in their health insurance budget.

I dunno what I think of that. I'm anti-smoking, but I don't think it should automatically preclude you from a job if you're qualified and follow company rules regarding smoking.

 

[ArcGurren]

Why single out smokers? What about obese doctors? Aren't they setting a terrible example for their patients as well? Especially because I doubt that most doctors who smoke do so in front of their patients, but every single patient of an obese doctor knows that their doctor is obese. The surgeon general of this country is obese. What a great example for our children. But it's fine, right? Because she doesn't smoke. And if it's not fine that they're obese, then why is it that we focus all of our attention on smoking? Obesity kills more people than smoking now. Sure, we pay lip service to obesity and talk about more recreation time for kids, but when you have lots of doctors that are obese, doesn't really seem like the message is getting through.

I know people who smoke and I don't see them sticking cigarettes in the mouths of their children. But I do see obese people taking their children to McDonald's four times a week. If smokers who smoke in front of kids are child abusers then so are obese parents.

Besides, smokers save us money by dying early and not collecting Social Security. They also pay through the nose in cigarette taxes in most states. Maybe we need an obesity tax.

They are related issues despite what you may think. Smokers are thinner on average. Smoking and being a normal weight carries equivalent health risks to being an obese non-smoker.

Lolwut?

 

[DrDrummer]

Intersting story: today I found out the hospital I'm working at will no longer be hiring smokers for ANY position within the hospital, whether doctors or cleaning crew. When you apply they're going to give you a blood test to see if you've had any nicotine in the past 30 days and, if you pop positive, they won't hire you.

It had nothing to do with setting an example, though. Apparently they found out that another hospital nearby did the same thing and was able to have a huge reduction in their health insurance budget.

It's interesting to me that that's legal. Are there precedents that have established that hiring smokers places some sort of undue burden on the shoulders of the business that overrides the smokers' ability to do something legal? I wonder what the cut-off point will eventually be, in terms of "within the past x days", as testing becomes more accurate.

 

[Perrotfish]

It's interesting to me that that's legal. Are there precedents that have established that hiring smokers places some sort of undue burden on the shoulders of the business that overrides the smokers' ability to do something legal? I wonder what the cut-off point will eventually be, in terms of "within the past x days", as testing becomes more accurate.

Like I said, the undue burden is providing health insurance. Apparently 16% of this hospital's budget goes to paying for health insurance for their employees. Another local hospital was in the same place 10 years ago, and by instituting this rule they reduced their health insurance costs to only 7% of their budget.

 

[b-real]

The Cleveland Clinic has been doing this for a few years now. http://www.clevelandclinic.org/education/gme/applicants.asp They look for cotinine - a nicotine metabolite - in the prospective employee's blood.

Beginning September 1, 2007, appointments that have been offered to prospective residents and fellows who test positive will be rescinded. Individuals who test positive will receive a referral to a tobacco cessation program paid for by Cleveland Clinic. Those individuals testing positive who test negative after 90 days may be reconsidered for appointment at the discretion of the program director should the residency position remain vacant

 

[chiz2kul]

They are related issues despite what you may think. Smokers are thinner on average. Smoking and being a normal weight carries equivalent health risks to being an obese non-smoker.

looooooooooooool

the things you read on here these days

 

[Immutef]

pre-meds? Don't care.

Physicians? I would really find it hard to believe that they can still smoke considering how much knowledge they have about its effects. But to each his own.

I know several Respiratory Therapists who smoke. Never understood that one....

 

[45408]

Intersting story: today I found out the hospital I'm working at will no longer be hiring smokers for ANY position within the hospital, whether doctors or cleaning crew. When you apply they're going to give you a blood test to see if you've had any nicotine in the past 30 days and, if you pop positive, they won't hire you.

It had nothing to do with setting an example, though. Apparently they found out that another hospital nearby did the same thing and was able to have a huge reduction in their health insurance budget.

The Cleveland Clinic told us they were doing that when I interviewed there. Current employees who did smoke were enrolled in cessation treatment programs.

 

[familyaerospace]

The hospital where I volunteer has a no-smoking policy. If you smoke, you are not allowed to work there. They claim they will even make you submit to a nicotine test if they think you smoked something.

Harsh, but I like the idea. It means that I will not go into a coughing spasm if I am around doctors there.

 

[chman]

The hospital where I volunteer has a no-smoking policy. If you smoke, you are not allowed to work there. They claim they will even make you submit to a nicotine test if they think you smoked something.

Harsh, but I like the idea. It means that I will not go into a coughing spasm if I am around doctors there.

I think it is fine for employers to have a policy that their employees are not allowed to smoke at work. However, to tell people what they can and can't do in their own time, off the clock, is absolutely asinine. Again I must cite our personal freedoms. Sure, it is fine as long as they are kicking around the smokers, but what happens when they start testing you for trans fat? That's outrageous...right?

 

[familyaerospace]

I think it is fine for employers to have a policy that their employees are not allowed to smoke at work. However, to tell people what they can and can't do in their own time, off the clock, is absolutely asinine. Again I must cite our personal freedoms. Sure, it is fine as long as they are kicking around the smokers, but what happens when they start testing you for trans fat? That's outrageous...right?

If you don't like it, you don't have to apply to work there. They are very clear about that before you apply.

As a libertarian, I am all for personal freedoms. I am however supportive of their rule. You can easily choose not to apply there, there is a certain freedom that allows one to choose where to and where not to apply.

 

[PSimmons]

Wait, do medical schools test for drug use?

I've been known to toke up on the Mary Jane from time to time. 😀

 

[bacalaca]

It's actually pretty accurate. From my experience many med students tend to be the type A personality that carries over from school to their daily lives. Hence, many don't smoke and a lot are in pretty good shape as they run/workout/ball etc. Very surprising since the bio grad students, on the other hand, tend to be slobs as they just sit in lab and get fat. Most anyway

I can definitely vouch for that. Pretty much how it is at my school, there are like only a few smokers. Ironically, there seem to be a lot more really buff people in med school than I saw in college... most want to go into ortho... go figure.

 

[Rendar5]

I realize this is going way back in the thread, but second hand smoke does not cause lung cancer. You have to look at the data and the methods of 100's of studies and meta-analyses and time and time again it fails to show any real signficance (don't look at the abstracts or the discussions, those tend to lead you astray). I'm honestly pissed that the NIH site actually espouses that garbage (20-30% risk increase my ass). Possibly increase the risk of SIDS? sure. exacerbate asthma and respiratory problems? yep. Cancer? nope. Read the actual studies.

Second hand smoke sucks for a huge variety of reasons; but to everyone complaining about how it's causing you cancer, if it' fails to to increase cancer rates in 20+yr spouses of 2pack/day heavy smokers, it's not gonna cause you damage by being in your face for 5 minutes outdoors (though if you wanna punch the person in the face for breathing it in your face be my guest, I'll cheer for ya)

 

[Kaustikos]

http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showpost.php?p=10060528&postcount=74


They waste our money by going on constant smoke breaks and being less productive too.

And obese people aren't going to waste our money by going on dialysis at the age of 40? And obese aren't less productive than healthy people? I hate this ridiculous idea that we point fingers on smokers but we're reluctant to point fingers at obese/unhealthy people. Why?

Also, you don't need to have a source, just look at the past when people constantly smoked - smoking is an appetite suppressant (successful) and lead to "thinner" people. Now, whether the benefits of being "skinny" outweighed lung cancer...

This is a biased, one-sided argument. Argue that it's bad, yes, but I hate fat people as much as I hate smokers. So, if you want to lambast smokers, do it to fat people, too.

 

[Kaustikos]

I realize this is going way back in the thread, but second hand smoke does not cause lung cancer. You have to look at the data and the methods of 100's of studies and meta-analyses and time and time again it fails to show any real signficance (don't look at the abstracts or the discussions, those tend to lead you astray). I'm honestly pissed that the NIH site actually espouses that garbage (20-30% risk increase my ass). Possibly increase the risk of SIDS? sure. exacerbate asthma and respiratory problems? yep. Cancer? nope. Read the actual studies.

Second hand smoke sucks for a huge variety of reasons; but to everyone complaining about how it's causing you cancer, if it' fails to to increase cancer rates in 20+yr spouses of 2pack/day heavy smokers, it's not gonna cause you damage by being in your face for 5 minutes outdoors (though if you wanna punch the person in the face for breathing it in your face be my guest, I'll cheer for ya)

To be fair, there are sooo many ****ty/terrible articles that come out (I would love to source Atkins diet articles, but I'm too lazy) for various topics. It's just unfortunate that this one has been so widely used. I'm going to create a paper that says eating McDonalds/fast food gives you brain cancer...

 

[NickNaylor]

I smoke a pipe occasionally, am I going to be a bad doctor?

 

[Kaustikos]

I smoke a pipe occasionally, am I going to be a bad doctor?

You're going to be a TERRIBLE doctor






I smoke on occasion - both cigars and cigarettes. I also run 6 miles/day and lift.

 

[OtoHNS]

There were maybe 3 or 4 regular smokers in my medical school class. There were quite a few more who smoked a cig or 2 when out drinking. Overall, the percentage of smokers is substantially less in the medical population.
There are, however, quite a few borderline or even full-fledged alcoholics in med school. Usually they are more the intermittent blackout binge-drinking variety than the drink all-day-every-day variety.

 

[45408]

And obese people aren't going to waste our money by going on dialysis at the age of 40? And obese aren't less productive than healthy people? I hate this ridiculous idea that we point fingers on smokers but we're reluctant to point fingers at obese/unhealthy people. Why?

Where did I say any of those things? I didn't.

Also, you don't need to have a source, just look at the past when people constantly smoked - smoking is an appetite suppressant (successful) and lead to "thinner" people. Now, whether the benefits of being "skinny" outweighed lung cancer...

Lung cancer is an uncommon outcome of smoking. COPD and arteriosclerosis are common outcomes. That's what you need to weigh against being skinny.

This is a biased, one-sided argument. Argue that it's bad, yes, but I hate fat people as much as I hate smokers. So, if you want to lambast smokers, do it to fat people, too.

This isn't a thread about obesity. It's titled "Smokers," so the conversation is ensuing accordingly. At this point, obesity is a much bigger problem than smoking, IMO.

 

[Ischemic]

Lolwut?

Don't worry bout it buddy. Lawnontrad always makes ridiculous comparisons to things that are only tangentially related at best. Must be that wonderful schooling she got at her "top law school" ... how to distract from the real argument by putting up such ridiculous BS it stuns logic in its tracks.

 

[Kaustikos]

Where did I say any of those things? I didn't.

No, you didn't. I'm stating that the attitude in this thread is unwarranted.

Lung cancer is an uncommon outcome of smoking. COPD and arteriosclerosis are common outcomes. That's what you need to weigh against being skinny.

arteriosclerosis, diabetes, etc - I'm just saying that people are paying too much attention to smoking as this devilishly terrible habit while completely missing, imo, the real threat.

This isn't a thread about obesity. It's titled "Smokers," so the conversation is ensuing accordingly. At this point, obesity is a much bigger problem than smoking, IMO.

Yes, it is titled smokers, but people weigh the risks too heavily and act like everyone still does it. It just seems like an overplayed argument.