Cotinine test/screen - Page 2 - Cigar Asylum Cigar Forum

Originally Posted by hotreds:
I also feel this is waay beyond the pale. They are basically telling you what you can and can't do at home. Next, as Duane indicated, they'll say you have to weight under 250 lbs to be employed. Suffice it to say, I'm not giving up my cigars for ANY job. That being said, I'm sure I could pass the test, but dunno if I'd want to work for the GESTAPO.

Hugh, you SHOULDN'T have to pass up a job because you smoke. That's what you'll have to do if you don't want to quit. That's not right.
[Reply]

Hugh, I sat a week and two days without a cigar and I am a 2-4 cigar per week smoker. I drank plenty of water, a little more than normal. Screen came back good. YMMV.
[Reply]

Some Google research and I learned a few interesting things about this particular test.

Urine is the preferred medium to test, because Cotinine is concentrated about 10X higher in urine than in circulation.

Passive exposure (second hand smoke) can lead to levels as high as 30ng/ml in urine, which is consistent with levels of light smokers. The FBR website specifically states that there is no determining line between a light smoker and someone who is exposed to secondhand smoke in sufficient quantities.

Sounds like you were hanging out at the local dive bar last week a few times. :-)
[Reply]

No reason for a new thread -

Our most recent enrollment is now going to require tobacco screening with our normal random drug testing. Else you pay $15/week for tobacco use. What gives?? So $780 a year for me to enjoy a 3-4 cigars per week? This is absurd. Still trying to get my hands around this...
[Reply]

Originally Posted by Ogre:
Unfortunately Bear, allot of companies are going smoke free for all employees. A local hospital here wont hire any new employees that smoke.

I know this is an old post but how the hell is that legal? Its been a few years since right out of college working in HR but the farthest I've seen is testing to see what insurance you would qualify for. I can't imagine a company refusing to hire someone because they herf.
[Reply]

Originally Posted by forgop:
Yep

The next class coming will be the obese.

Thats been present under the table for years and years. I know personally as I once was...
[Reply]

Worked for an insurance company for years. This is becoming a much more common thing...as is the obesity screening. Many insurance companies offer discounts for smoke free employees, wellness programs, percentage of employees with "healthy" BMI's, etc, etc.

Many many many studies out there to prove healthy employees are more productive employees and healthy employees are cheaper to insure...less medical claims. While I agree that occasional cigar smoking isn't really a big deal, the tests don't discriminate HOW the cotinine enters your system.

This is the reality. Smoking IS bad for you. Drinking IS bad for you. Being overweight IS bad for you. To argue otherwise is simply denial.

Employers view employees as a tool and insurers view them as a risk. Employers want to get the most use out of their tools and insurers want to mitigate their risk. "Encouraging" better behavior through financial pressure is an effective way to accomplish both those goals.

While I have serious issues with Govt interference in personal choices, I have no issue with businesses choosing to lessen their risk.
[Reply]

Originally Posted by jjirons69:
No reason for a new thread -

Our most recent enrollment is now going to require tobacco screening with our normal random drug testing. Else you pay $15/week for tobacco use. What gives?? So $780 a year for me to enjoy a 3-4 cigars per week? This is absurd. Still trying to get my hands around this...

This is common practice now and I've had to declare if I was or was not a smoker on paperwork but never took a test and have never heard a personal account about not being hired because of smoking. I get the rules of the work place and such and even get no smoking on corporate grounds as yeah I smoke cigars but I don't at work and hate smelling people that come back from smoke breaks.

I don't want to "be that guy" but the poster who said "But from an employer's point of view, I can't and won't defend the smokers or the obese." I find in extremely poor taste. Propensity to obesity is genetic and to a person like myself who fought it and fought it and fought it for 25 years before I had to take the only route to "get busy living or get busy dieing" as said in "Shawshank Redemption" is astonishingly ignorant.

To refine, I'm not saying obese need to be defended but to discriminate from complete employment due to it is the same as paying a woman less for doing the same job or not hiring someone because of the color of their skin in my eyes. Prolly why I like sales as you are hero of your own story.
[Reply]

Hugh,
If you only smoke cigars and are not an inhaler, you should be fine based on my personal experience.
I did this test immediately following three days of non stop smoking at a herf and my level came back as non smoker.
My wife, who doesn't touch a cigar and rarely sits with me as I smoke came up with almost same level as me (granted, she too was at the herf but didn't smoke).
My son, an occasional cigar smoker at the time came in around the same as mine.
I wanted to have myself considered a smoker and they refused to do so based on results.
[Reply]

Originally Posted by Jasonw560:
And the insurance rates being lower. I call BS on that.

Like a local Ambulance Chaser here says, "have you EVER seen insurance rates go down, even once?"
He was talking about tort reform and how the ICs all say that tort reform will cause insurance rates to
go down. We all know that wouldn't be the result of tort reform. And every time an IC lowers your
rates, it is because you have bought your employees a package with higher deductibles is usually all.
[Reply]

Originally Posted by hotreds:
I also feel this is waay beyond the pale. They are basically telling you what you can and can't do at home.

Ford had similar policies for years.
[Reply]

Originally Posted by OLS:
Like a local Ambulance Chaser here says, "have you EVER seen insurance rates go down, even once?"
He was talking about tort reform and how the ICs all say that tort reform will cause insurance rates to
go down. We all know that wouldn't be the result of tort reform. And every time an IC lowers your
rates, it is because you have bought your employees a package with higher deductibles is usually all.

Being on both sides of the fence, consumer and insurance company manager for over 30 years, I assure you, rates go up for a reason.
Companies are in business to generate revenue, especially if publicly held.
Fraudsters are in business to defraud these insurance companies and for every100, 3 get caught. Why? Laws are created to favor the plaintiff bar,
So, who pays for this fraud? The consumer via higher premiums.
Fact is a smoker is a higher risk, hence higher premiums.

BTW, I manage an insurance fraud operation. Speaking from knowledge.
[Reply]

Originally Posted by Blueface:
Fact is a smoker is a higher risk, hence higher premiums.

BTW, I manage an insurance fraud operation. Speaking from knowledge.

I've read studies where it was shown smokers have less total insurance cost over their life than non-smokers. Basically because they die sooner and with less long term care like nursing home etc...
[Reply]