Medford's Anti-smoking ban

[justanother171]

Hey all.. I read an article in the newspaper about a smoking ban in medford for all emergency personnel while on duty. I was curious if someone from medford could explain it a little bit because the newspaper didn't really go in depth. Also I was wondering what everyone's thoughts are on this new policy instituted and when it goes into effect.

thanks in advance for your help

[hp4l]

I don't know the exact specifics but this is what I gathered from talking to some of the guys. While on duty, no tobacco is to be used (cigarettes, cigars, chew, etc). I believe it is just while "on duty." So when the career staff is working, they cannot use tobacco and no one can during an incident. I don't think it has passed yet because there is a meeting with their town council this week I believe.

I personally don't smoke with the exception of the occasional cigar. I can see how this would upset people that do smoke though. It's a good way to promote better health but they can only mandate this while on duty. I guess time will tell if this works out. I know that when they first hired career firefighters, they tried making all career firefighters tobacco free 24/7. That failed though.

[justanother171]

thanks!

i dont smoke either, i just saw it in the paper. it looks like a step forward, but its gotta be a pain in the ass for the smokers, especially the volunteers..

[thelurker]

I am an ex-smoker, but I still don't understand how they can do this. I can see banning it from the firehouse, but how can you tell someone they have to be tobacco free? People are not property, if they want to smoke it is of their own free will. Freedom of choice is what America is based on. The non-smokers didn't want to sit with the smokers at resturants, so they made seperate sections, but that wasn't enough, so they made the whole resturant non-smoking. That still wasn't enough, and the smokers had to move away from the door. Then they took the bars away. Now the Non-smokers are telling us that we can't use tobacco if we want a job.This is bull shit and it has to end. Enough is enough. I don't know what the make up is of smokers/non-smokers in D-25, but the smokers should put their foot down. If you have the numbers, stage a walkout. WTF are we living in a dictatorship now? So if someone chooses to go outside and smoke, then let them. The smokers have given and given, its time for the non-smokers to stay inside, breathe and breathe their clean air. Plus if they are inside, the people outside can't hear them whining.

Please don't start on me about the health risks either. You go into burning buildings you fools, that is a huge health risk. Ever done overhaul?? I know you didn't wear your mask the whole time...another health risk. How about all of the internal combustion motors in your department? Yep, health risks there too. We have plymovents, and still washed the diesel soot off the walls and doors in the station the other day. So seriously, they aren't that effective.
How about we start letting people be accountable for themselves like they should be. No one made me smoke, I chose it myself. I have been cigarette free for almost a year and a half now, and I still fight the addiction every day. If people want to put themselves in that situation, then let them, they know the risks. Regardless of that, I can't see how restricting these smokers rights has any serious effect on anything.

[hp4l]

The way I understand it, this would be just while "on duty." This wouldn't be a "lifestyle" change for lack of a better term. Like I said, I don't smoke, but for those that do, if you want a cigarette at rehab or while on "break" while working, then I say have at it. Unfortunately, I know this is going to piss a lot of guys off in D25, and anywhere else that may try it. I just hope they fight it.

[smiley]

As kind of a smoker. everyonce in a while. i think its a bad idea. but thats just me. i mean i see a lot of people come out of a fire and light up a ciggerate. so i mean that could also rasie a lot of hell. not that it prob hasnt already. im not saying im not all for the ban. but i mean they could at least limit them.

[papacheese]

I'm a smoker, so my opinion will be suspect, but personally I think there's a whole list of things more important to address than this. The whole "smoking as a social disease" thing is part of the process of making it so difficult and unacceptable that people will eventually give it up. In my opinion, it goes too far, but as my department's Health and Safety Officer, I'm supposed to be encouraging healthy behavior. As Lurker suggests, at what point does the demands of the job outweigh personal choice? You could make a good argument that alcohol eventually corrodes the mind and body and as a result, demand that members don't drink....good luck with that one.

As a smoker, I fully appreciate and respect a non-smoker's right to breath air that's not tainted with smoke...and do not complain about going outside. I also wish I had never started...but that's another story.

Before we address personal choice issues, we need to get cooperative ones resolved, like instilling crew integrity, responsibilty for personal safety, situational awareness, following SOP/SOGs, staying in reasonable shape, slowing down while responding, wearing seatbelts, and avoiding monumentally stupid behaviors.

Just my two cents...

[shader101]

let see coffee gives you a sorta rush so does sugar , artifical food colors, some people get one from salt, too much startch in snack foods, why just stop there the list is almost endless, to me looks pretty much the same thing that happen in 1930's germany, one at at time civil libertys were removed, i'm with papa lets focus on more important problems in the fire service!

[cfd2037]

I'm a smoker too, so here's my take on it.

The career personel are an "investment", if you will. They need to get as much out of their investment as possible, correct? You wouldn't get much out of someone whose hacking away, coughing up a lung trying to hump hose to the scene or some other strenuous task. That'd be considered a bad investment. If you make your "investment" a little more healthier, you get more out of it. Follow me??

Like I said, I'm a smoker, so I get a little aggitated when someone, somewhere tries to take away our little vice. But I understand the employers view of this. I don't happen to agree with it though.

[voyager9]

I don't think its right for an employer to dictate what an employee can, or cannot do in their off-hours. At the same time it is completely within their power to restrict what happens on the clock or on their property. They can certainly say No Smoking on fire department property (buildings and trucks) and and that Employees cannot smoke while in fire department uniforms..

LMCO made this same change about a year ago. No smoking on company property (including parking lots). They were even "honest" enough to admit it was to reduce medical insurance costs. I was surprised there wasn't more of a fight but it seems to have gone over pretty well. some employees quit, some tough it out until after work (cut down), and other just go outside the fence every 20 minutes..

[cfd2037]

voyager9 said:

I don't think its right for an employer to dictate what an employee can, or cannot do in their off-hours....

I agree, I don't think it's right for the employer to dictate what an employee can do either. But alot of times it's not the employer, but the insurance company the employer has that tells the employer "Hey...no smoking or we drop your policy or up your premium till your a$$ bleeds"."

[rp42]

Doesn't Mt. Laurel have a no tobacco use?