Blood tests for Nicotine?

[Big_Tex]

So, assuming an individual smoked one or two bowls of tobacco a day and didn't inhale...how long would nicotine traces remain in said person's system for purposes of detection in a blood test? Purely theoretical question of course. 8)

 

[Anonymous]

From what people have said, over a month.

:face:

 

[MisterE]

What's particularly disconcerting to me is that we even have to worry about such things.

 

[serif365]

Cotinine is the metabolite that is actually measured for nicotine levels in the body. According to Wikipedia, "Cotinine has an in vivo half-life of approximately 20 hours, and is typically detectable for several days (up to one week) after the use of tobacco. The level of cotinine in the blood is proportionate to the amount of exposure to tobacco smoke, so it is a valuable indicator of tobacco smoke exposure, including secondary (passive) smoke".

 

[Big_Tex]

Cotinine is the metabolite that is actually measured for nicotine levels in the body. According to Wikipedia, "Cotinine has an in vivo half-life of approximately 20 hours, and is typically detectable for several days (up to one week) after the use of tobacco. The level of cotinine in the blood is proportionate to the amount of exposure to tobacco smoke, so it is a valuable indicator of tobacco smoke exposure, including secondary (passive) smoke".

Gotta watch out for that second hand smoke.

 

[puros_bran]

They are developing test based upon other alkaloids found in tobacco.. Mainly for the reason that their half life is longer..

As stated before beating the initial test is easy... What do you do about the emergency room test that positions you as a fraudulent applicant resulting in revocation of insurance?


Also MrE.. the people asked for, no demanded it. Universal Health Insurance IS NOT Universal Healthcare.

 

[Bullwinkle]

They are developing test based upon other alkaloids found in tobacco.. Mainly for the reason that their half life is longer..

As stated before beating the initial test is easy... What do you do about the emergency room test that positions you as a fraudulent applicant resulting in revocation of insurance?


Also MrE.. the people asked for, no demanded it. Universal Health Insurance IS NOT Universal Healthcare.

if you lied on the application you better have lied on every form you have ever filled out and have no credit card purchases of tobacco. again, no dog in the fight.. but Hospitals will hound you to the end of the earth to collect once your insurance leaves you stranded,

 

[MisterE]

They are developing test based upon other alkaloids found in tobacco.. Mainly for the reason that their half life is longer..

As stated before beating the initial test is easy... What do you do about the emergency room test that positions you as a fraudulent applicant resulting in revocation of insurance?


Also MrE.. the people asked for, no demanded it. Universal Health Insurance IS NOT Universal Healthcare.

Good point. In other words, you're covered but only on their terms.

I remember seeing movie a few years back where tobacco use had been criminalized. I thought it was a far fetched notion at the time but we're not very far from that now. :no:

 

[gravel]

Hmm. When I signed up for life insurance a couple of years ago, I revealed to the agent that I smoked occasionally. (2-5 times a month at that time). She put me down as a nonsmoker despite my admission. The blood test I took at that time was below their threshold.

Reading this thread has me concerned. :/

 

[KevinM]

I'm skeptical, because --

If you have a heart attack and yr blood test shows you've probably eaten red meat more than once a week for the past few decades, yr health insurance provider will kick back yr claim?

If you had a couple glasses of wine with dinner, drive out of a parking lot into the path of a bus, the hospital blood test shows you're over the legal limit, so your insurer is off the hook? For that matter, your auto insurer could reject your claim?

Alcoholism and drug use is considered a disability. Far as I know, the various afflictions of alcoholics and drug users are covered by insurers. Why would tobacco be treated differently?

Sounds like a full employment act for lawyers.

I'm probably missing something here.

 

[Anonymous]

That's probably the only hope there is -- a bunch of un(der)employed weasels grinding the class-action "addiction" exemption axe.

:face:

 

[puros_bran]

Keep dreaming.. they don't make abstinence from red meat and alcohol a condition of insurance premiums... Under Obamacare they are allowed to charge a 50% premium for tobacco use. You are fraudulently obtaining rates by claiming non use.

 

[KevinM]

Cotinine is the metabolite that is actually measured for nicotine levels in the body. According to Wikipedia, "Cotinine has an in vivo half-life of approximately 20 hours, and is typically detectable for several days (up to one week) after the use of tobacco. The level of cotinine in the blood is proportionate to the amount of exposure to tobacco smoke, so it is a valuable indicator of tobacco smoke exposure, including secondary (passive) smoke".

The flip side of this is that, if reliable, the test for Cotinine levels in the blood could answer the questions re: pipes vs. cigars vs. cigarettes. In each case, the cotinine enters the blood stream through the lungs. Just answer with numbers, save the explanations, please.

As someone who has smoked pipes exclusively for more than 40 years, I'd be kinda curious to take that test, particularly since my M.D. can't find any tobacco-use symptoms in me and relies on my self report as the basis for her pro-forma annual rec that I stop. "You have the BP and heart rate of a high school kid. Oh, do you still smoke a pipe?" was the way she put it last time.

 

[KevinM]

Under Obamacare they are allowed to charge a 50% premium for tobacco use. You are fraudulently obtaining rates by claiming non use.

Depends. I know quite a few old gals up North who have inherited considerable sums of cash -- six figures to the left of the decimal point, own their own homes and buy a new car when the last one is paid for -- and yet they openly talk about how nice it is to have Medicaid and pay zero for medical treatment. When I ask, "How the hell do you qualify for Medicaid?" the reply is,"I don't know. Teeheehee. My lawyer arranged it."

When you remove the drama from these things, what's often left is recognition that it's not truth or falsity, it's just record keeping and administration. Otherwise, anyone who smoked a cigar on the 4th of July and ticked the "No" box could be accused of fraud.

 

[puros_bran]

Bottom Line: You are going to lie about your tobacco use or you are going to pay the government allowed 50% premium hike for your medical insurance...

Call it what you like.. assume common sense will be used, approach it as you will but in the end if you don't fess up Where I'm from they call that Theft By Deception or more pedestrian Fraud.

 

[Gumball]

Unfortunately, as soon as 'we' allowed the government to dictate what we could ingest in to our bodies the game was stacked in their favour.

The War on Tobacco is the logical extension of the War on Drugs. Expect the War on Soda Drinks, War on Burgers etc to follow.

 

[Aristokles]

Cotinine is the metabolite that is actually measured for nicotine levels in the body. According to Wikipedia, "Cotinine has an in vivo half-life of approximately 20 hours, and is typically detectable for several days (up to one week) after the use of tobacco. The level of cotinine in the blood is proportionate to the amount of exposure to tobacco smoke, so it is a valuable indicator of tobacco smoke exposure, including secondary (passive) smoke".

The flip side of this is that, if reliable, the test for Cotinine levels in the blood could answer the questions re: pipes vs. cigars vs. cigarettes. In each case, the cotinine enters the blood stream through the lungs. Just answer with numbers, save the explanations, please.

As someone who has smoked pipes exclusively for more than 40 years, I'd be kinda curious to take that test, particularly since my M.D. can't find any tobacco-use symptoms in me and relies on my self report as the basis for her pro-forma annual rec that I stop. "You have the BP and heart rate of a high school kid. Oh, do you still smoke a pipe?" was the way she put it last time.

Back when I was (for a few years) an agent for Mutual of Omaha this question constantly came up when my client's policies would come back rated for smoker's rates when the applicant was not a smoker, or at least not a cigarette smoker. Back in those days (early 1990s) our applications asked about smoking specifically, not general tobacco use.
In dealing with our underwriters about this I learned the test for cotinine could not tell the source of the nicotine but COULD be suggestive as to source. (Soon after the aplications were changed to ask about any tobacco use). But....most interesting was the following (from memory) and on a relative scale cotinine levels measured on average:
Non-smoker/tobacco user: 1
Cigar smoker: 2
Cigarette smoker: 200
Chewer/snuff user 400

That's all I know and pipe smoking was never an issue, so I have no data other than a guess based on the cigar data. Surprising, though.

Recently I tried to research further for new data but could only find anti-tobacco studies barely if at all related.

 

[user 2031]

PB is right on the money on this. If you are a gambling man, keep gambling; chances are you won't get caught. But if you do, you can fully expect your insurance to be dropped leaving you without health insurance, the choice is yours.

This is real personal to me as I've been forced to deal with this in the last month. If you guys haven't been forced to deal with this yet, consider yourselves lucky. As I've stated in another thread recently, I have a very active, vigilant, involved insurance plan that is very much a part of their customers lives, like it or not. I took the month of January to decide what to do about this smoking thing, (while not smoking). I had to decide if I was going to pay the increasing smoker's fee or quit smoking... to me, lying is not an option. I will tell the truth even if the consequences are dire, I have to live with myself and I just can't stand to have a guilty conscience. That's just the way it is.

So anyway, today I got a new affidavit from the insurance company and signed it and faxed it back to them declaring myself as a nonsmoker. I don't really like it, but I had to do what I had to do. I really wish things were like they used to be when there was no interference in our private lives, but things aren't that way anymore. As I said, if you haven't been forced to deal with this stuff yet, consider yourself lucky.

Here is the wording on the affidavit that I had to sign... AND, we have to sign this every year.

If a (left the name of the company blank intentionally) participant misrepresents eligibility information when applying for benefits/coverage, the Company may take adverse action against the participant, including but not limited to termination of coverage. Misrepresentation and/or falsification of an enrollment form by an employee of the Company could also lead to disciplinary action up to and including termination per the Company's Personnel Policies prohibiting an employee of the Company from making false statements or falsifying a document.

So in other words, lying about tobacco use can not only result in our insurance being dropped but can also result in disciplinary action from the company in accordance with their policies.

Well, so that's what I've been up to lately... how about you? :lol:


Added: If our smoking status changes after we sign the affidavit for the year, we are required to report the change and fill out a new affidavit to reflect the status.

 

[KevinM]

I will tell the truth even if the consequences are dire,
. . .

This is an admirable policy, especially in matters in which the parties involved have common interest and equal power or have agreed on mutually binding rules. But there are limits to it, I'd say, and your practice reveals why. If you were walking down the street minding your own business and someone came up to you and asked, "How much money are you carrying?", the correct response would be some variation of, "None, get lost." and keep movng. Your obligation to tell the whole truth diminishes as your vilnerability to harm from a more powerful party increases. Besides, what you described is an exercise in file papering that is rigged aginst you.

You'll recall the Clinton response in la affaire Lewinsky.

Q: Did you have sex with Miss Lewinsky?
Clinton: (Wagging a finger) I did not have sex with that woman.

You'll recall he was not charged with perjury, because, narrowly interpreted, his response was accurate.

Ya mean that a five-pack-a-day inhaling cig smoker and a grampa who smokes a cigar every time a new grandbaby is born both have to 'fess up as tobacco users? I think your response was accurate, appropriate and you should sleep like a baby.

 

[user 2031]

I will tell the truth even if the consequences are dire,
. . .

This is an admirable policy, especially in matters in which the parties involved have common interest and equal power or have agreed on mutually binding rules. But there are limits to it, I'd say, and your practice reveals why. If you were walking down the street minding your own business and someone came up to you and asked, "How much money are you carrying?", the correct response would be some variation of, "None, get lost." and keep movng. Your obligation to tell the whole truth diminishes as your vilnerability to harm from a more powerful party increases. Besides, what you described is an exercise in file papering that is rigged aginst you.

You'll recall the Clinton response in la affaire Lewinsky.

Q: Did you have sex with Miss Lewinsky?
Clinton: (Wagging a finger) I did not have sex with that woman.

You'll recall he was not charged with perjury, because, narrowly interpreted, his response was accurate.

Ya mean that a five-pack-a-day inhaling cig smoker and a grampa who smokes a cigar every time a new grandbaby is born both have to 'fess up as tobacco users? I think your response was accurate, appropriate and you should sleep like a baby.

Nope. My response in that situation would be to pull out the concealed weapon that is ALWAYS a part of me and tell the questioner to back off. I might be honest, but I ain't no pushover.

Kevin, if you feel it is ok to lie on these forms, then by all means, go for it. Personally, I have worked too hard to build a retirement at 49 than to throw it all away because of lying on a document about smoking. The part in that document about "other penalties" concerning the company's policies... they ARE NOT kidding. Trust me! I have seen employees fired from here just a few months short of retirement. They don't play.

And when you lose a job or your retirement is flushed down the toilet for falsifying documents, you can play all the lawyering and Clinton word games you want, you are still going to be the one left to hang and sitting at home without a check OR insurance. Me, I don't want to take that risk, if you do, then more power to ya'. I'm not trying to be a smart butt, but to sit here and make people think it's not a big deal when it very well may be is irresponsible. No one that is on this board is going to pay your bills when you no longer have the means to pay them because you were fired or your insurance was dropped for smoking a (few bowls) of pipe tobacco while stating on the forms that you are a nonsmoker.

It's like PB stated, you were not FORCED into a contract with the insurance provider, you entered into it voluntary and in agreement with their terms. Just because you decide you no longer like their terms and don't want to play by their rules doesn't mean you get a free pass.

I don't like none of this stuff, but I had a choice to make, pay what they want me to pay for being a smoker, quit smoking, or deceive them and risk losing everything I've worked for. I made my choice, sorry it doesn't agree with your views.