| |
|
|
Share/Bookmark this Topic:
|
| Message |
Author |
by BWilliams
on Fri Jun 29, 2007 3:34 pm |
|
A message sent to me via the contact form:
Good afternoon:
I was hoping to find a telephone number to reach someone and ask the following question:
I have a client who is in a rehabilitation/nursing center with two broken legs. He is a regular smoker, but is not allowed to smoke inside and outside the facility. The facility wants to be a totally smoke free facility inside and outside. He faxed me a copy of the smoking policy which he has to read and sign. He does not want any nicotine replacement, such as nicotine gum, patch, etc., and wants to be able to smoke outside (he is now ambulatory since he has been recovering some). If he violates, he can be discharged from the facility.I was not able to find anything in Pennsylvania that would rule the policy and required signature as unconstitutional or as illegal or inappropriate.
Can the facility require its patients to sign the agreement to totally not smoke at all? What are the smoker's rights?
Thank you and I look forward to hearing from you soon. |
|
|
BWilliams
Site Owner
Joined: Jun 05, 2003
Posts: 1082
Location: New York City
|
| |
Back to top |
|
|
| |
|
by linkup
on Fri Jun 29, 2007 8:09 pm |
|
| Don't sign the damn thing and light up.If they discharge you,get a mobile chair and smoke at home,then sue the bastards. |
|
|
linkup
Smoking Lobby Sponsor
Joined: Oct 01, 2005
Posts: 1201
Location: Anywhere but here
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
by gilster
on Sat Jun 30, 2007 7:27 am |
|
What about that lawfirm that is soliciting for cases?
All this stuff is getting really bad - we are going to need lawyers to light up.
And where the he11 is the ACLU?  |
|
|
gilster
Smokers Rights Activist
Joined: Apr 19, 2006
Posts: 833
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
by linkup
on Sat Jun 30, 2007 8:11 am |
|
gilster wrote: What about that lawfirm that is soliciting for cases?
All this stuff is getting really bad - we are going to need lawyers to light up.
And where the he11 is the ACLU? :evil:
The Law firm was www.cmht.com but right now,the site is down.
.......
The ACLU:
March 14, 2006
Remarkably, the 2006 legislative – scheduled to be a “short” 60 day session – was completed in just 59 days. Legislators introduced more than 1,700 bills during the session. Of those bills, more than 60 dealt with changes to the registration, sentencing and monitoring of sex offenders. In this hectic environment, few bills actually made their way through the entire process before the final gavel on March 8.
The ACLU celebrated one landmark victory: passage of the long-sought anti-discrimination bill. In another victory, legislators provided increasing funding for indigent defense, thereby putting teeth into a reform bill adopted last session. For our other priority issues, we have more work ahead to advance them in future sessions. Thanks to our members for your support throughout the session.
Here is how our priority measures fared:
CIVIL RIGHTS
Anti-discrimination – HB 2661
Position: Support
Status: Signed into law
For three decades, civil rights advocates have worked to pass statewide protections against discrimination based on sexual orientation in employment, housing, public accommodations and other areas. HB 2661 extends the jurisdiction of the Human Rights Commission to include discrimination based on sexual orientation. As happened last year, it again passed the House with a comfortable margin. This time, in the Senate the bill passed with a two-vote majority, 25–23 (with one senator excused).
While we are excited by the victory, we are concerned that opponents of the anti-discrimination measure are working to have the bill overturned. We anticipate that we will see signature gatherers working as early as this spring on an initiative to overturn HB 2661. We ask people to carefully read all petitions circulated this year and decline to sign petitions for initiatives with misleading claims or titles.
RELIGIOUS FREEDOM
Religious exemption to the Clean Indoor Air Act – SB 6213, HB 2652
Position: Support
Status: Did not pass
In November 2005, the voters overwhelming approved a statewide smoking ban. Unfortunately, the drafters of the initiative did not consider the impact the ban would have on certain religious rituals. A number of religions incorporate smoke or smoking in their ceremonies. The smoking ban unconstitutionally prohibits these practices. These bills would have simply inserted a religious exemption into the Clean Indoor Air Act to make the statute constitutional. We had strong support from a number of legislators. However, the bills did not pass due to the concern that the change would be interpreted as a reversal of the initiative and a rejection of the “will of the people.” We will continue to work on this issue in different arenas, and we may seek to pass this legislation next year if it is still needed.
Do we see anything of value in the smokers arena? |
|
|
linkup
Smoking Lobby Sponsor
Joined: Oct 01, 2005
Posts: 1201
Location: Anywhere but here
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
by Lynda F
on Sat Jun 30, 2007 8:30 am |
|
The ACLU is anti-smoking. They'll NEVER go to bat for OUR civil rights.
As far as the re-hab center goes, I see it as one of those double-edged swords. On the one hand we all sit here bemoaning the fact that the government and nannies are stripping away the right of the business owner to choose for himself whether to allow smoking or not. Then the other hand comes around and we find businesses that DO make the choice on their own and we still get up in arms. I know I do. And I have to keep reminding myself that if they did it on their own that is their right.............I just don't have to agree with it or patronize that place.
While rehab centers are not bars and restaurants, they are still businesses and the owners/administrators ARE well within their rights to make a decision as to what goes on there. Granted, most people in re-hab didn't choose to need to be there, but that doesn't negate the owners right to set his property's policy.
So while we are fighting "smoke-free" being forced on everyone, we have to also remember that forcing "smoke-allowed" is just as bad.
With the third hand (I just made that up) I really don't see any reason to not advocate for an outdoor smoking area, preferably one designed to protect from the elements, on the property to comfortably accommodate the patients who do smoke in order to aid in their re-hab recovery with as little stress as possible. Healthcare facility or not, every single patient has a "bad" habit that is not considered good health, so unless you ban them all, banning the smoking alone anywhere is just outright discriminatory.
If that man is somewhat ambulatory, then perhaps doing re-hab on an out-patient basis might be best, or having therapists do home visits for his re-hab. |
|
|
Lynda F
Enthusiastic Smoker
Joined: May 02, 2007
Posts: 365
Location: Phoenix, AZ
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
by linkup
on Sat Jun 30, 2007 8:36 am |
|
"With the third hand (I just made that up) I really don't see any reason to not advocate for an outdoor smoking area, preferably one designed to protect from the elements, on the property to comfortably accommodate the patients who do smoke in order to aid in their re-hab recovery with as little stress as possible. Healthcare facility or not, every single patient has a "bad" habit that is not considered good health, so unless you ban them all, banning the smoking alone anywhere is just outright discriminatory".
Well said,Lynda! And that is what that patient must demand! |
|
|
linkup
Smoking Lobby Sponsor
Joined: Oct 01, 2005
Posts: 1201
Location: Anywhere but here
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
by linkup
on Sat Jun 30, 2007 8:46 am |
|
| Just thought that there could be a huge market for home health care smoking nurses,rehab specialists. Otherwise,smokers at home,may not be able to get care from non-smokers. |
|
|
linkup
Smoking Lobby Sponsor
Joined: Oct 01, 2005
Posts: 1201
Location: Anywhere but here
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
|
|
