Vexcalibur
Proud to be smug as heck
![]()
Joined: Jan 18, 2008
Posts: 5378
|
 Posted: Mon Jul 18, 2011 12:38 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Raptor wrote: | I don't smoke.
However, I could care less who else does or does not because it’s their choice and their health risk.
At work smokers have to go outside to smoke.
That itself wasn’t good enough so then the smokers could only use one area outside the building so the non-smokers wouldn’t be exposed to second hand smoke in the few seconds it took from them to pass by a smoker or two in and open air environment.
Now they complain that the smokers come in from that one smoke area with the cigarette smoke odor on their clothes.
It’s not about health it’s about imposing one’s will on others! |
Just because people are now complaining about odor, it doesn't mean the stupid smokers should be allowed to risk everyone else's health by smoking inside.
And yes, people complain about the odor because it is disgusting odor. You can't drink at work and at least alcohol doesn't intoxicate people that are not drinking it. Nobody is entitled to smoke in areas they don't own. If most of the people in a company would rather not smell stinky smokers then the company should handle that issue to make workers productive, healthy and happy and they can certainly do it, as it is their property and all.
If they wanted a self-destructive habit so much, they should consider choking. At least it is free, other people don't choke when you do it and it doesn't make you stink. Don't get me wrong, choking is a very stupid thing to do, but even that ultra stupid thing is about 400% a smarter choice than cigarrettes.
.
_________________
. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Fnord
Enigmatic Threadkilling Metasyntactic Variable
Joined: May 07, 2008
Posts: 17835
Location: Stendec
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 18, 2011 12:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
I've filed harassment charges against co-workers for literally blowing smoke in my face while on the job, and won.
Now my company has a strict "No Smoking on Company Property, While Conducting Company Business, While Wearing a Company Uniform, or Within Company Vehicles Under Penalty of Immediate Dismissal" policy.
Neener. 
Neener.
Neener.
_________________
* Believing in myths allows the comfort of having an opinion without the discomfort of having to think.
* Believing that you're worthless allows the comfort of having something to complain about without the discomfort of having to change. |
|
| Back to top |
|
zena4
Phoenix
Joined: Jan 31, 2009
Posts: 5962
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 18, 2011 1:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
Pfffff
Pfffff
Pffff |
|
| Back to top |
|
NOBS
Deinonychus
Joined: Apr 20, 2008
Age: 50
Posts: 305
Location: Alaska
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 18, 2011 1:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fnord wrote: | I've filed harassment charges against co-workers for literally blowing smoke in my face while on the job, and won.
Now my company has a strict "No Smoking on Company Property, While Conducting Company Business, While Wearing a Company Uniform, or Within Company Vehicles Under Penalty of Immediate Dismissal" policy.
Neener.
Neener.
Neener. |
On that same premise, it might well be argued that no one should have to put up with the physical, health damaging stress of putting up with arrogant, pompous, a-holes like ourselves. I have witnessed the physical manifestations of this stress myself on many occasions, in the form of red faces, veins bulging from necks and foreheads, etc.. Aspies should be immediately ejected from the workplace, and society as a whole for the good of the collective.
I'll meet you at the bottom of the slippery slope. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Fnord
Enigmatic Threadkilling Metasyntactic Variable
Joined: May 07, 2008
Posts: 17835
Location: Stendec
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 18, 2011 1:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
First, they have to identify us as Aspies.
Then they sack us.
Then we sue for discriminatory dismissal.
Then we own the company.
_________________
* Believing in myths allows the comfort of having an opinion without the discomfort of having to think.
* Believing that you're worthless allows the comfort of having something to complain about without the discomfort of having to change. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Philologos
Phoenix
Joined: Jan 22, 2010
Posts: 6977
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 18, 2011 2:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
Unless you happen to be Sherlock Holmes - I am not - odds are any deleterious substances you ingest do enhance your on the job skills and performance.
If a Spectral is hired [assuming this person is not seen as desirable simply by reason of nepotism] it is to be presumed, given the basic goal of maximizing return on investment, that the Spectral's skills and talents and knowledge base will improve the employing agency's position.
SINCE those skills, talents, and databases are going to be to a large degree a result of the Spectral's mental makeup, the Spectral is unlikely to be let go because of mental makeup unless there are meltdowns because of immature coworkers who cannot engage in a civil discussion.
Sherlock Holmes and others [one hears of them in literature, though I have not met any in real life] whose skills are ehanced by tobacco, alcohol and other substances will likely be encouraged to indulge in the workplace, but others [like one I know] who duck out for a smoke or a drink so often you rarely seem them at their desks may expect to have their indulgence restricted or penalized. |
|
| Back to top |
|
visagrunt
Polymath
Joined: Oct 17, 2009
Age: 45
Posts: 5754
Location: Vancouver, BC
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 18, 2011 1:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
From a medical perspective any attempt to support smoking is spurious. There is no benefit from smoking that cannot be substituted in some other, less harmful way.
But even in a civilized country in which medically necessary care is available to all, I wouldn't countenance an outright ban. Tax it to the hilt, and place restrictions on its free exercise. But I can't see a justification for an outright ban.
I have absolutely no concern about erosion of the capacity of smokers to smoke in places to which the public has access. No smoking in workplaces, within 6m of a doorway or ventilation intake, I'm good with those.
But I draw the line at private homes. I recognize that in apartments and townhouses there will be cross contamination, but that's a choice that we make when we opt for condominium or townhouse living.
_________________
--James |
|
| Back to top |
|
AceOfSpades
Deeds not words
Joined: Feb 12, 2006
Posts: 3647
Location: Sean Penn, Cambodia
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 18, 2011 1:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I understand if people have issues with smoking indoors or near entrances, but goddamn that should be enough. |
|
| Back to top |
|
iamnotaparakeet
Martian
Joined: Aug 01, 2007
Age: 27
Posts: 25128
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 18, 2011 1:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| psychohist wrote: | | iamnotaparakeet wrote: | | People should have the freedom to choose whether they poison themselves or not. I saw about a half a year of my dad dying from lung cancer though and that settled it for me, but if people want to quite potentially subject themselves to a slow and painful death let it be on their own hands. People ought to really meet some people dying from lung cancer or suffering from COPD or other diseases caused by smoking before they get themselves addicted though. |
They should have the freedom to choose, but others shouldn't have to pay for their cancer care through health insurance premiums and taxes. |
True, that does sound quite unfair. I'm unfamiliar with what you are referring to specifically though. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Oodain
big chief wulla bamboom alakaway
Joined: Jan 31, 2011
Age: 23
Posts: 5022
Location: in my own little tamarillo jungle,
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 18, 2011 4:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
problem with trying to use law as a means of "comfort" to people it doesnt concern will never end well,
of course there are health risks for the smoker but second hand smoke outside pose absolutely no health risk to others,
then people will argue about the cost of healthcare for the individuals without taking heavy taxation into account.
of course these arguments work against something in everyones lives every day, we cant and shouldnt allow it to become legislation in any way.
if free choice is the goal let the owner of said facility decide, people are free to leave or not but in reality i think the amount of people smoking indoors would still be relatively low, i always smoke outside unless i literally cant light it with a storm lighter outside.
_________________
//through chaos comes complexity//
the scent of the tamarillo is pungent and powerfull,
woe be to the nose who nears it.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Philologos
Phoenix
Joined: Jan 22, 2010
Posts: 6977
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 18, 2011 4:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I do not recall a lot of people choosing to go outside to smoke in the 60s if there was an indoor option.
Around 1963 I remembere writing a somewhat facetious piece, suggesting that there might be less smoking in the university lecture halls if they removed the No Smoking signs from te walls and substituted "Smoking Required".
I have noted this:
Most people are NOT sensitive to and considerate of the concerns of others. |
|
| Back to top |
|
John_Browning
ON A LIST SOMEWHERE
Joined: Mar 23, 2009
Posts: 4456
Location: The shooting range
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 18, 2011 5:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fnord wrote: | First, they have to identify us as Aspies.
Then they sack us.
Then we sue for discriminatory dismissal.
Then we own the company.
|
Unless you live in an at will employment state, then they can fire you whenever they want without giving a reason and you won't likely come up with evidence of ADA discrimination.
_________________
"Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars."
- Unknown
"A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."
-Sigmund Freud |
|
| Back to top |
|
iamnotaparakeet
Martian
Joined: Aug 01, 2007
Age: 27
Posts: 25128
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 18, 2011 5:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| John_Browning wrote: | | Fnord wrote: | First, they have to identify us as Aspies.
Then they sack us.
Then we sue for discriminatory dismissal.
Then we own the company.
|
Unless you live in an at will employment state, then they can fire you whenever they want without giving a reason and you won't likely come up with evidence of ADA discrimination. |
I live in an at-will employment state and they can fire you with or without telling you their actual reasons for firing you. They can invent reasons that are legalistically acceptable or they can just toss you out on your ear regardless. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Tequila
Trust the people!
Joined: Feb 26, 2006
Posts: 26039
Location: Lancashire, UK
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 18, 2011 5:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Oodain wrote: | problem with trying to use law as a means of "comfort" to people it doesnt concern will never end well,
of course there are health risks for the smoker but second hand smoke outside pose absolutely no health risk to others,
then people will argue about the cost of healthcare for the individuals without taking heavy taxation into account. |
Not forgetting that often smokers, heavy drinkers and overweight people often pay heavily in taxes for what they consume and die off early in any case. But that doesn't matter to them. Anti-smokers/fatties/drinkers just want excuses to pour scorn on and discriminate against these groups.
Prohibition, or the new form of prohibition we see today (neo-prohibition) never works. The cure is, without exception, always worse than the disease. Always.
And Prohibition never worked - in fact, more people drank, the government handed the legit alcohol industry over to criminals, violence soared and the middle-classes lost respect for the law.
The same will happen again with tobacco and alcohol. Mark my words down.
The more you tax something pleasurable so that it is priced out of the range of ordinary people, the more likely people are to break the law or make their own to feed that need for that thing that they like.
Banning non-harmful things doesn't ever work. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Tequila
Trust the people!
Joined: Feb 26, 2006
Posts: 26039
Location: Lancashire, UK
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 18, 2011 5:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Oh, and let me say this to anyone here who approves of even further punishment and harassment of smokers: you're next. A case could be made for banning the things you enjoy, too. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
