Non-smokers deserve more annual leave or pay than smokers.

[Go Native 70]

Originally Posted By: Mantas

Originally Posted By: Go Native

So as part of their contract with their emplyer smokers have an extra bit written in saying they can have more breaks than anyone else? I'd like to see proof of that.

Proof? Contract? WTF. Who said anything about that. It's a guideline or a verbal agreement or a policy or it might be written in hieroglyphics for all I know. I just listen to the non- smokers winging all the time that they don't get the same privilages.

Jeez, are done now?

Jeez what a bunch of bloody wingers all you non smokers appear to be. You want the same breaks as smokers then just take em! Management gets upset then point out you're only having exactly the same breaks as smokers.

[BagOfCrisps 24]

By that standard then, Mamabear, perhaps 2% of smokers are 'considerate'.

[Go Native 70]

Quote:

The anti-smoking craze...has gone beyond common sense in my opinion. It's taken on an almost religious fervor to the point where the extremists want to convert everyone worldwide and to make smokers outcasts from society.

I said the above earlier in the thread and we can see from comments above that I wasn't far off the mark.

[grungy-gonads 54]

All you are proving GN is how utterly ignorant and blinkered smokers are. Basically you've got to be, to be a smoker.

 

[HelperElfMissy 42]

Originally Posted By: BagOfCrisps

By that standard then, Mamabear, perhaps 2% of smokers are 'considerate'.

Not necessarily. They are just the ones you didn't pick as smokers because they chose not to smoke around you and make you uncomfortable.

As I said previously...my 16 and 17 year old son's were 6 and 7 years old when I quit. About a year ago I was openly discussing the hold that nicotine addiction had on me and how much of a concerted effort it was to stay off cigarettes. The boys eyes nearly popped out of their heads. They had no idea I smoked - EVER! That was because for their whole little lives I never exposed them to my habit. It did not mean I was a non smoker.

[Go Native 70]

Rubbish. The fact is smoking is legal and already in most countries smoking is no longer allowed in enclosed public spaces. But this is not enough for the extremist anti smokers out there. They want to convert all smokers with what is definitely something akin to religious zeal.

[grungy-gonads 54]

Originally Posted By: Mamabear

Originally Posted By: BagOfCrisps

By that standard then, Mamabear, perhaps 2% of smokers are 'considerate'.

Not necessarily. They are just the ones you didn't pick as smokers because they chose not to smoke around you and make you uncomfortable.

I'm sorry, I don't really understand that.

[BagOfCrisps 24]

What are you calling rubbish, Go Native? You're blinkered opinions and justifications as a smoker?

 

Me neither gg.

[Tubby Beaver 209]

Originally Posted By: Go Native

Originally Posted By: Mantas

Originally Posted By: Go Native

So as part of their contract with their emplyer smokers have an extra bit written in saying they can have more breaks than anyone else? I'd like to see proof of that.

Proof? Contract? WTF. Who said anything about that. It's a guideline or a verbal agreement or a policy or it might be written in hieroglyphics for all I know. I just listen to the non- smokers winging all the time that they don't get the same privilages.

Jeez, are done now?

Jeez what a bunch of bloody wingers all you non smokers appear to be. You want the same breaks as smokers then just take em! Management gets upset then point out you're only having exactly the same breaks as smokers.

would love to see that arguement hold up! The fact is that if we non-smokers took a break when the smokers took a break and done nothing, we'd probably be fired

[HelperElfMissy 42]

Originally Posted By: grungy-gonads

Originally Posted By: Mamabear

Originally Posted By: BagOfCrisps

By that standard then, Mamabear, perhaps 2% of smokers are 'considerate'.

Not necessarily. They are just the ones you didn't pick as smokers because they chose not to smoke around you and make you uncomfortable.

I'm sorry, I don't really understand that.

What I am saying is that you may THINK that only about 2% of smokers are considerate because you SEE smokers being inconsiderate all the time. And I certainly witnessed this myself this last trip to Japan.

What I am suggesting however is that when a smoker is showing consideration for you and others who do not smoke you may not recognize that they are doing it because they are not standing on a platform in the middle of the restaurant proclaiming to all the non smokers that they have chosen to forgo their post dinner chuff because they can see the restaurant is full of people eating and not smoking (as an example).

[thursday 1]

it's quite easy.

 

Jobs come with medical insurance. You want to work here, conform to these medical conditions. Do you smoke "yes" "no". A yes means a higher premium, then perhaps a lower salary (if you get that far).

 

You'd be surprised (or not) how many smokers tick "no" and proceed. Only thing is, they have opened themselves to obtaining an advantage through deception. Employer's field day come retrenchment or otherwise time.

[HelperElfMissy 42]

No medical insurance as part of a salary package here Thursday.

Public Health, or you pay for Private Health cover yourself.

 

With Private cover there is indeed a higher premium for a smoker, or even an ex-smoker. Honesty is essential because if they discover you lied on the paperwork then all the premiums you have paid over the years can be for nix - no coverage!

[thursday 1]

that's what I mean. You smoke, you choke.

[Thundercat 60]

Originally Posted By: Go Native

Rubbish. The fact is smoking is legal and already in most countries smoking is no longer allowed in enclosed public spaces. But this is not enough for the extremist anti smokers out there. They want to convert all smokers with what is definitely something akin to religious zeal.

This is a very true statement. While I was still living in Canada about 10 years ago the anti-smoking movement was gaining some serious clout and several laws were passed to effectively ban smoking in public places, including bars and restaurants. A licensed semi-private club that I was a member of, which had a majority of members who were smokers, decided that they would charge a nominal fee of a few dollars to anyone who wished to entered and those paying the fee would be officials members. At the time private clubs were exempt from anti-smoking laws. When the anti-smoking fanatics (which doesn't include all non-smokers, btw!) caught wind of this they cried foul and the laws were subsequently changed. People were willing to pay to be part of this licensed establishment so they could smoke and non-smokers were also allowed to attend if they chose to do so and yet laws were imposed to stop this.

Why did this happen? Because non-smoking fanatics (again, not all non-smokers) changed the argument from that of detrimental health effects to the 'cost' on our health care system. My question to you is, why are some people allowed to make bad choices that effect their health and others are not? People are willing to pay for the negative effects of obesity, alcohol, unsafe sex, sports related injuries etc but not for the ill effects of smoking. We all know that there are inherent dangers in each of these activities and yet some are deemed evil, obnoxious and anti-social while others are not. Seems very hypocritical to me.

[grungy-gonads 54]

Quote:

They want to convert all smokers with what is definitely something akin to religious zeal.

Rubbish yourself.

They simply don't want to have to inhale smoke from other people.

That simple fact just doesn't compute, does it?

[HelperElfMissy 42]

Originally Posted By: Black Mountain

We all know that there are inherent dangers in each of these activities and yet some are deemed evil, obnoxious and anti-social while others are not. Seems very hypocritical to me.

To me too.

[grungy-gonads 54]

Which part is it that you smokers don't understand? Or just not willing to acknowledge?

 

Inherent dangers to YOURSELF and those TO OTHERS are not the same.

[Thundercat 60]

And yet people who choose to smoke and associate with other smokers in public venues don't have the right to do so? If you don't want to be in a bar that allows smoking, then go somewhere else! There are plenty of places that ban smokers.

(if only this argument were true in Japan )

[grungy-gonads 54]

Quote:

And yet people who choose to smoke and associate with other smokers in public venues don't have the right to do so?

If you're an inconsiderate git, then I suppose you will. After all, that's what you want to do. Sod the fact that it affects other people who really dislike it. Hey and it's a 'public venue'. So **** 'em!

Charming way to think and behave. Do you fart in peoples faces too?

[Jynxx 4]

If it is just nicotine, there is always patches and gum,

Considering the price of patches, what a rip off, but that's a another topic about phama-company sucks.

So why do people smoke? There's gotta be something about the action of actually inhaling smoke.

This argument about toxins is moot, because we are talking about carcinogens.

 

"There are 4000 different chemicals in cigarette smoke, including 43 that meet the stringent criteria for listing as known carcinogens."

 

Health Benefits of Smoking Cessation, 1990 Surgeon General report

 

"Among chemicals on the top-secret list of about 700 additives to cigarettes reported to the US government are 13 not allowed in food (US FDA) and 5 designated as hazardous (US EPA). Most of the additives have not been scientifically investigated."

 

National Public Radio report, April 1994

 

"Two of the 700 additives in cigarettes are sclareol, which causes seizures in laboratory rats, and ethylfuroate, which was investigated in the 1930's as a possible chemical warfare agent."

 

American Medical News, May 2, 1994

 

So let's get a bit of clear perspective here.

This is a 15~20 year report. Anyone smoking manufactured ciggies in public with this info have some dysfunctional social ability, and suicide wish. Can't believe they still allowed to make this stuff for consumption.

But, what if the smoking goes back to it's roots to natural tabacco, preferably taken by a vapouriser or in Japanese type kiseru pipes where most of the smoke comes out filtered from smokers exhaling? I know bonfires are illegal in Tokyo, but along that line of argument, If people start smoking lettuce or something, should that be allowed?

I still feel if someone doesn't want people smoking next to them, I'll respect that.

[Jynxx 4]

I like the old English idea of wearing a smoking jacket and going to a smoking room.

 

Yeah, they should have smoking bars and restaurants, and non-smoking ones. Just don't mix the two.

[Thundercat 60]

GG

I think you are intentionally misrepresenting what I'm saying so I'll come at it from a different angle. If I own a bar (and am the only staff) and hang a sign on the front of the door that says "Smoking OK" acknowledging that fact that I'm willing to forgo your business... and anyone who wishes to enter and breathe second hand smoke is free to do so... while anyone who wishes to drink in a smoke free environment is free to go next door. Would you come in and tell me that I'm an inconsiderate git? And would you be alright with me politely pointing to the "No Arrogant Pricks" sign as I ask you to leave?

 

The fact is that many smokers (or ALL smokers in Ontario, my home province) are totally willing to go to smoke free environments and smoke outside because they recognize the concerns of non-smokers... but that isn't good enough because as soon as you remove the argument that second hand smoke is a danger to others (which you effectively do by having everyone smoke outside) you'll get someone else arguing that it should be completely illegal because it's a strain on our health care system, it pollutes or whatever (while completely ignoring the fact that there are many habits that are equal strains on the health care system, that pollute or whatever). The reality is that these people simply find the habit disgusting and are trying to impose their beliefs on others. So like I said before, I find drinking disgusting and think it should be banned... and as soon as I can convince enough people to get on the bandwagon that is exactly what I plan on doing and if you don't agree with me you are obviously an inconsiderate git.

[grungy-gonads 54]

Originally Posted By: Black Mountain

If I own a bar (and am the only staff) and hang a sign on the front of the door that says "Smoking OK" acknowledging that fact that I'm willing to forgo your business... and anyone who wishes to enter and breathe second hand smoke is free to do so... while anyone who wishes to drink in a smoke free environment is free to go next door. Would you come in and tell me that I'm an inconsiderate git?

Nope, not at all.

Quote:

The fact is that many smokers (or ALL smokers in Ontario, my home province) are totally willing to go to smoke free environments and smoke outside because they recognize the concerns of non-smokers

ALL smokers in Ontarion are totally willing to go to smoke free environments and smoke outside because they recognize the concerns of non-smokers. That's incredible. Is that the result of your own exhaustive research? They all sound like a fine bunch of smokers.

[Thundercat 60]

Quote:

Is that the result of your own exhaustive research?

Yes it is. I haven't been to a bar, pub, restaurant or any public place in Ontario in the last 7 years that allows smoking indoors (because they can't) and haven't seen 'inconsiderate gits' lighting up and breaking the rules. Are there places that allow their costumers to light up inside somewhere in Ontario? Logic would tell us that sure there must be because Ontario is a huge place but these bars are easily avoided (I haven't even seen one in 7 years, honestly). So yes, my exhaustive research in Ontario indicates that non-smokers never EVER have to be exposed to second hand smoke... and that smokers never EVER have the right to light up inside a public building whether they are among consenting adults or completely alone.

[Go Native 70]

Originally Posted By: grungy-gonads

Quote:

They want to convert all smokers with what is definitely something akin to religious zeal.

Rubbish yourself.

They simply don't want to have to inhale smoke from other people.

That simple fact just doesn't compute, does it?

It computes just fine but do people who wish to smoke have no rights whatsoever? It's just the justification of the non smoking extremists that is blown way out of proportion. The WHO considers passive smoking to be a "low-level lung carcinogen". There are so many things in the atmosphere, especially in large cities which are also carcinogens. Half the things in a normal house and half the damn things that most people eat are also considered low level carcinogens. People happily go through their lives constantly coming in contact with things that can be considered carcinogenic. But for whatever reason people have raised smoking to a level way beyond the risk it poses relative to many other things we use in our daily lives.

For instance cooking food at high temperatures, for example grilling or barbecuing meats, can lead to the formation of minute quantities of many potent carcinogens that are comparable to those found in cigarette smoke. Shall we ban all BBQ's as well???