Smoking

[Rockyd]

This I believe, too! Sad, sad days ahead for individual rights.


We have sad days ahead that will make this smoking thing seem like a day at the beach.

Unfortunately, true words about the future. Are these tattle tale signs of over population in "the best regions" of the country?

 

[Davis9]

Wow, Tom, you think you could have found a more slightly biased source?

I aim to please. I said quickly didn't I?LOL The court decision, means nothing I guess.

Tom:roll:

 

[Smart $]

Oh I'm sure someone has tested this before but I don't recall ever seeing where a smoker has come out victorious in not being able to smoke at work, have you?

I don't know if it has in fact been tested let alone the outcome... but testing is part of the reason for posting the information :grin:

The accident I was involved in was settled out of court without the issue even being suggested.

We know that a smoker has no rights or protection in Ohio so it's not there.

Time will tell here. The state-wide smoking ban was just voted on this past November, and enacted on December 8. Whatever body concocted the code was quite thorough on most of it, but has placed the burden of enforcement on the Health Department. They say it will be a year before they are set up to "prosecute" violators.

 

[Smart $]

You know that is not what I said or implied.

Perhaps not exactly what you were meaning to say but you certainly did imply it.

The cigarette in you hand contributes nothing to society in the way a power plant does.

Here you are implying the same thing.

A power plant contributes pollution and a service. I contribute pollution and a service :grin:

For some reason you believe the smoking is separate from the person. I am what I am, and part of that is a smoker. Restricted from smoking, I HAVE TO BE a person that I am not.

No, that is a fact.

No, it IS a matter of opinion.

It is not necessary for a electrician to smoke a cigarette to perform their job. You may feel it is necessary for your comfort but that is another story.

Nope! Same story

Maybe, but I don't think so.

Guilty (in my opinion).

I also have some vices but I don't force those vices on my employer or coworkers.

Are you certain to an absolute degree?

Cool, that is very courteous.

So how does this happen on the job?

Pretty much the same way... I believe that's what got this whole thing started

However, the difference is when I'm restricted to not smoking indoors, I have to purchase and wear nicotine patches. I can manage fairly easy only one cigarette between breaks/lunch. But having to manage anything less than that is extremely difficult. What non-smokers don't understand, it's not just about the nicotine.

 

[iwire]

Perhaps not exactly what you were meaning to say but you certainly did imply it.

That is simply untrue no matter how you try to twist it.

Here is exactly what I said.

A power plant is necessary for our society.

Your having a butt at work is not.

It is not necessary to society that you smoke a cigarette on the job.

Your worth to society is not at the least at issue.

I can manage fairly easy only one cigarette between breaks/lunch. But having to manage anything less than that is extremely difficult. What non-smokers don't understand, it's not just about the nicotine.

Are you suggesting that you have a handicap and deserve special treatment?

You never answered Georges question about an alcoholics performance at work.

 

[roger]

Are you suggesting that you have a handicap and deserve special treatment?

You never answered Georges question about an alcoholics performance at work.

smart, I'm currious of your answers to these questions as well.


Roger

 

[growler]

If an alcoholic person can't concentate because they're looking forward to beer-thirty, does that mean we should allow the alcoholic to drink on the clock?

First it's no smoking and now it's no drinking either. Can't you people see how this thing is spreading. Soon you won't be allowed to have sex on your desk at the office. It's a police state I tell you!


Seinfeld ( George ) " I've worked for a lot of offices and I tell you people do that all the time ".

 

[George Stolz]

Dale, LMAO

Is that a cashmere sweater?

 

[Smart $]

That is simply untrue no matter how you try to twist it.

OK, so we now have the direct meaning of your statements as, "Smokers contribute to society." From there it continues to, "A burning cigarette does not contribute to society" therefore it stands to logic that, "Smokers need not smoke to contribute to society", and then "Smokers need not smoke."

The fallacy of that premise is the result is a different society, which is exactly what is intended.

Here is exactly what I said.

"A power plant is necessary for our society.

Your having a butt at work is not."

Again a matter of opinion. Society existed long before power plants. Continuation of our society is not dependent on coal and other fossil-fuel-burning power plants. They exist simply because they have an economical advantage over other forms of power generation. Yes, without them it wouldn't be the same, but other sources can be used which do not contribute anywhere near the pollution they put in the air... but you don't see anyone making a major issue about them. Why? Because for one, most everyone, including smokers, also desire the convenience they provide. Two, they are, for the most part, "out of sight and out of mind".

On the smoking issue, it is simply the majority and influential members of society imposing their preferred lifestyle on a minority portion of society. That's the whole issue in a nut shell.

It is not necessary to society that you smoke a cigarette on the job.

A basic misconception. A society is determied by the actions and beliefs of all its members. Restricting smokers to not smoke on the job is imposing the will of only a portion of society, thereby altering said society to be more what the majority and influential desire.

Your worth to society is not at the least at issue.

Yes, it is. As long as I continue to be a smoker, you and your kind are berating my worth and contribution to society.

Are you suggesting that you have a handicap and deserve special treatment?

Provided I can smoke as I desire, I have no handicap in this regard and desire no special treatment. Restrict my desire to smoke and you have inflicted a known, well documented medical condition on me, which thus requires special treatment! You are putting the cart ahead of the horse.

You never answered Georges question about an alcoholics performance at work.

Smart: If an alcoholic person can't concentate because they're looking forward to beer-thirty, does that mean we should allow the alcoholic to drink on the clock? Would you want that guy driving a backhoe around you?

In the case of an alcoholic, defined as one who will continue to drink alcoholic beverages not just to a mild state of intoxication, but to the point of complete inebriation, then no. In this instance, the person's ability to perform adequately is impaired both before and after. Whereas with a deprived smoker, the impairment totally disappears upon satisfaction of the urge to smoke.

As to working around a backhoe, proper safety practice is to stay out of the swing area and pinch zones... period. Doesn't matter who the operator is.

 

[iwire]

Provided I can smoke as I desire, I have no handicap in this regard and desire no special treatment. Restrict my desire to smoke and you have inflicted a known, well documented medical condition on me, which thus requires special treatment! You are putting the cart ahead of the horse.

Yeah OK.

What happened to your personal responsibility's?

Smart go back and read your posts, they sound like the same old excuses anyone that is addicted to any substance would say.

Enjoy your smokes.

 

[Smart $]

What happened to your personal responsibility's?

I have many personal responsibilities. Which are you referring to?

Smart go back and read your posts, they sound like the same old excuses anyone that is addicted to any substance would say.

I don't deny addiction. But don't even begin to assume that I want to be unaddicted :grin: I will make that decision when I want, seeking the help of others as a last resort.

Enjoy your smokes.

Thanks, I do and will, even more so now :smile:

 

[hardworkingstiff]

What non-smokers don't understand, it's not just about the nicotine.

Oh boy is that true. I smoked for 10-years, was a 2.5 pack a day smoker (quit in 1981). The psychological addiction is just as hard to overcome as the physical addiction. I don't have any cravings now, but it was years before they went away.

 

[brian john]

I smoked from the age of 13-26, I decided to quit, so I set the day it came and went several times, finally in the middle of the day I threw the pack away, never gave it another thought, no mental, no physical issues.


But Then, I always was a quitter.


I am not an anti smoker, not a reformed going to convert you non smoker, I just do not want your habit to interfere with me and my business.

 

[growler]

I am not an anti smoker, not a reformed going to convert you non smoker, I just do not want your habit to interfere with me and my business.

The answer is simple. Make a break with your business partner ( a smoker ) and run a non-smoking shop. I believe you have this right. This is a personal choice.

I am a smoker and if I quite I want it to be a personal choice. If enough customers complain I quess I'll have to but as of yet I haven't had any complaints. Life is to short to worry about what other people are doing so do whatever makes you happy. In the end we all end up as compost anyway.

 

[LarryFine]

In the end we all end up as compost anyway.

At least we'll be well grounded at some point. :wink:

 

[George Stolz]

Larry, but to qualify as an electrode you will need a more expensive casket.

As for us smokers, if every cigarette were a nail in our coffin, we would automatically qualify under 250.52(A)(7).

 

[LarryFine]

Larry, but to qualify as an electrode you will need a more expensive casket.

Nah, just hand me a hunk of #4 and put me in the concrete.

 

[brian john]

Growler:

I have been in business with my partner for 22 years and worked with him 8 years before that, on many occasions I have wanted to kill him, maim him and fire him, but for 22 years it has worked he is approaching 60 I am tolerant enough to take another two years. His is one of the best in his line of work, and it benefits me and the company (at least for now). Oh and he feels the same about me (I HOPE).

That does not gaive him as pass on smoking lead by example, if the employees see him in the office or on the job taking a smoke break they are sure to hop on board.

 

[lectricwind]

smoke

smoke

i have an ex boyfriend that is a non smoker. they were working in a commercial building, it was half finished, no smoking, eating, or drinking allowed. the smokers all went outside every hour for 10 minutes to smoke. it took about 3 or 4 minutes to walk outside, and come back. so thats 14 minutes every hour of production loss. 140 minutes unused production a week. or, 2.34 hours a DAY of NON WORK.

sounds like a lot, doesnt it?

 

[allenwayne]

Do you really think the time frame you brought up is correct????If it takes 14 min to go on a smoke break, it is really allot more than that.Once you stop to take the break you have to unstrap your tool belt and go on the break.Then once over you have to strap the tools back on and get back into what you were doing.This is in addition to walking smoking etc.So the 14 min walk,smoke, return is probably more like 30 min of lost productivity.

Now i too am a smoker and when I am in a job that says no lighting up I grin and bear it and get peeved when anyone else that smokes starts to belly ache.If i have to deal so do the others.