Smoking at work........

[Dave S]

The way I see it, governments the world over, have found that by victimising smokers there is easy money to be made, that is, additional taxes or "Sin" tax as we more commonly know it. The tabbaco companies don't complain as they just increase their prices and this supplements their turnover and takes care of the extra levies applied to them. As smoking is both an addiction and a habit, it is unlikely that many people will quit, some will, but the minority. To get public support for the scheme is easy, people are gullible and are likely to beleive whatever they are told when it comes to saving their health or environment, so you just need to create a worldwide scare as to the dangers of smoking, and voila! you can now victimise smokers without having a major outcry from the general public as they have now been brainwashed into thinking that your intentions are for their benefit.

However, if you were to try tackling the real dangers like diesel dust you would have a far greater task on your hands, most people are not going to follow you when the actual cost is going to hit their pockets, so you see, the actual attack on smokers is in fact driven by nothing more than greed. There are a lot of things out there that are far more dangerous than 2nd-hand smoke, but it would cost too much to tackle these issues, so rather, hit the soft targets that are easy and everyone will perseve that you are doing some good for the general population.

As far as being inconsiderate or belittling to non-smokers?? I don't get your drift here, but then maybe it's because I have always considered those around me when I smoke and I have always had a strong consideration especially for children. For instance, if I wish to smoke and there are adult non-smokers around, I will first ask the non-smokers if they would mind me lighting up, if there are children present, I just simply won't smoke. I fail to see how this targets me as a criminal? Now with new legistlation, all the smokers are forced to congregate in small areas, where the smoke becomes so dense that when you walk past, you and your children are now forced to breathe these toxic fumes, but instead of attacking the people that have caused this problem (Gov.), you attack the smoker, why? because it is easier for us to attack a soft target rather than the real issue.

[Dave S]

Adrian, let's just say, I'm so glad I will never work in your company...

[adrianh]

Dave - you would just love the clean air.

[Dave S]

Dave - you would just love the clean air.

Naah, the air would still be full of unseen diesel smoke...

[adrianh]

Diesel smoke or no diesel smoke, smoking gives you lung cancer and you stand a good chance of dying a horrible death. I stopped smoking while I was living in JHB and again, diesel smoke or no diesel smoke I still feel 100000x better physically from having stopped. You will never ever convince me to condone smoking in any form or for any reason. I spent too much time with lung infections, bronchitis etc myself and I spent a number of weeks with my mother in law on her deathbed dying of lung cancer to be swayed in my views.

Smoking is bad for you and it is bad for the people around the smoker. Just as I do not expose my workers on purpose to petrol fumes I don't expose them to cigarette smoke. If I hire a smoker then I am endangering the lives of myself and other employees by exposing us to cigarette smoke which is known to be the no 1 cause of lung cancer. I am not willing to sacrifice the wellbeing of the many for the vices of the few!

[Dave S]

I Know when I'm beat, it's just such a pity that most people assume that lung cancer (and other ailments) are caused by smoking, because they have been told so, and I know that smoking is bad for me, not because someone told me so, but because I feel it's effects. Lung cancer may be more predominant in smokers, but I can assure you, it is not the cause of cancer. I truly admire those that have stopped smoking, they have shown the willpower that I do not have, and I respect your choices not to smoke, please allow me the same courtesy.

[adrianh]

it's just such a pity that most people assume that lung cancer (and other ailments) are caused by smoking, because they have been told so

Lung cancer may be more predominant in smokers, but I can assure you, it is not the cause of cancer.

hmmm...interesting theories, somewhat akin to beetroot cures AIDS....

I respect your choices not to smoke, please allow me the same courtesy.

You are free to do as you please but I will not employ you because your vice will pose a health risk to my staff. None of my employees smoke so adding a smoker would infringe on their rights to have clean air in the workplace.

[vieome]

hmmm...interesting theories, somewhat akin to beetroot cures AIDS....



You are free to do as you please but I will not employ you because your vice will pose a health risk to my staff. None of my employees smoke so adding a smoker would infringe on their rights to have clean air in the workplace.

I never knew that arguing(discussing) about smoking could be like argueing about religion. I agree 100 with you adrianh, it is your right to hire who ever feel it fit for the position you offer. But I wanted to ask what happens when someone working for you, decides to give up their freedom to become a nicotine addict. Do you fire them?

[adrianh]

No I wont fire them. If they keep their habit out of the workplace then they can do as they please.

[Blurock]

I Know when I'm beat, it's just such a pity that most people assume that lung cancer (and other ailments) are caused by smoking, because they have been told so, and I know that smoking is bad for me, not because someone told me so, but because I feel it's effects. Lung cancer may be more predominant in smokers, but I can assure you, it is not the cause of cancer. I truly admire those that have stopped smoking, they have shown the willpower that I do not have, and I respect your choices not to smoke, please allow me the same courtesy.

Dave, I have lost enough friends through lung cancer caused by heavy smoking, to know what the effects of smoking is. You can keep on ignoring the facts and bury your head in the sand. As you have said; you can feel the effects of smoking. So don't pretend that it is healthy, not even to calm the nerves.

[zobs]

Smoking at work, its all about having controlls in place.

[Dave S]

I'm going to wrap up my opinions on this subject, Adrian, I'm only yanking your chain, I admire that you are considerate of your workforce breathing safe air and I strongly believe that you must adamantly defend your decision in this regard, can I apply for a job once i've quit? lol.

Bluerock, I too have had three friends die from lung related deseases (emphasemia, and cancer), and as I have already said, I know smoking is bad for me and those that breathe my 2nd hand smoke and for this reason only, I'm going to give another shot to quiting. The point I am making, is that there is such a hype created over smoking that nobody is actually thinking with a free mind anymore, we are all following the hype rather than asking the questions that will determine our future decisions. Can science prove beyond a doubt that smoking causes cancer, or are they just assuming based on the facts of the toxins present in a cigarette?

To make a point, the hype about speeding, we all know that speed kills, but does it actually cause the accident?

I'm really serious, I'm definetely going to try (again) to quit.

It's great to be able to debate, even on sensetive topics...

[adrianh]

The point is that one has to start dealing with issues somewhere. The best way to dealwith smoking is to make it as uncomfortable as possible for people to smoke.

To make a point, the hype about speeding, we all know that speed kills, but does it actually cause the accident?

I think that speeding does cause the accident in a lot of cases. Stopping distances are lengthened, tendency to skid & roll is increased, people travelling along roads marked at certain speeds expect cars to be travelling at those speeds and hence calibrate their reaction times accordingly. You must always remember that although you may be a brilliant driver and like to drive fast the other guy might be doing 60 in a k@k mood with a splitting headache. He might not be able to react fast enough to you cutting him off at 120. Don't get me wrong, I speed all the time and I am guilty of driving like an ahole myself because I tend to get very aggressive, but be that as it may, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that speed kills. Spend some time on Youtube and look at car crashes, I've looked at 100's. It becomes abundantly clear that speeding causes many many accidents. That old lady in her Ford Fiesta doing 100 on the highway simply does not expect some person to cut in front of her at 140 and hit the brakes when they realize it is their offramp.

[Dave S]

The point is that one has to start dealing with issues somewhere. The best way to dealwith smoking is to make it as uncomfortable as possible for people to smoke..

That's the whole point, but on what is it based, your actual questions and research, or is it just the thing to do to be in accordance with the hype?

I think that speeding does cause the accident in a lot of cases. Stopping distances are lengthened, tendency to skid & roll is increased, people travelling along roads marked at certain speeds expect cars to be travelling at those speeds and hence calibrate their reaction times accordingly. You must always remember that although you may be a brilliant driver and like to drive fast the other guy might be doing 60 in a k@k mood with a splitting headache. He might not be able to react fast enough to you cutting him off at 120. Don't get me wrong, I speed all the time and I am guilty of driving like an ahole myself because I tend to get very aggressive, but be that as it may, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that speed kills. Spend some time on Youtube and look at car crashes, I've looked at 100's. It becomes abundantly clear that speeding causes many many accidents. That old lady in her Ford Fiesta doing 100 on the highway simply does not expect some person to cut in front of her at 140 and hit the brakes when they realize it is their offramp.

This is another of those topics that can go for ages, and maybe it should be in a different thread? But just to be clear, there is speeding (70 in 60 zone) and then there is SPEEDING (140 in a 60 zone), anyone doing 140 in a 60 zone is going to CAUSE an accident, but if someone fails to stop at a stop street and is hit by the guy doing 70? Both have broken the law, but what was the cause?

Sorry to do this, but I was born with a mind that has to ask questions, I do not accept things "as they are" just because "that's the way they are", I want to know why they are that way?

[adrianh]

Sorry to do this, but I was born with a mind that has to ask questions, I do not accept things "as they are" just because "that's the way they are", I want to know why they are that way?

We all have to accept some things at some time given that we cannot do all the research ourselves. I don't accept stuff for the sake of hype. I make my own mind up based on the information that I have regarding a subject. Maybe it will be proved one day that lung cancer is caused by fairy dust, I don't know, but for the time being I am happy to accept that smoking is a health risk.

The problem with speeding is that the law has to draw a line, the law can't say it is ok to do 70 in a 60k zone because then everybody would be doing 70. Many rules are made to cater for the man in the street, remember that the man in the street is not only me and you but it is also the 70 year old lady who doesn't see too well and wlaks across the road at a snails pace and also the 9 year old kid who runs across the road chasing a ball.