Smokers need not apply

[noxibox]

Surely you can appreciate that this is a luxury that you'd unlikely to enjoy in an environment like Iraq?

You may not be able to be open about your choice, but you can still choose. However a country like Iraq is hardly a valid example.

 

[bwana]

Yes, but only to the smokers themselves. Secondhand smoke is near harmless unless you suffer from lung problems, and in that case vehicle fumes are going to be a major problem as well.

According to the same site

Studies have consistently found that non-smoking spouses of people who smoke at home have a 20-30% increase in lung cancer risk. And non-smokers exposed to second-hand smoke at work have a 12-19% increased lung cancer. One study estimates that passive smoking may kill at least 2,700 people every year in the UK.

 

[noxibox]

Bah humbug! Scientology is not a religion.... it's a cult.

Cult - a small, unpopular religion
Religion - a large, popular cult

As far as I know if there are lots of work to I do it and I do it untill I am done. Then I go smoke. Especially if the work is important and urgent. For non urgent stuffs, I decide that I will take 5 minutes and go have a smoke. It helps with boredom, and you will find us smokers a lot less stressed than non smokers. I think some fancy scientist like people have also proven this point.

I think it should just be viewed as a valid, healthy break. Even if the smoking isn't healthy, taking a break is. We have become indoctrinated and obsessed with ideas of excessive productivity, the silly notion of an employee working 100% for 8 hours of the day. I look around and see no reason generally to enhance productivity as a whole in the world. Everything is chugging along quite nicely, mostly.

 

[noxibox]

some religions (i.e. Muslims) don't really have a choice. They're fiercely religious and I haven't met 1 Muslim who has converted to a non-Muslim religion. Then again, "Christians" seem to convert to a wide range of other religions (Scientology) or simply be an atheist.

But on the matter of choice: Although it [religion] is a choice, it doesn't really harm anyone in the workplace unlike smoking which can have adverse effects.

Of course they can choose. And frankly not all, perhaps not even most western Muslims are fiercely religious, especially not the younger generation who have grown up exposed to diverse opinions.

The fact that someone grows up within a particular mythical framework never changes the fact that you can choose your religion. Religion is never an intrinsic quality.

Smoking in the workplace, i.e. at the desk next to me, is unlikely to cause me any genuine short-term or long-term harm, but I'd find it unpleasant. If European companies typically allow smoking within the office then they should be changing their silly office policies rather than discriminating against people who choose to smoke.

I'm sure you meant e.g. not i.e. (funny scene in Get Shorty arguing about the two)

 

[noxibox]

Studies have consistently found that non-smoking spouses of people who smoke at home have a 20-30% increase in lung cancer risk. And non-smokers exposed to second-hand smoke at work have a 12-19% increased lung cancer. One study estimates that passive smoking may kill at least 2,700 people every year in the UK.
Reply With Quote

The chance of a non-smoker, never exposed to cigarette smoke getting lung cancer is near zero. That 12-19% is the increased risk. i.e. if your chance as a non-smoker of getting lung cancer is say 1%, then if exposed to secondhand smoke the chance increases to 1.2%. If your spouse smokes you'd then have a 1.3% chance. Lung cancer is almost totally unheard of in the general population who do not smoke.

What study estimates passive smoking kills 2,700 per year? Is that 2,700 more than would have died of the same diseases or just 2,700 people they know were exposed to smoke and therefore must have been killed by it.

The anti-smoking nazis love to parade figures like 20% increase, 50% increase, all the while knowing well that it means the increase over the normal rate not the absolute risk.

It is now well-established that secondhand smoke is not particularly harmful to adults. I'd still be inclined to recommend against smoking in an enclosed room with your young children around. If the area is properly ventilated it again becomes no big deal.

 

[noxibox]

NON-smokers are just as much a part of (the same) society, and have the right to NOT have their health compromisd by the choices of the puffing cretin next to them.

And in what offices are people still allowed to smoke?

 

[noxibox]

The world has gone crazy against smokers. People who play rugby will need knee replacements, hip replacements etc... when they grow old. Essentially, like smokers, they are also choosing to destroy their body, but in a different way. The same could be said to apply for marathon runners, who put immense strain on their knees. Why not discriminate against them?

Blanket discrimination against all smokers is downright stupid. I appreciate employers not wanting employees to smoke on the job, as certain (not all) people will abuse it, and will waste company time (which is unethical), but it would not be unreasonable for a company to ban smoking on the job, while still employing smokers. Even better, clauses regarding excessive smoke breaks should be written into the code of ethics of the company, to allow the company to act on excessive smokers.

For my own part, I smoke on average less than one cigarrette per day, and am much healthier than most non-smokers (I am currently training for a marathon) and never smoke at work. I would resent not being employed on the grounds of smoking.

They always told us sport was healthy. I believed them until I'd actually played it for a while. I really can't think of a better way to royally wreck your body.

If you're going to ban smoking at work, then why not ban coffee drinking, toilet breaks, etc.

In your case you'd never have to admit to smoking. Only those that need to smoke during the day would have difficulty hiding their habit. Fact is people will just lie to get the job, then find ways to sneak out and smoke. Probably end up wasting more time too.

I think that anyone who is going to waste lots of company time allegedly taking smoking breaks would just waste it in other ways if they didn't smoke.

 

[noxibox]

CBS's 60 minutes had a show last month on employers who sacked people who smoked at home.

Wow that is such obvious discrimination. This interference in people's lives has been an insidious trend.

This type of thing is particularly insane when you consider that we have no idea what improves or degrades a person's performance. Someone who gets drunk every night might turn out to be a better employee overall that the teetotaller. Never mind that the only valid criterion is whether a person is doing their work well.

 

[noxibox]

Don't you think that your employer's ability to dictate your lifestyle ends when you go home? To the best of my knowledge (Debbie2, feel completely free to chip in and correct me) you provide your employer with your labour (whatever that may be), said employer pays you for said labour (there the contract ends). I have never seen a contract that would allow an employer to sack me because I smoke at home, watch too much television, have 3 beers instead of 2, hell if I decided to get blitzed on a Friday evening, etc, etc.

Does anybody else here think employers are having a wee bit too much their own way???

It does end when you leave the office. And if they want to control your non-office time they should pay accordingly. They'd have to more than triple your salary to cover it. I'd go further and say it should be considered as overtime.

In the US wealthy employers basically own the politicians. This isn't the first time employers in the US have tried to take control of their employees lives. Last time this stuff was being publicly promoted was, perhaps predictably, when Bush senior was supreme dictator.

 

[noxibox]

Personally I dont agree with what was done but there are some fair arguments if you listen to the podcast - sick time, job performance and medical costs etc all place a burden on the employer.

According to the broadcast in most states an employer can sack you for whatever reason so there is little they can do but give up or leave.

I'd tend to doubt claims that they are in general more likely to take sick leave. As for medical costs smokers would normally be expected to pay higher insurance rates.

I totally doubt their work performance is any worse. It is probably a case of looking for nits to pick so they can justify their discrimination.

In most parts of the US you are just a slave of the company. They can do whatever they like - require 16 hour days, give you no leave, fire you because your hair is the wrong colour or just because they feel like it. Only a few states have employee protection.

 

[noxibox]

Interesting you wish to compare gays to fags tho

It is apparently really difficult to smoke homosexuals

 

[noxibox]

Not by choice ..and therein lies the rub. Smokers choose to do that to themselves. THEY, the smokers, have chosen that path: no-one else around them, on whom they impose their vile fumes, has either made that choice or is left with one.

Nevermind that it is also, quite literally, an assault on the senses to be stuck in the same air as a smoker, it amounts to being assault in terms of the longer term health costs, by way of "passive" smoking that the nonsmoker is now saddled with, without having done anything more than be in the same area!

But no-one is allowed to smoke in the office anyway so it is hardly a valid reason for discrimination. And there are few indoor public places where smoking is still allowed. I've largely agreed with such bans. However our law has recently gone overboard both in the extent of bans and the stupidly excessive fines.

There are no real long-term health consequences to being exposed to secondhand smoke.

 

[bwana]

It is now well-established that secondhand smoke is not particularly harmful to adults. I'd still be inclined to recommend against smoking in an enclosed room with your young children around. If the area is properly ventilated it again becomes no big deal.

Well established by who? Certainly not the WHO Pun intended [URL="http://www.no-smoke.org]

A monograph issued in 2002 by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified secondhand smoke as a human carcinogen. The report, which reviewed all significant published evidence related to tobacco smoking and cancer, both active smoking and secondhand smoke exposure, estimated that nonsmokers exposed to secondhand smoke are 20 to 30 percent more likely to develop cancer. The IARC issued a press release about the findings and also posted summaries of the findings online.

This monograph superceded a report released in 1998 by the WHO, linking lung cancer to secondhand smoke exposure. Big Tobacco's local allies sometimes claim that this report concluded that secondhand smoke is not harmful. Nothing could be further from the truth. Internal tobacco industry documents reveal plans to manipulate the findings of the 1998 WHO report out of fear that the report could have a significant impact on public opinion and smokefree policy efforts.

[/URL]

 

[Nokkie]

bwana my chum

 

[Highflyer_GP]

If this is the case then why only victimise a smokers secondhand smoke. Non-smokers should then wear gas masks 24/7 to protect themselves, stay away from any form of transportation, fireplaces, braai's etc. All emit thousands of times more smoke and toxins than a 1gram cigarette.

 

[noxibox]

Well established by who? Certainly not the WHO

They've stated it themselves - 20-30% more likely. Now first I suggest you go check the likelihood of getting lung cancer without smoking. Tiny, tiny chance. So 30% greater means tiny, tiny chance times 1.3 which equals tiny, tiny chance. Even these people are actually agreeing that it is a neglible risk and certainly does not warrant harassment of smokers.

It does not mean it increases your chances to 20-30%. Common misconception of a standard deliberately deceptive use of statistics.

 

[noxibox]

If this is the case then why only victimise a smokers secondhand smoke. Non-smokers should then wear gas masks 24/7 to protect themselves, stay away from any form of transportation, fireplaces, braai's etc. All emit thousands of times more smoke and toxins than a 1gram cigarette.

I agree. If you're so worried about external polution harming you then I you should get yourself a nice protective bubble and definitely should not ever enter or go near any motor vehicles.

The tobacco industry needn't worry. They should rather just run an education campaign in the deliberate deceptive use of statistics. The WHO's own research shows that there is no significant risk to non-smokers from secondhand smoke.

The baseline is the important thing. Go find your baseline chance of getting disease X, then add the percentage increased risk from activity Q. Your first question any time someone says your risk increases by W percent is ask them what is the baseline risk. Otherwise the percentage increase is essentially meaningless.

 

[bwana]

They've stated it themselves - 20-30% more likely. Now first I suggest you go check the likelihood of getting lung cancer without smoking. Tiny, tiny chance. So 30% greater means tiny, tiny chance times 1.3 which equals tiny, tiny chance. Even these people are actually agreeing that it is a neglible risk and certainly does not warrant harassment of smokers.

It does not mean it increases your chances to 20-30%. Common misconception of a standard deliberately deceptive use of statistics.

I must have missed the WHO changing their stance on second hand smoking. Thanks for pointing it out. I'm currently looking for a reference on their site that says its a negligible risk - can you assist?