Employer threatening to ban e-cigs...

GiraffePencils said:
you see you're being pedantic
People who are addicted and can't quit need help.
There is no reason anyone should take a substance and become addicted to it.
Addiction is a problem we have no need for, in all it's forms.
Food in order to survive isn't an addiction.
Click to expand...

Tea is addictive, coffee, chocolate, sugar, masturbating and so on.
 
Tuppy_Glossop said:
That isn't pedantry. You are addicted to oxygen, energy, and water. You need them, you seek them out, almost at the exclusion of everything else, and you are rewarded with continuing life (hopefully).
Click to expand...

You are DEPENDANT on oxygen, water, energy?(well...that's a bit a a weird one but ...umm... yeah) you are not ADDICTED to them, they are very different things though might share some symptoms.
 
SPG said:
Shouldnt be allowed in the workplace. Infact the entire "e-cig" should only be available from a pharmacist. Who knows what other deadly **** you are sucking up.
Click to expand...

Many reputable scientists do... and it's not deadly. It isn't even worth batting an eyelid over. What WILL happen, though, is if general availability is banned, you'll see a black market emerge and THEN there'll be problems. Way to go there, zealots! Woohoo!

As to being allowed in the workplace. Well... depends on the nature of the workplace, but I'd be against it in most.
 
Tuppy_Glossop said:
I refer our moralist friends to the version of Niemoller's poem:

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me--and there was no one left to speak for me.
Click to expand...

Really?

Over Cigarettes?

I could understand if the government was rounding them up and forcing them to listen to Justin Beiber till they quit smoking or some other inhuman torture, but its a bit much equating a speech about the Nazi atrocities to stopping people smoking in the work place.
 
Pestilence said:
I still don't see the point in that, though, when the addiction causes no problems. Someone living with a silent addiction might as well just be treating it as having food. Nobody would ever know, or care. If it never becomes a problem, then where's the problem?

It seems you're speaking from more of a moralistic standpoint, which is entirely subjective.
Click to expand...

Well, the moral standpoint is subjective yes.
But yes if someone had an addiction to something, that never effected their health, or was known to anyone etc then there is no problem, but then in said situation if the person is no different than a person without the addiction, the addiction itself could be removed and the situation would remain.
so from that view, there is no reason one way or the other.

But I know of no situation like this, so stay on the side against addiction
 
LateX'Dog said:
IMO if your working in close proximity to others, then it should be banned.

If you are not in close proximity lets say >5m, then who cares?
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'd be thinking fine in places with individual offices, cubicles and whatnot, but in open environments or customer-facing spaces it would not be appropriate.
 
GiraffePencils said:
You are DEPENDANT on oxygen, water, energy?(well...that's a bit a a weird one but ...umm... yeah) you are not ADDICTED to them, they are very different things though might share some symptoms.
Click to expand...

Energy = food & heating ;) You'll get severe withdrawal from energy at absolute zero or when you are starving.

The difference between being dependent and addiction is semantic. I can see an argument for the difference being a sociophilosophical :eek: one
 
Pestilence said:
The clinical term for Nicotine addiction is Nicotine Dependence.

Mind... turning... inside... out...
Click to expand...

yes, nicotine causes dependance.
Cells require it or they die.
turns out you don't really need those cells in the end, but In regards to the OP of this thread, I believe nicotine should be 'vaped' outside/in a separate location. due to the passive nicotine that could cause or effect the dependence in others.
Then the thread turned into an argument of personal freedoms :p
 
atpbx said:
Really?

Over Cigarettes?

I could understand if the government was rounding them up and forcing them to listen to Justin Beiber till they quit smoking or some other inhuman torture, but its a bit much equating a speech about the Nazi atrocities to stopping people smoking in the work place.
Click to expand...

It's the same principle: thin end of the wedge.
 
Tuppy_Glossop said:
Energy = food & heating ;) You'll get severe withdrawal from energy at absolute zero or when you are starving.

The difference between being dependent and addiction is semantic. I can see an argument for the difference being a sociophilosophical :eek: one
Click to expand...

yeah, that's why I agreed but thought the use of 'energy' was weird :p

And it's not so much semantics as addiction can be viewed as a psychological dependency, you don't need it, you just think you do.
While a substance can be both dependant and addictive, I am arguing that something which causes this addiction is unneeded, and should be removed from availability.
Now I happen to like a lot of substances which are addictive, I have no problem with them being taken from me, as I am not dependant. And if anything could be done to prevent people becoming addicted to things it should be done, or better support to help people remove an addiction.
 
Tuppy_Glossop said:
It's the same principle: thin end of the wedge.
Click to expand...

No, its really not.

Stopping idiots from self harming and injuring others while they are doing it (smoking) is not the same as rounding up entire communities because of either their religions or political beliefs and either interning them or executing them.

Its another example of the stupid lengths people will go to justify their weakness in dealing with their addiction.
 
McGray said:
Do you honestly believe this possible?
Click to expand...

do I honestly believe what?
that someone previously dependant on nicotine could be effected by inhaling nicotine?-> absolutely.

Do I believe that inhaling nicotine could cause dependence in another?->
Yes, but I understand that the sheer volume needed make the point moot.

Do I believe vaporisers actually expel nicotine? -> I don't know, I asked in this thread before but it wasn't answered.
 
GiraffePencils said:
You accept people should be assaulted because you cherish freedom?
Click to expand...

Not at all. I think that banning alcohol is a crude solution to drunken behaviour. How about removing the 'mitigatory' pleas of 'I was drunk/on drugs' by adding extra chokey time to offences under the influence ? Three strikes and you're out ? Blanket bans simply drive the problem underground.

And murder is the removal of freedom for the victim. It's a no no.
 
atpbx said:
No, its really not.

Stopping idiots from self harming and injuring others while they are doing it (smoking) is not the same as rounding up entire communities because of either their religions or political beliefs and either interning them or executing them.

Its another example of the stupid lengths people will go to justify their weakness in dealing with their addiction.
Click to expand...

This thread is about vaporizers though, and the fact that it doesn't harm so should be allowed.
therefore it is a 'thin wedge' example.
 
atpbx said:
No, its really not.

Stopping idiots from self harming and injuring others while they are doing it (smoking) is not the same as rounding up entire communities because of either their religions or political beliefs and either interning them or executing them.

Its another example of the stupid lengths people will go to justify their weakness in dealing with their addiction.
Click to expand...

I didn't equate the two. IMO the principle of the poem is that you shouldn't easily let other people's freedoms slip away in case your own come under threat.

I refer you to the earlier posts about justification. We have covered it. I'm not as risk-averse as you.
 
GiraffePencils said:
Do I believe that inhaling nicotine could cause dependence in another?->
Yes, but I understand that the sheer volume needed make the point moot.
Click to expand...

Surely this was the only point you were making?

Incidentally, you would have to be in a smoke filled room for 100 hours get the same dose of nicotine as a smoker does from one cigarette.

Moot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom