Employer threatening to ban e-cigs...

[Burnsy2023]

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.

There's a difference though. The poem guards against not worrying about it because it doesn't affect you rather than actively agreeing with the action in the first place.

 

[GiraffePencils]

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.

I know the amounts involved.
And the statement still stands that yes i do believe it..... and from your agreement on relative volumes it would be absurd for you to not.
I understand that the likelihood is miniscule, but you asked if I believed it possible.

 

[!bluetonic!]

Reminds me of this:

Search on YouTube for:
big train work place

 

[atpbx]

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.

Yes, I am aware of the wider meaning of the poem (The poem is a romanticized adaptation of an earlier speech which is far more specific about what it pertains to)

But the point you are making is irrelevant, you DONT have freedom in the work place, you agree to perform a task under certain (legally enforceable, reasonable conditions) for a financial reward.

You are not there to do as you want, you have agreed to a hire reward contract that you will do this, in reward for that, under what ever reasonable conditions your employer chooses to implement.

If they dont want you pretending to smoke on their property while they pay you for your time to be doing something else, then guess what, you can either do as they ask or leave.

Saying they are not going to permit the use of a non essential recreational product on their premises is not the same as them chaining you to a desk and demanding that you carve life size statues of the Tongan rugby team out of solid marble using only your fingernails for 12 hours a day with no toilet or lunch breaks for tuppance ha'penny and hour or you will get thrown in the work house.

 

[Tuppy_Glossop]

There's a difference though. The poem guards against not worrying about it because it doesn't affect you rather than actively agreeing with the action in the first place.

Nobody has to actively agree with anything... yet

 

[Schlong&Stable]

ironic

and yes i take your point. but its a good way to describe a group of people who are determined to remove anything that could be misconstrued as harmful but with a side objective that is just to remove anything that implies individuality. hence i do think its is a lefty agenda and a passive-fascist (ok control freak if thats better) way of thinking that exists in england today.

so lets call them Lefty control freaks ?

I was aware of the irony.

Consider: Totalitarian.

 

[sbi5ar]

The nicotine hit, duh.

Nicotine binds to your acetylcholine receptors. It's very rewarding

What is the reward for starting though... Before you know of this nicotine hit, what is the reward? All you hear about is how bad it is for you so realistically there is no reward in the first instance?

 

[Pestilence]

Saying they are not going to permit the use of a non essential recreational product on their premises is not the same as them chaining you to a desk and demanding that you carve life size statues of the Tongan rugby team out of solid marble using only your fingernails for 12 hours a day with no toilet or lunch breaks for tuppance ha'penny and hour or you will get thrown in the work house.

 

[Pestilence]

What is the reward for starting though... Before you know of this nicotine hit, what is the reward? All you hear about is how bad it is for you so realistically there is no reward in the first instance?

Where's the reward in eating a cheeseburger, then?

You don't know the reward of anything before you do it.

 

[Tuppy_Glossop]

Yes, I am aware of the wider meaning of the poem (The poem is a romanticized adaptation of an earlier speech which is far more specific about what it pertains to)

But the point you are making is irrelevant, you DONT have freedom in the work place, you agree to perform a task under certain (legally enforceable, reasonable conditions) for a financial reward.

You are not there to do as you want, you have agreed to a hire reward contract that you will do this, in reward for that, under what ever reasonable conditions your employer chooses to implement.

If they dont want you pretending to smoke on their property while they pay you for your time to be doing something else, then guess what, you can either do as they ask or leave.

Saying they are not going to permit the use of a non essential recreational product on their premises is not the same as them chaining you to a desk and demanding that you carve life size statues of the Tongan rugby team out of solid marble using only your fingernails for 12 hours a day with no toilet or lunch breaks for tuppance ha'penny and hour or you will get thrown in the work house.

I agree with all this regarding the workplace. However, I am not just talking about vaping in the workplace. A couple of pages back there was talk of how smokers 'should' give up, how alcohol 'should' be banned, how people 'should' never be addicted to anything. Where does it end ?

 

[Tuppy_Glossop]

What is the reward for starting though... Before you know of this nicotine hit, what is the reward? All you hear about is how bad it is for you so realistically there is no reward in the first instance?

Quite. I accept full responsibility for making what I imagine you would call a bad decision. I am loathe to offer any insight lest I'm accused of going to great lengths to justify my weakness, or just plain old refusal to take responsibility. I don't blame anyone. I chose to start, I accept the consequences.

 

[GiraffePencils]

I agree with all this regarding the workplace. However, I am not just talking about vaping in the workplace. A couple of pages back there was talk of how smokers 'should' give up, how alcohol 'should' be banned, how people 'should' never be addicted to anything. Where does it end ?

I think that last point was pretty much just me

and there is still no reason to be addicted to anything, you're just allowing yourself to be controlled, the Idea at it's core should cause an instinctual response for self preservation.

And people keep taking my point away taking of drugs and having a good time but I'm not talking about that, I'm talking about addiction in and of itself being detrimental to free will and has nothing but negative aspects

 

[GiraffePencils]

Quite. I accept full responsibility for making what I imagine you would call a bad decision. I am loathe to offer any insight lest I'm accused of going to great lengths to justify my weakness, or just plain old refusal to take responsibility. I don't blame anyone. I chose to start, I accept the consequences.

Curiocity is fundamental to human nature, people smoke that first time because they haven't before. Like anyone who eats a really hot curry....theres no positives over normal curry only it's really hot and burns, but people do it because they want to know.

 

[krooton]

I am arguing that something which causes this addiction is unneeded, and should be removed from availability.

Adios porn, video games, and the internet. Hell, people get addicted to exercise due to the endorphin release.

 

[sbi5ar]

Where's the reward in eating a cheeseburger, then?

You don't know the reward of anything before you do it.

Nutrition (albeit not much). You eat it and it satisfies your hunger. How do you know before smoking that you need a nicotine hit? You don't... therefore there is no perceived reward.

 

[GiraffePencils]

Adios porn, video games, and the internet. Hell, people get addicted to exercise due to the endorphin release.

I suppose I was vague in hould have stated "Substance"
As this has been my focus.

"the internet" well I can't say i've heard of someone being addicted to a concept... that's like being addicted to a library, but not any of the books, just the idea of libraries

Also addiction to porn or video games and to a degree the exercise comment is not an addiction to them, someone addicted to porn it's not the actual porn, they could be addicted to masterbation or the rush of hormones from seeing a naked person, these things are not tied to the porn itself.

I am referring throughout to "a substance which is addictive and has no positive influence on the body should be banned"

 

[atpbx]

I agree with all this regarding the workplace. However, I am not just talking about vaping in the workplace. A couple of pages back there was talk of how smokers 'should' give up, how alcohol 'should' be banned, how people 'should' never be addicted to anything. Where does it end ?

People *should* and *are* allowed to do whatever they want, providing it doesn't cause harm or unduly inconvenience others.

People really *should*(my opinion) give up smoking cigarettes because it is really, really bad for them and unpleasant and damaging to others as well.
However, thats not to say I think people should be forced to give up smoking, they *should* however be told, at length about the damage it causes to them and others so that they are fully aware of what they are doing to themselves.

People *should* be preventing from drinking damaging amounts of alcohol, and *should* be prevented from injuring themselves and others through *excessive*(for that person not an arbitrary amount) of alcohol.

Its about finding the balance between social responsibility of both parties, if you choose to drink yourself so drunk that you are unable to listen to reason and refuse to moderate your drinking when someone says you've had enough and you then walk out in to the traffic, dont expect someone to run out and save you, and dont complain when you get hurt.
If you choose to smoke 50 a day for ten years and come down with lung cancer having ignored the health warnings and everyone else imploring you to stop, them enjoy your short lived freedom.

You cant have a society were excess and complete freedom to abuse yourself in what ever way you see fit exists, because you cant expose the rest of society to the damage your excess can cause them directly or the inconvenience you cause to society by them having to waste time clearing up your remains when it could have been avoided had you chosen to stay in and watch Match of the Day with a Pizza and a can of special brew rather than getting catastrophically drunk.

 

[Tuppy_Glossop]

I think that last point was pretty much just me

and there is still no reason to be addicted to anything, you're just allowing yourself to be controlled, the Idea at it's core should cause an instinctual response for self preservation.

And people keep taking my point away taking of drugs and having a good time but I'm not talking about that, I'm talking about addiction in and of itself being detrimental to free will and has nothing but negative aspects

It was I think I prefer 'no reason to' to 'shouldn't'. The offensive implied moral imperative has been removed

 

[Ryan-3]

People using e-sigs in public look like idiots. What next, e-heroin or e-beer?

BRB, loadin mah virtual bong lol

e-Needle?

I do wonder about some of these e-cig things, but then again, I do wonder what would make someone want to set fire to money that has huge effects on themselves and those passively breathing their smoke around them.

 

[Tuppy_Glossop]

People *should* and *are* allowed to do whatever they want, providing it doesn't cause harm or unduly inconvenience others.

People really *should*(my opinion) give up smoking cigarettes because it is really, really bad for them and unpleasant and damaging to others as well.
However, thats not to say I think people should be forced to give up smoking, they *should* however be told, at length about the damage it causes to them and others so that they are fully aware of what they are doing to themselves.

People *should* be preventing from drinking damaging amounts of alcohol, and *should* be prevented from injuring themselves and others through *excessive*(for that person not an arbitrary amount) of alcohol.

Its about finding the balance between social responsibility of both parties, if you choose to drink yourself so drunk that you are unable to listen to reason and refuse to moderate your drinking when someone says you've had enough and you then walk out in to the traffic, dont expect someone to run out and save you, and dont complain when you get hurt.
If you choose to smoke 50 a day for ten years and come down with lung cancer having ignored the health warnings and everyone else imploring you to stop, them enjoy your short lived freedom.

You cant have a society were excess and complete freedom to abuse yourself in what ever way you see fit exists, because you cant expose the rest of society to the damage your excess can cause them directly or the inconvenience you cause to society by them having to waste time clearing up your remains when it could have been avoided had you chosen to stay in and watch Match of the Day with a Pizza and a can of special brew rather than getting catastrophically drunk.

Beautifully put I agree.

Unfortunately it only shifts the problem to agreeing on what is for the greater good and what is personal indulgence.