People who smell like smoke in the workplace

Forums › Off topic › People who smell like smoke in the workplace

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6

gzt

17118 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1714799 3-Feb-2017 07:58

dafman: networkn: "we thought very highly of the new A4, so much so we bought one for my wife"

You support the manufacturer arguably behind the largest global vehicle emission fraud ever ... yet want the law to beat up on the poor punter having a fag outside?

double standard? (-;

Personally I think this type of quoting from another topic gets silly. It's usually the sign of a personal feud or something. It's unnecessary.

[Mod edit (MF): removed unnecessary quoting]

Signature goes here.

dafman

3927 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1714824 3-Feb-2017 09:22

networkn:

Rikkitic:

networkn:

Cars are pretty much required. Cigarettes not at all.

There are always choices. Buses are one. Electric vehicles are another. Or bicycles. Or, at the least, an economical, low-emission compact. It all depends on how seriously you take individual responsibility for environmental protection.

Right, so let's get rid of all the diesel and petrol vehicles on the road, see how you like your life then. Wait for your groceries to be delivered to your supermarket by horse and carriage etc.

/me rolls eyes

If all the smokers in the world stopped smoking what would we lose? Nothing. If all the emission emitting vehicles in the world what do we lose.. everything.

Defies belief this could even form part of a discussion.

Maybe not lose all the cars, but we could sure lose a lot of them. Many, if not most, families in the developed world have more than one car. If each family dropped down to one car, it wouldn't spell the end of humanity. And the positive effect on the environment would far exceed that which would be achieved by kicking the odd smoker off the footpath.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18660 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1714842 3-Feb-2017 10:11

networkn:

I was unaware there was a gap between the cost of smoking and healthcare costs, however, I don't think it's unfillable. I'd be fine if taxes rose a small percentage to cover it, but what those reports don't take into account is the tax take of people who die or are unable to work due to those illnesses. My mother was a hard working tax paying woman who died at 53 from smoking related cancer. If she had lived 10 years longer then perhaps there would be a decent percentage of offset. Also doesn't take into account that less smoking related illnesses would potentially allow us to get to other medical issues which prevent people from working, shortening surgery wait times, which would have a further impact.

Even if you are right and there are alternative ways for items to be delivered in the future, it's not a reality right now practically speaking, and whining about impact of diesels and other emissions whilst consuming items delivered by the them is at best hypocritical.

Let me know when you give up your cars, and other emissions emitting devices, and refuse any item delivered by anything unless it has a zero carbon footprint (including your food, etc) then we can talk.

This is already pretty far off topic now.

I am sorry about your mother. That is a crappy thing to have happen. These days, with what is known about smoking, anyone who still does it can be said to be making an informed choice. This was not so true in the past. The dangers of smoking were not understood, and it was much more of a peer pressure thing.

Pollution from cars and other sources is indeed off topic but, like smoking, they are a choice. We may not yet be able to choose to do without cars altogether, but we do have the ability to make choices that reduce the damage they and other emitters do. The most obvious one is to choose vehicles for personal use that emit the least, small cars rather than big luxury ones, or possibly no second car at all. Your arguments tend to be of the all or nothing variety, as in your zero carbon comment. But it doesn't necessarily have to be zero carbon. Less carbon is also a good step in the right direction.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1714845 3-Feb-2017 10:16

dafman:

networkn:

Rikkitic:

networkn:

Cars are pretty much required. Cigarettes not at all.

There are always choices. Buses are one. Electric vehicles are another. Or bicycles. Or, at the least, an economical, low-emission compact. It all depends on how seriously you take individual responsibility for environmental protection.

Right, so let's get rid of all the diesel and petrol vehicles on the road, see how you like your life then. Wait for your groceries to be delivered to your supermarket by horse and carriage etc.

/me rolls eyes

If all the smokers in the world stopped smoking what would we lose? Nothing. If all the emission emitting vehicles in the world what do we lose.. everything.

Defies belief this could even form part of a discussion.

Maybe not lose all the cars, but we could sure lose a lot of them. Many, if not most, families in the developed world have more than one car. If each family dropped down to one car, it wouldn't spell the end of humanity. And the positive effect on the environment would far exceed that which would be achieved by you kicking the odd smoker off the footpath.

It may look like two car families are wasting resources however that is not always a choice thing. We need more than one car, my wife travels a lot and is often away and I need a car to get around, that is a need not a want, public transport for disabled is a joke in NZ. If we had one vehicle I would not be able to out and about.

networkn

Networkn
32351 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1714846 3-Feb-2017 10:20

Rikkitic:

networkn:

I was unaware there was a gap between the cost of smoking and healthcare costs, however, I don't think it's unfillable. I'd be fine if taxes rose a small percentage to cover it, but what those reports don't take into account is the tax take of people who die or are unable to work due to those illnesses. My mother was a hard working tax paying woman who died at 53 from smoking related cancer. If she had lived 10 years longer then perhaps there would be a decent percentage of offset. Also doesn't take into account that less smoking related illnesses would potentially allow us to get to other medical issues which prevent people from working, shortening surgery wait times, which would have a further impact.

Even if you are right and there are alternative ways for items to be delivered in the future, it's not a reality right now practically speaking, and whining about impact of diesels and other emissions whilst consuming items delivered by the them is at best hypocritical.

Let me know when you give up your cars, and other emissions emitting devices, and refuse any item delivered by anything unless it has a zero carbon footprint (including your food, etc) then we can talk.

This is already pretty far off topic now.

I am sorry about your mother. That is a crappy thing to have happen. These days, with what is known about smoking, anyone who still does it can be said to be making an informed choice. This was not so true in the past. The dangers of smoking were not understood, and it was much more of a peer pressure thing.

Pollution from cars and other sources is indeed off topic but, like smoking, they are a choice. We may not yet be able to choose to do without cars altogether, but we do have the ability to make choices that reduce the damage they and other emitters do. The most obvious one is to choose vehicles for personal use that emit the least, small cars rather than big luxury ones, or possibly no second car at all. Your arguments tend to be of the all or nothing variety, as in your zero carbon comment. But it doesn't necessarily have to be zero carbon. Less carbon is also a good step in the right direction.

Cars aren't a choice for a considerable number of people in NZ due to our spread out nature and shocking lack of coverage on our public transport systems. In Singapore, even Hong Kong, sure it's a real option, here not really.

I am for reducing carbon foot-prints, but in my situation, a second car is required for reasons I am not justifying here. I bought the smallest practical engine on my wifes car, and whilst I drive a performance vehicle, I switched to a more efficient model over the prior few cars I drove. I'll switch to an Electric when they are practical, but for me, that is a good 10 years away MINIMUM.

The reality is, for the time being, cars are necessary and smoking is not. Anyone trying to dispute that, is trolling.

Smoking is a filthy inconsiderate and dumb choice for many reasons. If you are only smoking to help the national tax take, thanks for your thought, but we would rather you stopped and find another way to "contribute".

I am not saying that smokers are not potentially decent people, but the habit in todays day and age, is inexcusable to my mind (yes I do understand it's VERY hard to quit for some people).

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18660 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1714847 3-Feb-2017 10:21

dickytim:

lets not forget that if everyone changed to electric cars right now the extra electricity needed would have to come from coal, look up burning coal vs burning petrol, I don't thing you'll be happy with the results.

Fake argument. Everyone isn't going to suddenly change and no-one is going to look to burning more fossil fuels as a solution for the future. As electricity demand increases, other technologies will kick in and new alternatives will emerge. It is an evolutionary process. In New Zealand more thermal generation may become viable. We also have abundant solar resources. Electricity can be generated from the sea. There are plenty of possibilities if you use a little imagination.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos