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

Awrrr
18581 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1714343 2-Feb-2017 09:57

I don't smoke but I have a friend who does. It doesn't usually bother me. I actually like the smell of a burning cigarette if it is not too strong. I can't stand the smell of stale tobacco and I fully understand the complaints about that.

As with most things, I believe in compromise and mutual respect. No-one should have to put up with having smoke blown in their face, but tobacco is a powerful addiction and I think smokers are also entitled to a little understanding. Vaping strikes me as a good compromise that addresses the wishes of both sides.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

Lenovo

Shop now for Lenovo laptops and other devices (affiliate link).

dafman

3916 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1714346 2-Feb-2017 10:03

networkn:

PaulBags:
networkn: I recall following a smoker down the street

Maybe don't do that then?

Yes, that's right, because I should need to switch sides of the street to avoid inconsiderate people who smoke in public?

First world problem. So, yep, deal with it.

If not, where do you draw the line with controlling the behaviour of people you consider to be inconsiderate:

- because I should need to switch sides of the street to avoid people that walk too slowly in front of me, or to avoid groups in front of me on the footpath blocking my way?

- because I should need to switch sides of the street to avoid to people with offensive perfume?

etc

Geektastic

17927 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1714347 2-Feb-2017 10:05

dickytim:

I can't stand the smell of cigarettes I am an ex smoker and they stink to me.

I think we need to ban smoking in public ASAP, walking through someones toxic exhalations is just gross, and I have noticed it more since my fiancé has been pregnant.

On that basis, there are more than a few vehicles that should be ordered off our roads!

dickytim

2514 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1714348 2-Feb-2017 10:08

Too true Geektastic...

tstone

381 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1714361 2-Feb-2017 10:51

Geektastic:

dickytim:

I can't stand the smell of cigarettes I am an ex smoker and they stink to me.

I think we need to ban smoking in public ASAP, walking through someones toxic exhalations is just gross, and I have noticed it more since my fiancé has been pregnant.

On that basis, there are more than a few vehicles that should be ordered off our roads!

Yes, do people realise that just walking down the footpath of a busy street, particularly one where trucks and buses travel, is likely to be just as dangerous to their health as inhaling cigarette smoke?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_exhaust

Why just single out smokers for a ban? That's a rather short sighted approach to the problem in that it singles out only one of the many carcinogenic air pollutants you may inhale walking around a city. At least you can choose to walk around a smoker in public, but you can't avoid breathing the air with all the other pollutants.

richms

27976 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1714410 2-Feb-2017 12:00

Geektastic:

On that basis, there are more than a few vehicles that should be ordered off our roads!

Yes, nothing worse than being stuck behind a poorly maintained diesel 4x4 that leaves a giant cloud when taking off from the lights.

I would also like to see ciggy butts being dumped being dealt with since they are full of the crap that the "filter" has taken out it has to be terrible for the waterways.

Richard rich.ms

networkn

Networkn
32204 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1714418 2-Feb-2017 12:04

dafman:

networkn:

PaulBags:
networkn: I recall following a smoker down the street

Maybe don't do that then?

Yes, that's right, because I should need to switch sides of the street to avoid inconsiderate people who smoke in public?

First world problem. So, yep, deal with it.

If not, where do you draw the line with controlling the behaviour of people you consider to be inconsiderate:

- because I should need to switch sides of the street to avoid people that walk too slowly in front of me, or to avoid groups in front of me on the footpath blocking my way?

- because I should need to switch sides of the street to avoid to people with offensive perfume?

etc

What crap!

You don't get cancer from walking behind people who are moving too slowly, nor is there proveable link between inhaling second-hand perfume. 95% of people would find it more pleasant to inhale purfume than cigarette smoke.

It's most certainly NOT a first world problem.

And before someone starts up on car fumes, imagine your world with no cars or trucks. Imagine the same world with no smokers.

The end.

networkn

Networkn
32204 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1714419 2-Feb-2017 12:06

tstone:

Why just single out smokers for a ban? That's a rather short sighted approach to the problem in that it singles out only one of the many carcinogenic air pollutants you may inhale walking around a city. At least you can choose to walk around a smoker in public, but you can't avoid breathing the air with all the other pollutants.

I knew this was coming.

Cars and trucks and other transport devices provide considerable benefit to our society, imagine life with none of those, vs with no smokers.

There are laws against vehicles expelling excessive fumes, report the cars who you believe are non-compliant. There was a campaign a few years ago.

dafman

3916 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1714438 2-Feb-2017 12:52

networkn:

dafman:

networkn:

PaulBags:
networkn: I recall following a smoker down the street

Maybe don't do that then?

Yes, that's right, because I should need to switch sides of the street to avoid inconsiderate people who smoke in public?

First world problem. So, yep, deal with it.

If not, where do you draw the line with controlling the behaviour of people you consider to be inconsiderate:

- because I should need to switch sides of the street to avoid people that walk too slowly in front of me, or to avoid groups in front of me on the footpath blocking my way?

- because I should need to switch sides of the street to avoid to people with offensive perfume?

etc

What crap!

You don't get cancer from walking behind people who are moving too slowly, nor is there proveable link between inhaling second-hand perfume. 95% of people would find it more pleasant to inhale purfume than cigarette smoke.

It's most certainly NOT a first world problem.

And before someone starts up on car fumes, imagine your world with no cars or trucks. Imagine the same world with no smokers.

The end.

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? (-;

networkn

Networkn
32204 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1714727 2-Feb-2017 22:07

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? (-;

No, I bought a car for my wife that she liked and that met all her needs. I looked at lots of brands

Cars are pretty much required. Cigarettes not at all.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18581 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1714730 2-Feb-2017 22:18

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.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

networkn

Networkn
32204 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1714732 2-Feb-2017 22:26

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.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18581 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1714740 2-Feb-2017 22:48

networkn:

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 your belief systems need tweaking. If all smokers suddenly quit, there would be a huge, unfillable hole in the budget that pays for public services you depend on. Not to mention the jump in unemployment.

Emission-emitting vehicles are not an all or nothing proposition. For most services dependent on polluting diesels, there are alternative transport modes, and they don't have to be horse and buggy, either. Technologies are improving all the time. Of course, if you really don't care, and you can only feel suitably superior and pampered in a dinosaur-powered overweight air-conditioned death machine, by all means feel free. Like I said, it is a choice.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

networkn

Networkn
32204 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1714751 2-Feb-2017 23:38

Rikkitic:

networkn:

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 your belief systems need tweaking. If all smokers suddenly quit, there would be a huge, unfillable hole in the budget that pays for public services you depend on. Not to mention the jump in unemployment.

Emission-emitting vehicles are not an all or nothing proposition. For most services dependent on polluting diesels, there are alternative transport modes, and they don't have to be horse and buggy, either. Technologies are improving all the time. Of course, if you really don't care, and you can only feel suitably superior and pampered in a dinosaur-powered overweight air-conditioned death machine, by all means feel free. Like I said, it is a choice.

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.

dickytim

2514 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1714783 3-Feb-2017 06:16

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.

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.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6