On 2011-08-29, Steve Firth wrote:

Yup. I got stared at long and hard in company "personnel" meetings when
I asked if I could take 15-20 minutes off every hour to go and stand
outside and read a paper/chat with my mates/stare at girls as the
smokers appear to have free licence to do, or failing that to get paid
30% more per day than the smokers. The addicts of course claim that they
do just as much work as the non-addicts but don't seem to able to
explain how they make up their absences.

The difficult thing is that my libertarian leaning side says it's their
body they can abuse it as they wish, but another part of me says:

a) As long as they don't impact on my health/sensibility.
b) As long as they get their "fix" entirely in their own time.

As far as (b) goes, in a work environment smokers should clock in/out
for all tobacco breaks.

I still find the stench of working next to a smoker unacceptable, but it
seems that not much can be done about that, although workers with BO are
told by their superiors to clean themselves up.

An extremely libertarian perspective might be that employers should be
free to set whatever smoking/non-smoking policies they want, and
prospective employees can accept them or go elsewhere; *some*
libertarians seriously argue against anti-discrimination laws on the
grounds that, in the long term at least, racist employers will be less
successful than non-racist ones (because they are drawing employees
from a smaller pool selected without regard to competence). ("In the
long run we are all dead." -- J M Keynes)

In article ,
mike wrote:

It's as reliable as Gillian McKeith's poo-poking nonsense or David
Icke's alien lizards.

Thank you for mentioning the latter. Gillian McKeith is merely one
example of what has become a regrettably common phenomenon, but
David Icke does appear to have taken the Velikovsky, von Däniken
and Hubbard approaches to a new, er, dimension!

The trolls on this thread are far less amusing.


Regards,
A loyal subject of Her Reptilian Majesty.

On Aug 30, 12:10*am, Jon wrote:
On 29/08/2011 16:01, mike wrote:

In what way are Joe Jackson's views on smoking any more "balanced"
than Gary Glitter's views on the age of consent?

Do I really need to explain that to you?

Jon

You (by which I mean someone with an analytical mind so obviously not
you) could go through that article and point out assumptions, errors,
mischaracterisations and contradictions in virtually every sentence.

It has no scientific rigour and doesn't cite sources, so I don't know
where you get the notion that it contains "REAL facts" as opposed to
the less reliable lower case real facts or, indeed, facts. (It does
have a lot of exclamation marks though, doesn't it?)

It starts off from the premise - which it revisits frequently - that
any contrary view is "hysteria".

It's as reliable as Gillian McKeith's poo-poking nonsense or David
Icke's alien lizards.

Clearly, though, as an appeal to emotion, it finds its audience in the
sort of folk who just want their prejudices reinforced.

I imagine you mean it's balanced in the sense that creationism offers
a "balance" to evolution or that "psychic powers" offer a balance to
Uri Geller bending the ****ing spoon when you're not looking.

No doubt you checked out the "What Can be Done?" section. Amongst all
the front-organizations for the tobacco industry, you'll have seen the
link to Jackson's buddy, pro-smoking, pro-DDT, pro-asbestos, anti-
evolution, anti global warming loon and Glenn Beck-a-like, Steve
Milloy. Do you get your tinfoil hats from the same place?

So, yes, by all means explain why "singer" Joe Jackson's yellow
journalism is more valid than similar self-justifciation from "singer"
Gary Glitter.

Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
"ARWadsworth" wrote:

Tim Streater wrote:

I can't see the point of a pub that doesn't do food.

Well you could get ****ed in it.

Why would you want to get ****ed - unless you're a ****-artist.
Getting legless is something everybody should do once, but beyond
that it just ****es birds off.

The women are usually worse than the men when it comes to getting
****ed.

These days, yes. The answer is to find a better class of bird.

You mean one that gets ****ed on champagne?

--
Adam

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...

Given it's possible to provide a safe working environment for those
handling much more dangerous gases etc than smoke, it doesn't take too
much thought to realise you could make filtered smoking areas.

So the barmaid is going to wear a face mask with filters and possibly an air
supply?
And the smokers are going to pay more for their drinks to pay for this?

There are easier solutions, like giving up the addiction.

On Aug 30, 1:39*am, geoff wrote:
In message
, mike
writesOn Aug 28, 12:40 am, Jon wrote:

For a more balanced view on the subject, the singer Joe Jackson decided
to look into REAL facts regarding smoking and wrote "Smoke Lies, and the
Nanny State"

It can be downloaded here as a doc or PDF file:

Jon

In what way are Joe Jackson's views on smoking any more "balanced"
than Gary Glitter's views on the age of consent?

Not read it but ...

I think that the general thrust is that he has gone out to find real
facts rather than the oft peddled assumptions.

If you've not read it, you're "peddling assumptions" and you should
read it for the "real facts". Or for the insight into delusion or
maybe just the lulz.

"The Medway Handyman" wrote in message
...

8

Again, just how large is this cigarette that takes 20 mins to smoke?

Exaggeration is a standard tactic used by anti smoking fascists.

And by addicted handymen.
Who said it was one fag and one break?
They used to take two or three an hour in some departments.
Now we are down to they smoked it in only two minutes, how the hell did they
manage that?

"The Medway Handyman" wrote in message
...


Passive smoking has never killed anyone.

You can repeat that as many times as you like, it just proves that you don't
have a clue.
At least when you were claiming it hadn't kill insert name it was
impossible to prove but to claim anyone just shows you don't understand
epidemiology.
You could have claimed smoking never killed insert name and it would have
been hard to disprove but epidemiology shows that smoking does kill people,
the same as it shows secondary smoking does.
Now go and cut someone's grass and stop making stupid statements.

In article ,
dennis@home wrote:
Given it's possible to provide a safe working environment for those
handling much more dangerous gases etc than smoke, it doesn't take too
much thought to realise you could make filtered smoking areas.

So the barmaid is going to wear a face mask with filters and possibly an
air supply?

Why would a barmaid ever have to enter the dedicated smoking area?

And the smokers are going to pay more for their drinks to pay for this?

Perhaps you've not noticed the numbers of pubs that have close since the
smoking ban? And of those that haven't, the numbers who have provided
heated spaces outside for smokers? One such did so by removing the kid's
play area...

There are easier solutions, like giving up the addiction.

Do get a life, Dennis.

--
*Why do they put Braille on the drive-through bank machines?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
dennis@home wrote:
Again, just how large is this cigarette that takes 20 mins to smoke?

Exaggeration is a standard tactic used by anti smoking fascists.

And by addicted handymen.
Who said it was one fag and one break?
They used to take two or three an hour in some departments.

I hope that organisation went bust - through bad management. Perhaps it
was a government one?

Now we are down to they smoked it in only two minutes, how the hell did
they manage that?

In English?

--
*Acupuncture is a jab well done*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 30/08/11 00:26, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:


Given it's possible to provide a safe working environment for those
handling much more dangerous gases etc than smoke, it doesn't take too
much thought to realise you could make filtered smoking areas.


In that situation it is essential, as those dangerous gases are part of the
work being done.

If I were an employer (and I'm not) why should I spend hard-to-come-by funds
on facilities for smokers, when them smoking contributes in no way at all to
the success of the organisation? If I was to give money away it would be
better to donate it to charity, where it would be beneficial to worthwhile
causes.

And if those smokers can't do a decent days work without needing to go
outside for cigarettes for more breaktime than a non-smoker needs, then
they're not fit for the job and I would replace them with someone who is.

No objection whatsoever if someone wants to smoke. But like any other
addiction when it starts to affect people around them or prevents them from
doing their job then it has gone too far and they need to wise up.

Like any addict, though, they can't accept any of this. Their minds are
closed to all reason. Woe betide anyone who gets in the way or suggests the
addict is wrong. They find anyway possible to justify to themselves and
others that to be addicted is normal and is their right.

"Adam Funk" wrote in message
...

An extremely libertarian perspective might be that employers should be
free to set whatever smoking/non-smoking policies they want,

Marconi banned smoking well before the smoking ban was made law (probably
5-10 years before).
Only a very small number of fool^W people smoked (less than 2%, must be
something to do with intelligence?) and it was annoying the hell out of the
rest of us so we pressured management to ban it or to put them elsewhere.

and prospective employees can accept them or go elsewhere;

A no smoking clause was added to the contracts of new employees.

*some* libertarians seriously argue against anti-discrimination laws on
the
grounds that, in the long term at least, racist employers will be less
successful than non-racist ones (because they are drawing employees
from a smaller pool selected without regard to competence). ("In the
long run we are all dead." -- J M Keynes)

On 29/08/11 23:22, The Medway Handyman wrote:


Even more enlightening to learn how extreme rabid anti smoking fascists can
be in the persecution of a minority.


Paranoia. That's another thing triggered by the perceived threat of addiction
withdrawal.

People are not persecuting you. They just want to lead their lives quite
happily away from the stench and risk associated with your smoke. That is not
persecution.

People around you shouldn't know or care that you smoke, unless you tell
them. The problem is that symptoms of addiction make it quite obvious and can
make you an unpleasant person to be around - just like with alcohol
addiction. Aside from the addiction symptoms smoking is physically unpleasant
in and of itself.

So you're free to indulge in your addiction. Do it on your own or with other
smokers and no-one will mind, you're not bothering anyone. But don't be under
the illusion that others should make efforts to accommodate you or
accommodate the unpleasant smells and side effects of the addiction.

On 29/08/11 23:20, The Medway Handyman wrote:


And thats not what I was talking about idiot.

Smoking has been demonised by the health police - fact.

With good reason..., just like drink driving and obesity and...


Alcohol is next on their lists - fact.

Undoubtedly. But unlike smoking, alcohol can be enjoyed in moderation without
affecting anyone else, and without becoming addicted.

In article ,
funkyoldcortina wrote:
On 30/08/11 00:26, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:


Given it's possible to provide a safe working environment for those
handling much more dangerous gases etc than smoke, it doesn't take too
much thought to realise you could make filtered smoking areas.


In that situation it is essential, as those dangerous gases are part of
the work being done.

As they could also be, in a pub, etc.

If I were an employer (and I'm not) why should I spend hard-to-come-by
funds on facilities for smokers, when them smoking contributes in no
way at all to the success of the organisation?

Exactly the same applies to tea breaks, etc. Just as well you're not an
employer.

If I was to give money away it would be better to donate it to charity,
where it would be beneficial to worthwhile causes.

Great. You'd have done well as an employer a couple of centuries ago.

And if those smokers can't do a decent days work without needing to go
outside for cigarettes for more breaktime than a non-smoker needs, then
they're not fit for the job and I would replace them with someone who is.

See above. And above.

No objection whatsoever if someone wants to smoke. But like any other
addiction when it starts to affect people around them or prevents them
from doing their job then it has gone too far and they need to wise up.

See above. And above. And above.

Like any addict, though, they can't accept any of this. Their minds are
closed to all reason. Woe betide anyone who gets in the way or suggests
the addict is wrong. They find anyway possible to justify to themselves
and others that to be addicted is normal and is their right.

Studied addiction, have you? Perhaps you should.

--
*Before they invented drawing boards, what did they go back to?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.