Time off to give up smoking!!!

[lesrae]

Originally Posted by Penelope_Grey

I'm sorry lesrae but I don't feel comfortable answering your question as my opinion could be offensive to your personal experience. But being an alcoholic and being a smoker are two different things, a smoker is not nearly as bad as an alcoholic is in terms of inability to work and to function effectively, even under withdrawl a smoker can still function to a better extent than somebody under the influence.

Fair point I suppose - for the record I got help before It went too far, so I can still enjoy a few beers.

Originally Posted by gnirtS

Why should they get something other people dont? In other words, why should non smokers be forced to do MORE work for the same money than smokers?
Its not my fault they got addicted to it and if they want to attend anything related to it do it on their own time or without pay.
Just asking for equality, give them time off then give the people who WERENT dull enough to start smoking either the same time off or the equivalent salary.

Logically you're right, but I feel it's the thin end of the wedge - the next logical argument is that smokers shouldn't be allowed to smoke at work if it means they have to stop work, as it's unfair to their colleagues.

Well under the same argument I don't drink tea or coffee so I consider that it's unfair that my colleagues can wander away from their desk and spend 5~10 mins making a cuppa and chatting to others in the kitchen.

Hang on, I've just realised that I don't chat much to people at work, while others seem to do little else - that's unfair.

And now I come to think of it that bloke down the corridor seems to spend a heck of a lot of time in the loo, certainy more than I do.

Where do we stop?

[kiwi_2005]

My son was telling me the other day that the old fellas stop every 15 min or so for a smoke. when they are working in an area where smoking isn't allow he reckons they all totally bum out looking like the worlds gonna end for them :rotfl: whereeva they go they got a fag hanging from their mouth. As for me i dont mind having to wait till cuppa break or lunch to light up - no big deal.

[P_Funk]

Originally Posted by Penelope_Grey

But being an alcoholic and being a smoker are two different things, a smoker is not nearly as bad as an alcoholic is in terms of inability to work and to function effectively, even under withdrawl a smoker can still function to a better extent than somebody under the influence.

They say that addiction to ciggies is harder to kick than cocaine. And I've seen someone in nicotine withdrawl. It was spooky, and I can tell you he was not functional in the least. A more apt term would be anti-social bridging on violent.

Originally Posted by gnirtS

Why should they get something other people dont? In other words, why should non smokers be forced to do MORE work for the same money than smokers?
Its not my fault they got addicted to it and if they want to attend anything related to it do it on their own time or without pay.
Just asking for equality, give them time off then give the people who WERENT dull enough to start smoking either the same time off or the equivalent salary.

I would contend that it is a form of equality to allow them the opportunity to kick the habit. No it isn't your fault that someone became addicted. However its not so cut and dried to say that it is theirs either. People aren't all the same and often unfair things in life drive people to make poor decisions. Even ignoring that possibility, everyone deserves a chance at a better life.

I feel that it is the obligation of society to aid those in need if they are serious about changing their lives for the better. It isn't a matter of forcing non-smokers to work harder. Quitting an addiction is not like lying around waiting to heal. It is a painful and difficult process. Addictions are a serious social issue. By allowing those who wish to change the ability to retain what little balance they have in their lives while they try and solve their issues, it ultimately is better for the company, the person in question, and all of society in general. It offers them a way out of the deadly cycle of addiction.

Life isn't perfectly equal. What makes the world a better place is when we try to help each other out. We create our own equality. I see no problem with making small sacrifices for those that are serious about solving their issues.

I see nothing wrong with a little charity. In fact I think its quite positive.

[TteFAboB]

Originally Posted by P_Funk

I see no problem with making small sacrifices for those that are serious about solving their issues.

I see nothing wrong with a little charity. In fact I think its quite positive.

You see no problem with making other people make small sacrifices. It's easy to do charity with other people's money, "eh"?

[P_Funk]

Originally Posted by TteFAboB

You see no problem with making other people make small sacrifices. It's easy to do charity with other people's money, "eh"?

I see it as the responsibility of society. The government being a function of that responsibility gathers taxes to fund such endeavours and also subsidizes where it is footed by other organizations. That is the function of governmental budget, to pursue the interests of society through expenditure. When you say "other people's money" you imply theft or the unlawful or unfair use of said person's acumulated money. But in all society we must fund the government in its task.

Nowhere however did I say anyone should be forced to make sacrifices. The purpose of the government is to do this as often on our behalf as possible. The accumulation of public wealth through taxation and governmental reinvestment (ie. crown corporations and such) is meant to take our small "dues" and turn them into a more powerful investment tool for furthering society's interests.

When people are required or are asked to make that sacrifice or accomodation more directly the government then subsidizes it or offers tax returns.

Now that is all in the abstract. Specifically, aside from the expenditure of tax revenues, I see no burden on citizens that are not involved in the program that sparked this thread. All that I hear is a call that it is not fair that these people are given an opportunity to recover from their addictions while retaining their jobs. This is differnet from limiting personal freedoms or directly demanding sacrifices. It is an accomodation of someone's personal limitations by helping them in such a way that they need not make a huge personal sacrifice (ie. leaving their job) in order to overcome a personally limiting condition.

I'm not sure if your remarks are intended to challenge my view on the specific program discussed here, or are simply a jab at my "pink-commie-bleedingheartforthemasses" tendencies. Judging by the lack of any specific academic or intellectual challenges there, I'll lean towards the latter.

Eh?

[TteFAboB]

When I quoted you, were you talking about the specific question at hand? If so seeing no problem and seeing nothing wrong means agreeing, condoning. Considering you're from Canada, not Britain and it's not your tax revenue nor your workplace, as far as the specific question is concerned you obviously see no problem with the British doing the little sacrifice. Thus, my sentence stands untill money from your pocket is involved: It's easy to do charity with other people's money, "eh"?

[Penelope_Grey]

Originally Posted by gnirtS

Just asking for equality, give them time off then give the people who WERENT dull enough to start smoking either the same time off or the equivalent salary.

I resent that remark, I am not dull. I have 3 A-levels grades A, A, C. I am not dull in the slightest. When I chose to start smoking I didn't do so because of peer pressure or because some celebrity was smoking, I started because I tried it and liked what I tried. I know I will have to stop soon if I want to avoid permanent damage to my health. But I don't think its fair to make such a sweeping remark as that.

[Skybird]

In germany, in many companies workers that smoked were allowed 5 minutes brake per hour (regulated in treaties, enforced by unions!), to smoke. During a shift of 9 hours, one hour was brake, from the remaining 8 hours smokers got another 40 minutes free. so all in all 100 minutes brakes, 7h20m work.

Nonsmokers were not allowed to almost double their daily brake duration that way. they still scored 60 minutes brakes, 8h work. Needless to say: without compensation for the privileges for smokers.



Now some simple exemplary maths. Calculate the daily time loss for a whole week. A month. A year. And then translate the acucmulated additional offtimes into money: if there are 330 working day 8 hours each, and smokers get benefits like above, we are talking about 40 min x 330 days = 220 hours of work per year that the employers pay them for, but they do not work for it. 220 hours / 8 hours work per day = 27.5 days of regular 8 hours work - that is additional freetime to the 30 days of holiday, 27.5 working days (per 8 hours each) they get for free.

so: smokers 52.5 holidays per year, non smokers 30 holidays per year.

[lesrae]

Originally Posted by Skybird

so: smokers 52.5 holidays per year, non smokers 30 holidays per year.

My point exactly, give them a few hours off now and 'spend to save' - if they manage to give up that is.

[P_Funk]

Originally Posted by TteFAboB

When I quoted you, were you talking about the specific question at hand? If so seeing no problem and seeing nothing wrong means agreeing, condoning. Considering you're from Canada, not Britain and it's not your tax revenue nor your workplace, as far as the specific question is concerned you obviously see no problem with the British doing the little sacrifice. Thus, my sentence stands untill money from your pocket is involved: It's easy to do charity with other people's money, "eh"?

Ah I see. So since I'm in Canada any opinion I have is irrelavent unless its about Canada.

What difference does it make if its my country? We're discussing the idea. If it were in my country I'd feel exaclty the same way. Its their country and their government and they're using their own tax revenue. I'm just agreeing with it.

Your argument is irrelavent. This is just an abstract discussion. Your accusation is also, laughable.

[TteFAboB]

Originally Posted by P_Funk

Ah I see. So since I'm in Canada any opinion I have is irrelavent unless its about Canada.

"Any OPINION". Yes, opinions are like butts, everybody has one. An opinion is not a small sacrifice nor charity. The relevance of your opinion is irrelevant to this fact.

What difference does it make if its my country? We're discussing the idea. If it were in my country I'd feel exaclty the same way. Its their country and their government and they're using their own tax revenue. I'm just agreeing with it.

Your argument is irrelavent. This is just an abstract discussion. Your accusation is also, laughable.

My comment was the statement of a fact, not an accusation, much less an argument. But if this is just an abstract discussion what are you agreeing with? Are you an idea? If you are agreeing with the object of this thread then you agree with a concrete situation, not abstract at all.

Your ideas, yes, are irrelevant before the fact: an idea, like an opinion, does not make a small sacrifice nor charity. So you have declared that you see nothing wrong with making small sacrifices and charity but so far have done neither while not only agreeing that Brits do it but declaring it an obligation. Since your money isn't involved at all it's easy to conclude that it's easy to do charity with other people's money. If not, why can't you just say so? "No, I consider it harder".

If it were in my country I'd feel exaclty the same way.

Yes, feel. You see, you feel and have an opinion and an idea. I'm sure the smokers appreciate your feelings but none of those qualify as small sacrifices or charity in the monetary sense which is the object of discussion (fairness) of the thread.

[gnirtS]

Originally Posted by Penelope_Grey

I resent that remark, I am not dull. I have 3 A-levels grades A, A, C. I am not dull in the slightest.

Resent all you want. A-levels mean pretty much nothing these days and in any case all they prove is that you can parrot fashion learn and regurgitate it.

I started because I tried it and liked what I tried. I know I will have to stop soon if I want to avoid permanent damage to my health. But I don't think its fair to make such a sweeping remark as that.

OK so you started using a proven lethal highly addictive drugs because it was fun and somehow that ISNT dull ?

[Weigh-Man]

Smokers put around £12,000,000,000(billion?) per year into the British Goverments hands, maybe some of this should be used to help the smokers to stop?

[STEED]

Originally Posted by Weigh-Man

Smokers put around £12,000,000,000(billion?) per year into the British Goverments hands, maybe some of this should be used to help the smokers to stop?

Fat chance the country is in the red.

[Penelope_Grey]

Originally Posted by gnirtS

Resent all you want. A-levels mean pretty much nothing these days and in any case all they prove is that you can parrot fashion learn and regurgitate it.

OK so you started using a proven lethal highly addictive drugs because it was fun and somehow that ISNT dull ?

Wheras you must have a Phd right, Professor?

Don't look down on other peoples accomplishments, whether you think they are up to anything is irrelevant, point is, I put the work in, and I got the grades. Parrot fashion it may be, but if you haven't got any sense you need not apply to do them. Besides, we don't know what your qualifacations are do we? You criticised mine, but neglected to mention your own. And even if you really are gnirtS Phd. That does not give you the right to belittle my A-levels, I could have gone to any university I wanted, I chose to not bother due to the huge debts they create.

No more dull than these people who jump through flaming rings on motorbikes, or now more dull than these people who deliberately ride roller coasters to make themselves ill. You take the rough with the smooth, yes smoking is not great as it harms you tremendously, but, like I say I am not under any illusions about that, you seem to think I am not aware of that fact or am deliberately ignoring it. Which is not right.