View Full Version : Smokers having to clock-off
Whatever next! "Smokers may soon be filtered out of the workplace because employing them is ‘too much trouble’, a lobby group warned tonight. Forest, which campaigns for people’s right to smoke, said more and more employers were making life unreasonably difficult for smokers... Director Simon Clark spoke out as Breckland Council, which is based in Dereham, Norfolk, became the latest local authority to consider making workers clock off while they take a cigarette break."
What? having to clock-off? seems an eminently sensible answer to me.
Being a non-smoker it would get right up my nose, when, in the Forces as a young lad, say building a bridge, the Officer ic would say "smoke break" and smokers would en-mass move to the side, sit down and have a fag, whilst us who did not smoke, carried on.. that is until I clicked, and would sit on the side, puffing an imaginary cig with the rest of 'em..
Mrs Beks worked in an office where some two or three times an hour the heavy smokers would 'nip outside for a smoke' - nothing said. But in a day that was something like an hour and half; practically a full day in a week!
We had a Friend (German) staying with us recently who owned a shipping company, previously a heavy smoker who had experienced a partial stroke, was now a rabid anti-smoker, and swore blind that when he received a CV from a potential employee, he's sniff the paper and reckons if he could detect nicotine, it was binned "I have no wish to pay a man for not working one hour a day"..
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1315974/Smokers-filtered-workplace-theyre-trouble-employ.html#ixzz111pPZ0Kf
George Brims
30-Sep-10, 17:51
As long as I don't have to clock off while servicing my addiction (caffeine) it all sounds fine to me.
Watched the US edition of "Hell's Kitchen" last night. Ramsay tried to get the contestants to quit smoking. I've always been appalled by how many of the chefs light up as soon as they are out of the kitchen.
nightspirit
30-Sep-10, 17:55
I don't smoke personally nor hold any grudges about anyone that does - but why should ppl get paid for 30 to 40 mis extra breaks a day that the rest of us do. The place i work have the same feeling on this and we have had the requierment of ppl to clock off whenever they go for a smoke for the last 2 years. Fair enough we have a flexi system so you do not actually loose any money but just have to work on a bit. A bit of common sense and a good way. But clocking off for a smoke break a defo agree with purely for fairness.
It sounds like smokers are making it difficult for themselves to be employed.
I don't smoke personally nor hold any grudges about anyone that does - but why should ppl get paid for 30 to 40 mis extra breaks a day that the rest of us do. The place i work have the same feeling on this and we have had the requierment of ppl to clock off whenever they go for a smoke for the last 2 years. Fair enough we have a flexi system so you do not actually loose any money but just have to work on a bit. A bit of common sense and a good way. But clocking off for a smoke break a defo agree with purely for fairness.
It's a fair point but just to play devil's wotsit, only fairly recent legislation has required that a smoker downs tools and leaves the building for a smoke. It wasn't that long ago that desks and workbenches sported ashtrays.:eek:
It is not necessary for the smoker to stop work, it is necessary for everyone else that they do.
This is nothing new when I worked for HMC&E attached to IR, in the 1990's I was on flexi time, as a smoker I had to deduct 30 mins flexi time a day, I saw nothing wrong with that.
Tubthumper
30-Sep-10, 18:55
It's not even 5 years since Scotland banned smoking inside. Doesn't it look strange when you see an old TV programme where they're smoking in the pub?
I never thought it would work, just shows how quickly we can get used to something.
It's not even 5 years since Scotland banned smoking inside. Doesn't it look strange when you see an old TV programme where they're smoking in the pub?
I never thought it would work, just shows how quickly we can get used to something.
How could it not work? It's the law :eek:
Tubthumper
30-Sep-10, 19:03
How could it not work? It's the law :eek:
Maybe I expected mass civil disobedience, people barricading themselves in pubs and offices, their friends using catapults to fire fresh supplies of fags to them. The Polis out with riot shields, dragging screaming Mr Lambert & Mr Butler into the wagon while the Benson & Hedges Bros chained themselves to the bar.
Or something like that. I packed it in just before the ban started, I couldn't believe how bad the pub smelt.
It's a fair point but just to play devil's wotsit, only fairly recent legislation has required that a smoker downs tools and leaves the building for a smoke. It wasn't that long ago that desks and workbenches sported ashtrays.:eek:
It is not necessary for the smoker to stop work, it is necessary for everyone else that they do.
Fair point Ducati, though even as an ex smoker I would also argue that the workplace is eminently better for being smoke-free (and I never imagined that I would ever have said that)!
In my own experience, I would say that those employees who smoke do nip out for a quick drag but work conscientiously the rest of the time while several non-smokers within my workforce have perfected the art of doing little or nothing for long periods of time whilst appearing productive.
I know that you can't generalise but I know who I would rather employ - even if they do reek of stale smoke:lol:
Kevin Milkins
30-Sep-10, 19:35
When I used to smoke I would have considered this type of behaviour from an employer to be much less than reasonable, but now that I'm a non smoker I feel a bit of an hypocrite, because I think it's only fair and reasonable, (sorry smokers).
I agree with Tubthumper about when you see an old film or programme on the telly, It's hard to believe when watching something like the Sweeney that they are in the briefing room in a cloud of smog.:eek:
I'm not sure if I could stick it in a pub full of smoke like it used to be, and I always used to non smokers to stop moaning all the time. (sorry non smokers).:confused
I work with smokers and non smokers, the non smokers leave the building for their smoke break over and above their normal breaks, so I take it I'm entitled to my extra non smoking breaks
Maybe I am going off the point here but have to say how can anyone who is not employed full time be able to afford to smoke, I was in a shop in Wick the other day and could'nt believe someone of front of me paid £6.42 for a packet of fags.
Maybe I expected mass civil disobedience, people barricading themselves in pubs and offices, their friends using catapults to fire fresh supplies of fags to them. The Polis out with riot shields, dragging screaming Mr Lambert & Mr Butler into the wagon while the Benson & Hedges Bros chained themselves to the bar.
Or something like that. I packed it in just before the ban started, I couldn't believe how bad the pub smelt.
Thought they could revoke the Landlords licence if smoking was permitted.. they don't want to lose their pubs now do they? ;)
Why don't the smokers go for a smoke when on a designated break?
Everyone wins!
George Brims
30-Sep-10, 20:24
Why don't the smokers go for a smoke when on a designated break?
Everyone wins!
Because that isn't often enough for most smokers!
Ahhhhh, poor babies! It's a tough world.
If I rocked up into a job and disappeared a couple of times an hour for a Stella I'd probably get fired. Why should it be any different.
I used to smoke and most jobs it was the case of having a fag when on your break, not electing to take a break at random ferra ciggy.
manloveswife
30-Sep-10, 21:34
Lets not forget that only 25 years ago smoking in many walks of life was still a social activity, sitting in a pub, buying rounds and offering the cigs around was still pretty much the norm in mine and many other circles.
O.K, its bad for you, but smoking was pretty much encouraged by the media, sports and hollywood.
All of a sudden, the nannny state decided it would make smokers social lepers, and it must be a really good feeling of superiority for those who don't smoke to look down their noses at those who do, and whats worse than an ex smoker?
Lets also remember that quitting is hard, and those who learnt the habit when it was acceptable are now being punished for what was often the norm, so why should smokers be punished for an addiction when if they were on heroin the state would go out of its way to look after them.
Anyway, I'm pleased to say that I smoke while I work, its my little workshop, I employ no one, and I will carry on in the old fashioned way as long as I please.:Razz
Tugmistress
30-Sep-10, 21:55
Well i am glad i work outside! when i have finished th immediate job in hand i can light up and not take a break as it were, but while i am busy i don't smoke :)
i don't think i could ever work in an office environment whether i smoked or not, that would just be soul destroying so thankfully i am hoping this thing wont affect me :D
youoldduffer
30-Sep-10, 22:09
I worked in the hotel trade for many years and remember the good old fag break, where you would rush out get a quick ciggie and then back to work 5-6 mins at the most, now its nip out get a quick cuppa and its 10 mins before you see them again or you have to go and get them back in.
Maybe we should go the full draconian way and just give all employee's no breaks what so ever or allow employers to discriminate against people who can do the job but are Fat/Thin/Blonde ect?, that way no-one can complain about what someone else is getting and they are not.
All of a sudden, the nannny state decided it would make smokers social lepers, and it must be a really good feeling of superiority for those who don't smoke to look down their noses at those who do, and whats worse than an ex smoker?
Lets also remember that quitting is hard, and those who learnt the habit when it was acceptable are now being punished for what was often the norm, so why should smokers be punished for an addiction when if they were on heroin the state would go out of its way to look after them.
The law does not force you to stop smoking. Nor does it make you a social leper. It just stops you from forcing those that do not want to smoke to inhale your smoke.
The state as far as I am aware does, at a great expense, run several diferent kinds of programmes to help people stop smoking. And even more, it pays people to stop! How else would you have the state look after smokers? By subsidizing cigarretes or prescribing them on the NHS?
Truth is smokers are just servicing a drug addiction. Why should they get to skive off every half hour. If they are so addicted that they cant make it two or three hours with out a fix then why pay them. I dont mind a wee skive when your busy but folks are not entitled to be paid for there addiction.........ducks down quick!!!
Smokers need to be expunged from the populace to laughing applause from the populace.
Smokers need to be expunged from the populace to laughing applause from the populace.
and fat people and people that are ugly :mad:
Walter Ego
01-Oct-10, 11:08
and fat people and people that are ugly :mad:
There would be noone left in Wick if you did that[lol]
I work in a place where I see smokers going outside on the hour every hour for about 7 mins a time leaving the rest to work on, why cant the non smokers get an extra half hour a day to have a paid break to make up for this. When will the firms realise they are loosing all this paid time to their smokers. Count that up on a weekly basis and see how much lost time there is. Or put another way how much rest time the smokers are getting.:roll:
manloveswife
01-Oct-10, 17:49
The law does not force you to stop smoking. Nor does it make you a social leper. It just stops you from forcing those that do not want to smoke to inhale your smoke.
The state as far as I am aware does, at a great expense, run several diferent kinds of programmes to help people stop smoking. And even more, it pays people to stop! How else would you have the state look after smokers? By subsidizing cigarretes or prescribing them on the NHS?
Ju, I'm not asking the state to look after smokers, but do think things may have gone a little too far.
My point is that on the day the news story ran about banning smoking in public places, they also ran a story on government plans to erect shelters in towns and cities, where addicts of illeagle substances could go to inject themselves instead of cluttering up parks and alleys. To me that was hypocritical at best. Whilst removing ventilated smoking areas from otherwise smoke free places they planned (though fortunately I don't think it has happened) to provide injection shelters for heroin addicts.
The NHS does also go to great lengths to help addicts of all descriptions, but it gives methadone to many who use it for nothing more than subsidising their heroin addiction.
I for one have tried many ways to quit, including the prescribed drug ZYBAN, unfortunately Zyban turned out to be worse than smoking for me as it has severe side effects in many more cases than the NHS liked to admit. At the same time there are constant threats of denying treatment to smokers, because they have caused the problem. Having worked in an industry where I ended up on an asbestos register, worked in tunnels so polluted with diesel fumes grown men were walking out of them to throw up, and inhaled so much lead based smoke from gas burning and lancing steelwork on victorian structures I would not appreciate being refused treatment because I also smoked.
Should we also refuse to treat a footballers broken leg because he knew the risks, should we refuse to treat a road traffic accident patient because he was using the mobile phone at the time, after all, the person on the mobile was a larger threat to human life than a smoker.
Just what was wrong with having a choice of places to go, some smoking, some non smoking, and allowing areas that did not impinge on the air of other parts of a building for those who chose to use it? In other words allowing freedom of choice on both sides.
To me the new measures are draconian in their nature, and to then call workers who smoke for nipping out for a fag is wrong. There are also enough non smokers who take the paper to the toilets for 3/4's of an hour, spend half the day texting, or spend half the day using the firms computers to look at innapropriate content or send daft emails to their pals. Lazyness is lazyness, loss of work time is certainly not limited to the smoking population.
and fat people and people that are ugly :mad:
What about gingers?
Ju, I'm not asking the state to look after smokers, but do think things may have gone a little too far.
My point is that on the day the news story ran about banning smoking in public places, they also ran a story on government plans to erect shelters in towns and cities, where addicts of illeagle substances could go to inject themselves instead of cluttering up parks and alleys. To me that was hypocritical at best. Whilst removing ventilated smoking areas from otherwise smoke free places they planned (though fortunately I don't think it has happened) to provide injection shelters for heroin addicts.
The NHS does also go to great lengths to help addicts of all descriptions, but it gives methadone to many who use it for nothing more than subsidising their heroin addiction.
I for one have tried many ways to quit, including the prescribed drug ZYBAN, unfortunately Zyban turned out to be worse than smoking for me as it has severe side effects in many more cases than the NHS liked to admit. At the same time there are constant threats of denying treatment to smokers, because they have caused the problem. Having worked in an industry where I ended up on an asbestos register, worked in tunnels so polluted with diesel fumes grown men were walking out of them to throw up, and inhaled so much lead based smoke from gas burning and lancing steelwork on victorian structures I would not appreciate being refused treatment because I also smoked.
Should we also refuse to treat a footballers broken leg because he knew the risks, should we refuse to treat a road traffic accident patient because he was using the mobile phone at the time, after all, the person on the mobile was a larger threat to human life than a smoker.
Just what was wrong with having a choice of places to go, some smoking, some non smoking, and allowing areas that did not impinge on the air of other parts of a building for those who chose to use it? In other words allowing freedom of choice on both sides.
To me the new measures are draconian in their nature, and to then call workers who smoke for nipping out for a fag is wrong. There are also enough non smokers who take the paper to the toilets for 3/4's of an hour, spend half the day texting, or spend half the day using the firms computers to look at innapropriate content or send daft emails to their pals. Lazyness is lazyness, loss of work time is certainly not limited to the smoking population.
If you really and truely wanted to stop smoking you would but you would like to stop smoking there is a difference in your mind set thats why you keep failing.
You have to remember there is no magic cure for stop smoking without any withdrawl effects all the non smoking products only reduce the craving thats all.
When you decide to stop smoking you just have to accept the fact that your going to feel crap for the next 6 months when you decide to stop there is no easy way stop?
Thats why the more harder everytone makes it for smokers to smoke is a good thing because once the smoker sees it as smoking is more trouble than its worth they more likey to give up smoking.
If i had my way i would band smoking in all public places
Lazyness is lazyness, loss of work time is certainly not limited to the smoking population.
It certainly isn't limited to smokers, but why should a number of people automatically be 'allowed' to blag part of their working day. When some colleagues / staff etc. disappear two or three times an hour it is unfair on their colleagues and ripping off the employer.
If yer get a bone idle smoker then nowt is gonna get done.
Truth is smokers are just servicing a drug addiction. Why should they get to skive off every half hour. If they are so addicted that they cant make it two or three hours with out a fix then why pay them. I dont mind a wee skive when your busy but folks are not entitled to be paid for there addiction.........ducks down quick!!!
Exactly!..Alcoholisim is a medically accepted addiction...just like smoking, so would an employer, or other employees, accept a co-worker nipping out every hour for a quick tinnie? :eek:
During my daughters summer job she got really annoyed at the smokers having their fag break, and giving her orders to do jobs while they were outside having their fag break. When she asked for a break she was told she wasn't allowed as she wasn't a smoker.
My son also bought a packet of fags as a prop to pretend he smoked, then disppeared alone to have his imaginary fag, to get the same breaks and time off as smokers in his summer job, as he was fed up with being treated as a skivy by the smokers.
I saw a great article in a magazine years ago, where some workplaces in Germany gave their non smoking workers an extra weeks holiday a year to give equivalent time off as the smokers. Needless to say it was ripped off the office wall within minutes - I would assume by a smoker!!!
If people feel they have to have a fag - don't pull the mick out of the non-smokers and assume these extra breaks are a right - and before I get slated for this comment, not all smokers are inconsiderate!!!!!!!
Manloveswife, your freedom of choice has NEVER been curtailed with regard to smoking. Where as non smokers for decades have been forced into being smokers ( I know: I smoked my mothers smoke untill I was 16. I started smoking it before I was born). The only thing that was asked of you as a smoker is to stop doing it where it affects the choices and freedoms of others. You are more than welcome to carry on your habit. It is your choice and you have the freedom to do it!
In one breath you complain of the nanny state telling you what to do and in the next decry the government for not doing more for you as a smoker. isn't that "nanny-ing" as well? Can't have it both ways and be consistent.
manloveswife
02-Oct-10, 00:11
Ju,
I have never said the nanny state should do anything for me as a smoker, just accept my right to choice, and treat me the same as any one else, not as a second class citizen.
I have never forced my smoke on other people except in my own domain, some establishments were naturally smoky ones, some not. You also, as a none smoker have the choice to go there or not. Likewise, in your home or car I would respect your wish for a smoke free enviroment, in mine, you can accept my smoky one, or simply not enter it. Why would you assume you have the right to a worl that meets only your agenda, can people not co exist, you have a choice to go, or not, into an enviroment, so do I. Which is probably the reason I can count on the fingers of one hand how many times I have been into a public house since these draconian measures were introduced.
You seem to miss my point, which is that people can smoke without detriment to others without an outright ban, have you been in a fabrication shop, high roofs for the smoke to get up from welding and burning, extractors on the roof, some one having a fag is not going to hurt.
As an aside, do you feel the smoke from your mother has done you lasting damage, I'm afraid I am not convinced it will have.
I have no entitlement to enter your home. I am entitled to enter any public space and expect it to be smoke free. If you smoke in that public space you are curtailing my freedom. Your freedom to smoke is preserved as you can go to the door for your 5 minute cigarrette and smoke there. Then come back into the public space. If you are having trouble understanding the logic behind this then it is because you do not want to.
PS: I was born 2 weeks premature and weighed 1.5 kg ( is that around three pounds?), so yes, damage was done to me.
What about gingers?
Yes, and anyone who plays the bagpipes
i am visciously anti-smoking as my family well know.
my mother who is nearly dead with lung disease due to smoking and is on oxegen 24/7 now still smokes!
she is now weighing in at 92 lbs and it takes more calories than she can consume just to breathe..
even as a child, and a young child at that i would throw a fit if anyone smoked near me.
and i grew up with smokers in the house. i literly came home from school and locked myself in my room to exscape smoke from fags.
its amazing no matter how poor someone is that they can still afford cigarettes!
i will not take my children somewhere if there is smoking.
when we go home to visit, i lay down my law.. if you want us to come and visit you and you want to see my children then you can refrain from smoking until we leave.
in fact i have been known to pick up my kids and walk out the door when that was not listened to.
I can not stop anyone from smoking but i can stop myself and my family from being around it.
and as i told my mother, if her body destroying addiction was more inportant than seeing her daughter and grandchildren, then she just didnt want to see us enough.. and we would not be visiting.
do i sound hard and uncaring? maybe but i care more for the well being of my kids than someones hurt feelings.
Ju,
I have never said the nanny state should do anything for me as a smoker, just accept my right to choice, and treat me the same as any one else, not as a second class citizen.
I have never forced my smoke on other people except in my own domain, some establishments were naturally smoky ones, some not. You also, as a none smoker have the choice to go there or not. Likewise, in your home or car I would respect your wish for a smoke free enviroment, in mine, you can accept my smoky one, or simply not enter it. Why would you assume you have the right to a worl that meets only your agenda, can people not co exist, you have a choice to go, or not, into an enviroment, so do I. Which is probably the reason I can count on the fingers of one hand how many times I have been into a public house since these draconian measures were introduced.
You seem to miss my point, which is that people can smoke without detriment to others without an outright ban, have you been in a fabrication shop, high roofs for the smoke to get up from welding and burning, extractors on the roof, some one having a fag is not going to hurt.
As an aside, do you feel the smoke from your mother has done you lasting damage, I'm afraid I am not convinced it will have.
Look at what you have just said it just goes to show you how addicted you are to smoking and that the choice to smoke or not in your case you dont have because your addicted?thats why banning smoking in publice places is the way forward because the idea behind is not to to protect the current smokers because its to late for that but to help prevent the younger generation from start smoking.
Im not being rude but if your smoking in your own home i bet your home stinks and the walls and furniture are all stained and your clothes stinks but because your a smoker you cant smell that so your non the wiser and trust me if you stopped smoking for a couple of weeks you would get your scense of smell and taste back and then you would then be able to smell the awful smell that comes of a fag.
Its amazing how the stink of after smoking remains on a smokers clothes and were they were smoking?
If your smoking couple of packets a day thats a lot money in one month your wasting and if you stopped smoking its like giving yourselve a 30% pay rise with the money your saving?
Tell you what folks there are a lot of angry people around this thread. Today I don't have to eat where someone is smoking, I don't have to work where someone is smoking, I don't have to watch a film in a smoky atmosphere. My son and his gf even smoke outside their own flat. A lifelong non smoker I find being in the presence of smokers for any length of time leaves me feeling like I am carrying a heavy weight. Life has never been so good for us non smokers but we do need to accept that it's not easy to stop. Being all holier than thou about smokers is no help. Blaming them and calling them names is not going to help. Being rude is not helping either. Smokers are not all workshy layabouts who spend hours a day chatting over a fag then lounging on their settee in a stinky house.
At work If smokers are abusing their smoking time then it should fall to their line managers to address the situation. Finally not all smokers are smelly articles. My mum is a lifelong smoker and whilst you can smell it on her breath her house does not smell. My mother in law is the same. Society allowed and encouraged people to smoke for a long time and has realised plenty of income from taxes. Now we are wiser, and better informed we should help people to stop smoking through counselling, support, medication where it's needed. Some will need more help than others but being berated by angry or smug non smokers is not going to do the job.
......go to the door for your 5 minute cigarrette
Now this is what I object too and where the whole smoke ban falls down due to the lack of thought (and lack of balls).
To enter a pub these days you have to go through a gaggle of smokers and a plume of their output.
To enter the supermarket you have to get past a handful of smokers all puffing away.
Public buildings and offices the same, people stood in doorways and fire exits smoking 'outside' and all their smoke blows back into the smoke free building!!!
Fire escapes riddled with illicit smokers and littered with fag ends, secretive smoke dens in basements (??WTF logic and common sense goes out the window fer a ciggy).
Oh yes lol.... One more thing. All these smoking bans will not stop young ones smoking. They will do it for reasons like hanging about with the cool kids, annoying us as parents, for the hell of it, and because society says they shouldn't. I don't know the answer for the problem of kids smoking, my parents did, my sister and I don't, my ex husband and I didn't ever, my eldest son started at 13, my mother in law does, my husband did but found it very easy to give up so we will have to see what happens next...
Squidge if your addicted the choice to stop or not to stop smoking is not really there if your hooked thats why they need to make smoking as anti social as possible to hopefulley make the decision to stop easier because its more trouble than its worth?
Im an exsmoker and i know full well what its like to kick the habit.
And if any smoker is honest about there smoking habits 95% wants stop but cant.
Your son and his girlfriend smoke outside there flat to stop there flat from being smelly and the walls and there furniture from getting stained
I wouldnt say i was being rude to smoker just being honest.
The whole trick with smoking is not to start smoking in the first place because once you start smoking and then stop the feeling for fag never really goes away thats why its important to make smoking as anti social as possible and band smoking in all public places and protect the next generation
manloveswife
02-Oct-10, 10:05
Look at what you have just said it just goes to show you how addicted you are to smoking and that the choice to smoke or not in your case you dont have because your addicted?thats why banning smoking in publice places is the way forward because the idea behind is not to to protect the current smokers because its to late for that but to help prevent the younger generation from start smoking.
Im not being rude but if your smoking in your own home i bet your home stinks and the walls and furniture are all stained and your clothes stinks but because your a smoker you cant smell that so your non the wiser and trust me if you stopped smoking for a couple of weeks you would get your scense of smell and taste back and then you would then be able to smell the awful smell that comes of a fag.
Its amazing how the stink of after smoking remains on a smokers clothes and were they were smoking?
If your smoking couple of packets a day thats a lot money in one month your wasting and if you stopped smoking its like giving yourselve a 30% pay rise with the money your saving?
Eddie, really your post makes a lot of sense, but relates to what I was trying to state in my first post. That current smokers have little choice unless they can find the will to stop. Smoking was not frowned upon overly much until recent years and that is why I believe things are a step to far.
I'm all for discouraging the youngsters from starting the habit, and to be fair can not see why anyone would start now, but they still do.
My point, is that things are a step to far, and to talk of clocking workers off is just a continuation of this. I had no objection to having to say go for a smoke in a little ventilated room in an airport lounge, no objection to having to smoke in a seperate part of a pub or restaurant from non smokers. If set up properly these things worked.
I don't smoke a lot in the house these days, I restrict most of it to the little conservatory except for the late evening, the rest of the time I'm working out of the house.
As to giving up, I was forever doing it, would manage a couple of weeks before something broke, trying zyban was the last attempt I made, it caused dizzyness, broken thought processes, if a car was coming the other way on a narrow road I had to stop because I couldn't judge distance or width, when I came off it the cravings were twice that of before.
Again though, the issue is not about my habit, but that things have gone a little too far in the nanny state.
Ju, I'm sorry to hear that your mothers smoking caused you harm, but in my opinion there is a big difference between smoking whilst pregnant and passive smoking in occasional daily situations. My wife stopped whilst pregnant, I didn't smoke around the kids when they were babies or toddlers, thats common sense. But why do you have a problem with the way things were just a few years ago, or a sensible improvement on that. most areas that mattered were smoke free or had smoke free areas, if set up right they worked in my opinion.
The point of the thread though was about workers being forced to clock off, I don't agree they should, If people don't want them to smoke around them, and they agree they should go outside so as to not infringe on peoples right to clean air, and that the smokers freedom is not impinged because they can stand outside for a quick fag, then to clock them off will be a step to far. Surely can't be all one way, the non smoking population has got its way, it should be happy, why put the boot in with talk of clocking them off and complaining that they are going outside for a fag.
Anyway, thats all I have to say on it now, we will have to agree to differ, it is my opinion that there is a near hysteria about the idea of someone smoking in the proximity of others, but thats the world we live in.
One last thing, has anyone noticed the rise in obesity since everyone stopped smoking, were all going to die younger than the last generation because of it.......I wont draw a link between smoking being an appetite supressent;) ( this bit is intended to be a little tongue in cheek)
It would be interesting to see why all the ex smokers stopped smoking. Fancy telling us?
Incidentally, manloveswife, my mother in law also took zyban. She too had side effects but it nearly killed her. She was very seriously I'll and on intensive care ward for a while. Very scary. She still tries hard to stop but is struggling just now.
It would be interesting to see why all the ex smokers stopped smoking. Fancy telling us?
Incidentally, manloveswife, my mother in law also took zyban. She too had side effects but it nearly killed her. She was very seriously I'll and on intensive care ward for a while. Very scary. She still tries hard to stop but is struggling just now.
I used to smoke 40 a day and i enjoyed every fag especially with a cup of tea first thing in the morning used to love having a sneaky fag in no smoking premises every smoker does that but but when you look at 2 packets of fags thats £11 a day plus what other rubbish u buy at the same time its expensive habit but to be honest about i started coughing all the time had a lot mucus comming up all the time that was my wake up call i decided to stop on my own terms rather than a doctor telling me to.
I just wish i never started but then thats hienz site for u.
I used the plastic pipe with the nicitine cartridge in it to weed me off the habit worked for me but i had tried several times in the past and failed
When you read the health warning on the packet it is true but i dont care what anyone says smoking does keep you relaxed and more stress free ever since i have stopped i get worked up a lot easier to what used to when i smoked but the money i save is shocking
manloveswife the only reason i said that about a smell fags leaves and the mess it makes in home i was speaking from my own experience?
Now this is what I object too and where the whole smoke ban falls down due to the lack of thought (and lack of balls).
To enter a pub these days you have to go through a gaggle of smokers and a plume of their output.
To enter the supermarket you have to get past a handful of smokers all puffing away (??WTF logic and common sense goes out the window fer a ciggy).
What do you expect them to do?
How awful it must be for you walk through a "gaggle of smokers"for two seconds. If you dont like people polluting your air I suggest you and other moaners ditch your cars and dont pollute mine.
What do you expect them to do?
How awful it must be for you walk through a "gaggle of smokers"for two seconds. If you dont like people polluting your air I suggest you and other moaners ditch your cars and dont pollute mine.
This is where it falls down. What did the politicos expect when they introduced the legislation?
Smoking to stop overnight....?
The 'ban' should have been thought through to the end result, it wasn't, it was the usual kneejerk, dippy minded tosh pumped out by muppets.
I'm not specifically blaming smokers for hanging around doorways, it is understandable but it is unpleasant.
I would support pubs that have smoking and non smoking areas provided that the air handling systems are enforced and no staff are forced to work in the smoking area. i.e. smokers working in these areas, but this will lead to screams of discrimination.
And most pubs couldn't afford to make the changes required.
There has to be a difference between the addiction and the enjoyment.
I fully understand the issue with pubs, I could go all day without a ciggy but as soon as the evening came I enjoyed a pint and a ciggy.
I don't get, and didn't get standing outside in the pishing rain and wind rapidly chuffing away on a ciggy before running back into work, that is not enjoying a cigarette.
Except for when I worked for a guy who smoked (and all of us who worked together smoked) I had a ciggy during the normal break time everyone else had, which is and was fair.
Oh yes lol.... One more thing. All these smoking bans will not stop young ones smoking. They will do it for reasons like hanging about with the cool kids, annoying us as parents, for the hell of it, and because society says they shouldn't.
Actually kids nowadays tend to view smoking as a naff thing to do - people now who stand there puffing away are viewed as a certain 'type'. Shows like the Royal Family and the like ridicule the idea of smoking. Smoking now is not seen as a cool thing to do, more of a 'skally' thing to do.
Fair enough for those of us that are older and addicted - and can't/wont change - but it is no longer seen as a cool thing to do by kids today.
Kevin Milkins
03-Oct-10, 12:41
It would be interesting to see why all the ex smokers stopped smoking. Fancy telling us?
Incidentally, manloveswife, my mother in law also took zyban. She too had side effects but it nearly killed her. She was very seriously I'll and on intensive care ward for a while. Very scary. She still tries hard to stop but is struggling just now.
We gave up about two and half years ago and between us we were smoking on a weekly average sixty a day. we had many attempts to kick it, but failed, usually Mrs M having a crafty one and we would have a big row and start again.
Apart from the cost we both realised that thirty years of abuse was having it's toll on our health, and although I like walking a lot I found I was blowing out of my backside at the slightest incline.
I started a college course in Wick at about the same time as giving up and found the stairs to the top floor classroom hard work, I hoped that no one would engage me in conversation when I entered the class because I would be too out of puff to speak for about five minutes.
I recently started another course and I can now skip up the stairs two at a time without feeling out of breath, :Razz so for anyone that is contemplating having a go at giving up, be inspired, the rewards are more than just financial.
I think that's quite unfair. Time being spent smoking can be alot, however, what about all the people who are non-smokers who spend their time yapping to other work colleagues and other time wasting activities - texting, dilly-dallying to places etc. That all adds up aswell.
I think that's quite unfair. Time being spent smoking can be alot, however, what about all the people who are non-smokers who spend their time yapping to other work colleagues and other time wasting activities - texting, dilly-dallying to places etc. That all adds up aswell.
Hmm, does this not apply to smokers as well, or are they perfect?
Hmm, does this not apply to smokers as well, or are they perfect?
No Ex Smokers are perfect like me [lol]
Obviously, its up to people to decide if they want to smoke or not. What annoys me working in the hotel trade, is the amount of smokers who cannot be bothered putting their fag ends in a bin, but rather throw them all round about it. Slightly off topic, but I feel better after that little rant!
Penelope Pitstop
04-Oct-10, 15:36
It sounds like smokers are making it difficult for themselves to be employed.
You've made a very valid point there.
Will they cost their employer too much unproductive time and money? Yes, if left unchecked.
Obviously, its up to people to decide if they want to smoke or not. What annoys me working in the hotel trade, is the amount of smokers who cannot be bothered putting their fag ends in a bin, but rather throw them all round about it. Slightly off topic, but I feel better after that little rant!
If the bins were emptied every once in a while maybe theyd get used.
Slightly different slant. I led a sales team at a company whos boss smoked, every time we went for a fag break it turned into an impromptu sales meeting. The two or three non smokers in the team never knew what the hell was going on until they cottoned on to joining the smoke break. :lol:
Slightly different slant. I led a sales team at a company whos boss smoked, every time we went for a fag break it turned into an impromptu sales meeting. The two or three non smokers in the team never knew what the hell was going on until they cottoned on to joining the smoke break. :lol:
oh please, you don't need to be a smoker or non-smoker to have the 'keep 'em in the dark' tactic blown in your face.
oh please, you don't need to be a smoker or non-smoker to have the 'keep 'em in the dark' tactic blown in your face.
err... what are you on about? :eek:
err... what are you on about? :eek:
I thought you were saying you needed to be a smoker to be in on the know
. Or it implied that smokers were some sort of all knowing inner circle which benefited from others ignorance.
I thought you were saying you needed to be a smoker to be in on the know
. Or it implied that smokers were some sort of all knowing inner circle which benefited from others ignorance.
Too deep for me....:lol:
Too deep for me....:lol:
That's OK. I try not to make excuses for you! :lol:
Whitewater
04-Oct-10, 23:38
It would be interesting to see why all the ex smokers stopped smoking. Fancy telling us?
Incidentally, manloveswife, my mother in law also took zyban. She too had side effects but it nearly killed her. She was very seriously I'll and on intensive care ward for a while. Very scary. She still tries hard to stop but is struggling just now.
I stopped 33yrs ago, the best and most difficult thing I ever done. The reason I stopped was simple, it was not doing me any good, when I coughed anything up it was black, pure tar and carbon, thats not doing any good inside your lungs. I used to run marathons and end up pretty fresh, the legs would be tired but breathing OK, then things changed, I couldn't make the distance, not the legs giving out but the lungs, I almost passed out on one occasion, that was enough to make up my mind.
It's not a good thing, it used to be cool when I was young but not any more.
When I go shopping in the Co-op over here - oh does a little shopping then sits in car watching one of senior staff pop in and out, spends more time out than in work.
This person is usually out 4 or maybe 5 times in 30 minutes I am shopping.
Goes in for a couple of minutes then back out for another cigarette - in the time I am in shopping, this person is being observed and timed, usually is in the building doors for appoximately 10 minutes out of 30 minutes.
Good job this person is not on a production line or on a productivity bonus
Who is doing this persons work whilst the person is outside - does not matter if it is early, middle of the day or evening when we shop, this person is out more frequently than any cuckoo clock , wet/windy forecasting thing or nosey neighbour.
If the bins were emptied every once in a while maybe theyd get used.
I can assure you that I check them everyday, though they rarely need emptied because they arent used.
I can assure you that I check them everyday, though they rarely need emptied because they arent used.
you can get outdoor fag bins that go into the ground looks like a drain what about getting your boss to think about getting that
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.