Quote:
Originally Posted by Studio25
And? It sounds like you're suggesting that because there are more unpleasant chemicals around, then I should be ignoring this one. That's like saying because people get murdered the police shouldn't respond to shoplifting, or because there are entire countries that don't bother with recycling, I shouldn't bother recycling this beer can.
It has to get to the brain via the lungs. Your lungs, if working properly, are 20% "efficient" - that is, the air you exhale contains 80% of the oxygen that was present when you breathed it in. That's because the bulk of the air just sits in the middle of tiny bubbles called alveoli. Only the air that's in contact with the alveolus surface actually gives up its oxygen.
With both types of cig, the nicotine has to get into your bloodstream the same way. In regular cigarettes, the carrier is the smoke particles. In ecigs, the carrier is water droplets (not vapour, even though that's what everyone calls it). The stuff you can see when they breathe out - smoke or water - still contains as much of the nicotine as when it went in (and tar, in the case of regular cigs). The particles that gave up their nicotine remain in your lungs until carried out by mucous (cigarettes) or exhaled as water vapour (true water vapour this time - the kind you can't see unless it condenses into water droplets on a cold day).
This is all knowledge deduced based on a A levels in biology and physics, i.e. common sense. I've done about as much research into it as the government has... 
Agreed, but just to be devil's advocate here - do you think that giving everyone in a room a little bit of heroin would help the recovering drug addict? What you're suggesting is that in the doctor's waiting room (or wherever) the non-smokers present are obliged to breathe in the nicotine in the air just to make the smoker a little more comfortable about the habit they are trying to kick.
Absolutelyright. It's just the addictive drug that's present in exhaled ecig smoke - not of those nasty carcinogens (or at least, none that we know about yet).
Wait - weren't you just talking about social pariahs?
I have no problem with people who need a smoke break, I'm just saying it costs you money. Yes, you.
The organisation, whether it's the council or the widget factory needs to absorb the cost of the smoker, just like it absorbs the cost of the tea junkie (me  ) or the horny workers who nip off to the stationery cupboard for a quickie (not me  ). Ultimately all these costs are met by the consumer, whether it's in your council tax or the cost price of your brand new widget.
Even if you limit or don't allow smoke breaks, you're talking about an addictive substance. The reduced capacity from someone who's been disallowed a smoke break that they feel they need is probably just as damaging to their productivity as letting them take the break in the first place.
There's no solution for this, unless the company actively discriminates against smokers during its recruitment - and I'm not sure anyone other than Accyexplorer is teflon-coated enough to start that discussion... |
Let me take the point about work first......work is work......it is not a social occasion.you have a contract with your employer for x number of hours work.
In that time there will be legal breaks.
Why is asking a smoker to smoke on
their time considered making them a pariah? It is just asking them to fulfil their contractual obligations......and for those who do want to kick the habit.....then NRT is something that some employers offer. They know that it works and leads to healthier employees.
As to your first point...nowhere did I say that......or if I did, I cannot find it in my post.
Your biology lesson was helpful......as a nurse for some 30 years I didn't know that
.
I think if I had to choose between inhaling second hand smoke and the vapour exhaled by someone using one of these devices, I know which I would choose.
And again...I am not suggesting anything...it is you who is doing that.....and you have chosen a particularly dramatic analogy to illustrate your point.
If you have read anything I have posted on the issue of illegal drug use you will know that.....maybe that is why you used that analogy.
As for the other employment issues......I was involved with staff at a management level so I have some personal experience of the issues in question.
I
did have a problem with people taking unauthorised breaks in order to smoke.(why should my staff be pulling their tripes out to cover people who should be looking after patients....while these staff were outside
being paid to smoke?)
When I did my duty rotas it was with patient needs in mind.
Patients need looking after, that is what the nurses were
paid to do.
My staff knew that they could smoke on their breaks but I would ask them if the thought it fair that they should take cigarette breaks leaving the non smoking nurses to take up the slack(there wasn't any slack then, there is even less now).
I objected to doing the work that someone else was being paid to do.
These issues were always brought up at yearly appraisal and support was offered to ensure staff could do the job they were being paid to do.
There is nothing unfair in this at all....as for the addictive angle....the nurses could get their nicotine fix from either a patch or gum(which is not chewed like chewing gum). The hospital provided help for all staff who wanted help with their smoking habit.
Yes,there are employment solutions......and they are workable....if you want them to work.