Smoking - Funny News
Jim Carr
http://www.reuters.com/article/oddlyEnoughNews/idUSN1063983120080110
js
"Jim Carr" <newsg...@azwebpages.com> wrote in message
news:nGvhj.29090$R92....@newsfe16.phx...
Derek Tearne
> In light of the recent smoking discussions, I find this amusing:
>
> http://www.reuters.com/article/oddlyEnoughNews/idUSN1063983120080110
With luck they will win their case for unfair dismissal.
--- Derek
--
Derek Tearne - de...@url.co.nz
Many Hands - Trans Cultural Music from Aotearoa/New Zealand
http://www.manyhands.co.nz/
Mike Rieves
"js" <nothing AT nothing DOT com> wrote in message
news:47869922$0$9581$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
> Good for him.
>
Strangely enough, I agree with John. It's his company, and it isn't open to
the public, so if he wants to smoke there, he should be able to do so in
peace.
iarwain
don't smoke myself (any longer). My question is do you think he could
do this in the USA? Or would the workers be protected, if only in
certain states? Just curious with regard to the levels of freedom
available in Germany vs. the US.
tom
"iarwain" <iarw...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9ad7cfa7-e4d0-461b...@j78g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
jeffb
> I think it should definitely be the owner's perogative,
Bullshit. At best he should be able to say, "I'm sorry but you knew the
situation when you took the job and I'm not going to change anything."
Not much of a union supporter are you?
> My question is do you think he could
> do this in the USA? Or would the workers be protected, if only in
> certain states? Just curious with regard to the levels of freedom
> available in Germany vs. the US.
I don't know anything about German law but you could NEVER get away with
this in North America. Were you drunk when you asked this question?
iSteen
> In light of the recent smoking discussions, I find this amusing:
>
> http://www.reuters.com/article/oddlyEnoughNews/idUSN1063983120080110
"I can't be bothered with trouble-makers," Thomas was quoted saying.
"We're on the phone all the time and it's just easier to work while
smoking. Everyone picks on smokers these days. It's time for revenge.
I'm only going to hire smokers from now on."
You just give 'em hell Thomas ;-)
I'm so sick and tired of these stupid laws against evrything.
Someone told me that some places around the world, it's fobidden to
smoked in your own car, and smoking is also not allowed on the streets
somewhere
redwookie
If kids are in the car, I don't see the problem
>and smoking is also not allowed on the streets somewhere
No smoking within 15' of an entryway to a public building (includ.
bars/restraunts) in Illinois as of Jan 1st. Yes, this does mean the
streets and sidewalks. You might also be thinking of Ontario where
bar/restraunt patio smoking is now a no-no.
If people are going to loose their jobs because they insist on a safe
working environment, I'm sure Germany will soon pass legislation to
fix that problem.
js
Better not grill steaks in front of them either, as they contain the same
chemicals and mutagens that are present in cigarette smoke - as well has
high levels of dihydrogen monoxide....
"redwookie" <rojo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:7af338f7-0cf2-4c49...@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Brian Running
> chemicals and mutagens that are present in cigarette smoke - as well has
> high levels of dihydrogen monoxide....
Dihydrogen monoxide, eh? I'm intrigued. What is this dihydrogen
monoxide of which you speak? I have six undergraduate degrees in the
natural sciences, as well as an MS and PhD in chemistry, and I've never
heard of dihydrogen monoxide. Must be something new and revolutionary.
Jim Carr
You've never heard of it? Hell, they even show DOCTORS using the stuff
in commercials. Here's a partial list of the dangers of this compound:
* Death due to accidental inhalation of DHMO, even in small quantities.
* Prolonged exposure to solid DHMO causes severe tissue damage.
* Excessive ingestion produces a number of unpleasant though not
typically life-threatening side-effects.
* DHMO is a major component of acid rain.
* Gaseous DHMO can cause severe burns.
* Contributes to soil erosion.
* Leads to corrosion and oxidation of many metals.
* Contamination of electrical systems often causes short-circuits.
* Exposure decreases effectiveness of automobile brakes.
* Found in biopsies of pre-cancerous tumors and lesions.
* Given to vicious dogs involved in recent deadly attacks.
* Often associated with killer cyclones in the U.S. Midwest and
elsewhere, and in hurricanes including deadly storms in Florida, New
Orleans and other areas of the southeastern U.S.
* Thermal variations in DHMO are a suspected contributor to the El Nino
weather effect.
Brian Running
> in commercials. Here's a partial list of the dangers of this compound:
Oh, and did I mention that I'm also a member of Mensa?
Hee hee hee!
Jim Carr
Is that where you met Mike Rieves?
Derek Tearne
> I think it should definitely be the owner's perogative, although I
> don't smoke myself (any longer). My question is do you think he could
> do this in the USA?
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,3047035,00.html
Slightly more of the story than the snippet everyone else is quoting.
The manager of the company did not have the right to fire those workers.
Derek Tearne
> If people are going to loose their jobs because they insist on a safe
> working environment, I'm sure Germany will soon pass legislation to
> fix that problem.
That law was already in place, as the businessman in question will
surely have discovered by now.
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,3047035,00.html
jeffb
> Better not grill steaks in front of them either, as they contain the same
> chemicals and mutagens that are present in cigarette smoke - as well has
> high levels of dihydrogen monoxide....
If you were grilling steak 10 to 20 times a day in a confined or poorly
ventilated space I'd say no you shouldn't.
This type of argument seems to come up frequently with the smoking
issue: that if X (in this case smoking) is unsafe and Y (grilling
steaks) has some characteristics in common with X then Y is also unsafe;
so if you would outlaw X then you should also outlaw Y. This is a false
argument as Y may have characteristics that X does not have that make
its continuance acceptable where continuing X is not.
Jim Carr
LOL! I hope this is a joke because you made essentially the same
argument about second hand smoke. I pointed out that while it's still
tobacco smoke, there are a number of differences in regards to
concentrations, temperature, and method of intake. I said we couldn't
just automatically assume that second hand smoke exposure is just as
dangerous as smoking.
That's when you came back with the whole "it's a carcinogen, causes
cancer, blah blah" dogma.
jeffb
> LOL! I hope this is a joke because you made essentially the same
> argument about second hand smoke. I pointed out that while it's still
> tobacco smoke, there are a number of differences in regards to
> concentrations, temperature, and method of intake. I said we couldn't
> just automatically assume that second hand smoke exposure is just as
> dangerous as smoking.
>
> That's when you came back with the whole "it's a carcinogen, causes
> cancer, blah blah" dogma.
Take the crack pipe outta yer mouth and re-read what I just said Carr.
I'll simplify it for you. Just because grilling steaks produces one of
the toxins smoking cigarettes does DOES NOT mean that grilling steaks
should be viewed as being as bad as smoking cigarettes. The frequency,
circumstance (outside or under a vent fan), and end result (food) are
not at all similar to smoking.
Got it Einstein?
Iman Nassoul
<brun...@XXameritechXX.net> wrote:
Uhhhh............. Lets see. Dihydrogen= H2 Monoxide= O
Jim Carr
LOL! I get it, Jeff. You don't. Thanks for confirming it wasn't a joke.
What a shame.
kitekrazy
I don't see why not.
Were you drunk when you asked this question?
The title of the article is misleading.
"I can't be bothered with trouble-makers". That's the official reason
they were fired. Nothing is written about what kind of trouble these
employees were causing.
Derek Tearne
> "I can't be bothered with trouble-makers". That's the official reason
> they were fired. Nothing is written about what kind of trouble these
> employees were causing.
The trouble they were causing was asking for a non-smoking area[1]
within the workplace and at social occasions outside of work they
didn't want to sit with their smoking colleagues.
--- Derek
[1] Note, they weren't demanding that the smokers stopped smoking, or
that the entire workplace be made smoking.
Derek Tearne
> > If kids are in the car, I don't see the problem
>
> Better not grill steaks in front of them either, as they contain the same
> chemicals and mutagens that are present in cigarette smoke - as well has
> high levels of dihydrogen monoxide....
Well, I have to say, if someone was grilling steaks in front of me to
the point that they became burnt to ashes and were giving off thick
smoke similar to that coming from a cigarette - well at the very least I
wouldn't want to eat in that restaurant...
--- Derek
Mike Rieves
He sure as hell didn't meet you there!
jeffb
> jeffb wrote:
>> you could NEVER get away with this in North America.
>
> I don't see why not.
That doesn't surprise me.
jeffb
> LOL! I get it, Jeff. You don't. Thanks for confirming it wasn't a joke.
> What a shame.
The shame is your almost complete arsenal of false logic and your
willingness to use it in such a pathetic schoolboy manner.
kitekrazy
> kitekrazy <kite...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> "I can't be bothered with trouble-makers". That's the official reason
>> they were fired. Nothing is written about what kind of trouble these
>> employees were causing.
>
> The trouble they were causing was asking for a non-smoking area[1]
> within the workplace and at social occasions outside of work they
> didn't want to sit with their smoking colleagues.
>
> --- Derek
>
> [1] Note, they weren't demanding that the smokers stopped smoking, or
> that the entire workplace be made smoking.
>
You are filling in blanks without witnessing the situation.
kitekrazy
I guess you never had a job.
affirmative_action
@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com:
On their affirmative action program for mentally retarded attorneys.
Derek Tearne
> Derek Tearne wrote:
> > kitekrazy <kite...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >
> >> "I can't be bothered with trouble-makers". That's the official reason
> >> they were fired. Nothing is written about what kind of trouble these
> >> employees were causing.
> >
> > The trouble they were causing was asking for a non-smoking area[1]
> > within the workplace and at social occasions outside of work they
> > didn't want to sit with their smoking colleagues.
> >
> > --- Derek
> >
> > [1] Note, they weren't demanding that the smokers stopped smoking, or
> > that the entire workplace be made non-smoking.
>
> You are filling in blanks without witnessing the situation.
No. I'm filling in the blanks for those who, like you, can't be
bothered to read articles referenced elsewhere in this thread or (the
horror) might require actually searching the web to answer.
I looked up some articles and posted the 'trouble' as stated by Thomas
Jensen, the person who did the firing.
If you ask a question and receive an answer, please have the courtesy to
assume that the answer has been researched unless you've got reason to
believe otherwise.
I posted the link elsewhere - but here it is again just for you.
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,3047035,00.html
--- Derek
kitekrazy
Thanks. That is the one that didn't show up in my reader.
js
As ammunition for their mandatory smoking bans, the anti-smoking lobby
claims to have found all sorts of horrible things in cigarette smoke like
tar, ammonia, lead...
Only problem is, these compounds are present in EVERY burning bit of organic
matter.
You can say "well, people don't grill steaks 10 times a day".
True, but people DO drive in heavy traffic for hours, breathing in exhaust
fumes. They light fireplaces. They go to restaurants with grills. They go to
auto races. They burn kerosene heaters. They fight fires. They burn leaves.
They spend their workday in an enclosed office surrounded by plastics that
are constantly leaching chemicals into the air.
Yet they're gonna have a FREAKOUT because they and their precious little
Justins and Ashleys have to *gasp* spend 5 minutes next to a burring
cigarette?
So yes, if you're going to ban X (cigarette smoking), then you're going to
have to ban Y (every other product that releases airborne chemicals).
"jeffb" <je...@nospam.org> wrote in message
news:lYThj.53227$EA5.36568@pd7urf2no...
Jose de las Heras
"Iman Nassoul" <Now...@youdontknow.com> wrote in message
news:110120081914364371%Now...@youdontknow.com...
Do you also know the chemical symbol for iron(y)?
;-)
Jose
--
Musha ring dum a doo dum a dah - www.mcnach.com
Current fave guitar: Fender 'Sambora' Stratocaster
Current fave bass: Wesley Monarch & Warwick Corvette $$
Fender Stratocaster - part coffee table, part spaceship.
DGDevin
news:478973b3$0$5173$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
> You can say "well, people don't grill steaks 10 times a day".
>
> True, but people DO drive in heavy traffic for hours, breathing in exhaust
> fumes. They light fireplaces. They go to restaurants with grills. They go
> to
> auto races. They burn kerosene heaters. They fight fires. They burn
> leaves.
Irrelevant, none of those things are being done in a bar or restaurant (and
the grill doesn't count because it has a big exhaust hood over it). That
there are other sources of toxic smoke in the wider world (many of them
unavaoidable) does not mean than an avoidable source should be permitted in
a social setting, especially when smokers having to step outside once an
hour is a much smaller burden than everyone else having to breath in smoke.
You cannot demonstrate a pressing need for you to smoke in a bar or
restaurant, everyone else can demonstrate a pressing need to breath without
sucking in unhealthy fumes, so in that competition you lose.
> Yet they're gonna have a FREAKOUT because they and their precious little
> Justins and Ashleys have to *gasp* spend 5 minutes next to a burring
> cigarette?
Gasp indeed. Along with the burning eyes and the foul stench left on
clothes, why should anyone have to put up with that, why should eveyone else
have to suffer instead of you stepping outside for your hourly fix?
> So yes, if you're going to ban X (cigarette smoking), then you're going to
> have to ban Y (every other product that releases airborne chemicals).
Nonesense.
pTooner
"kitekrazy" <kite...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:kVbij.13913$6%.7804@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com...
Well, I've been ignoring a lot of silliness, but I think this thread started
more or less with a question about US law. I'm NOT a lawyer, but I'm fairly
confident that there is no law against smoking in a workplace except in
government offices. However, you can't fire someone because they refuse to
smoke. OTOH, under federal law I'm pretty confident that an employer is not
required to provide a "smoke free" place for employees. This is, of course
a non issue nowadays because smoking is becoming a thing of the past in the
US. Nowadays I rarely see it except among the elderly and the street corner
bums. Apparently europe is headed that way also because I heard very
recently that you could no longer smoke in restaurants in Paris. ;-)
Gerry
pTooner
"Brian Running" <brun...@XXameritechXX.net> wrote in message
news:uYQhj.6066$pr6....@nlpi070.nbdc.sbc.com...
>> Better not grill steaks in front of them either, as they contain the same
>> chemicals and mutagens that are present in cigarette smoke - as well has
>> high levels of dihydrogen monoxide....
>
> Dihydrogen monoxide, eh? I'm intrigued. What is this dihydrogen monoxide
> of which you speak? I have six undergraduate degrees in the natural
> sciences, as well as an MS and PhD in chemistry, and I've never heard of
> dihydrogen monoxide. Must be something new and revolutionary.
Just curious, and ignore this if you don't want to respond - since you
brought it up, I can't picture "six undergraduate degrees in the
> natural sciences," would you care to elaborate?
Gerry
Derek Tearne
> This is, of course
> a non issue nowadays because smoking is becoming a thing of the past in the
> US. Nowadays I rarely see it except among the elderly and the street corner
> bums.
Intruigingly, especially considering the fuss raised by these threads,
the USA has almost the lowest percentage of smokers in the OECD at 16.9%
- you get beaten by Sweden. That's down from 42.4% in 1964.
> Apparently europe is headed that way also because I heard very
> recently that you could no longer smoke in restaurants in Paris. ;-)
Smoke free legislation is coming in all over the world - even Turkey is
about to pass some fairly strict laws in this regard. Although with
over 30% of the population smokers they might have a little more of a
problem than elsewhere.
France is around 22%
http://www.oecd.org/document/16/0,3343,en_2649_37407_2085200_1_1_1_37407
,00.html
No data on the percentage of bass players though.
Derek Tearne
> Just curious, and ignore this if you don't want to respond - since you
> brought it up, I can't picture "six undergraduate degrees in the
> natural sciences," would you care to elaborate?
You just keep purchasing them off the interweb until you get one that
has nice flowery writing and gets the spelling of phlogiston correct.
The Bishop
> "kitekrazy" <kitekr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
In New York, all indoor smoking is banned, except in private
residences.
curious
I have six undergraduate degrees in the
> natural sciences, as well as an MS and PhD in chemistry,
That's a lot of education. How come it doesn't show?