Yes, they do. I’m a smoker who used to smoke, at my peak, two packs a day. These days, I’ll smoke maybe a pack in a year. Some years none; some years maybe two or three packs if I someone dies and I’m stressed. But that shit really does reek and you can tell after a cigarette.
So are you for the banning of drinks containing caffeine at work as well?
Coffee doesnt kill 50000 “second hand drinkers” a year.
Maybe not, but luckily that’s not what I was responding to.
It’s interesting how “I don’t understand why people get outraged if a company bans recreational drugs in the workplace” turns into ‘so are you for the banning of…’. And I’m fine with a company banning caffeine if they want to (which is not “for” in the usual since, just "not opposed, and especially “not outraged”). It seems to be a very bad idea cost-benefit wise though, since there’s no second-hand caffeine, no need for special infrastructure to handle it (smokers need ashtrays and someone to come by and empty them), is widely socially accepted, has positive effect on productivity instead of negative, and so on. If a company did decide that it wanted to be caffeine free in spite of this, I wouldn’t get outraged at the concept of them not wanting people to use caffeine at work, any more than I do at them not wanting people to smoke tobacco or pot at work or on work grounds.
I would get outraged if a company banned caffeine. I’m not outraged if a company banned smoking or pot, due to the health risks as previously mentioned. I think it sucks to not have a smoking area way far away, but whatever, their property their rules.
I’d think it’s a bit weird, but why not? I suspect they may have trouble getting employees to join up, but, philosophically, I don’t think it’s any worse than telling employees they can’t have a beer on the job.
Recreational drug? Seriously? :dubious: There are valid arguments to be made about the ill effects of secondhand smoke. But calling tobacco a “recreational drug” is just fucking retarded.
I suspect the real reason for your choice of words is to imply smokers are inferior human beings.
No, sadly they are just addicts. Most of them in denial.
Quite fair. Kudos to them for implementing it.
In what sense is it not a recreational drug? I mean, I’m fine with smoking and smokers and partake myself very occasionally these days. I’m not an anti-smoking zealot by any stretch of the imagination. People can smoke on my property. But of course tobacco is a recreational drug.
Filling your lungs with hot burning gas doesn’t strike me as recreational.
My cite: Sitting around campfires. And bonfires.
It’s a mild stimulant in the same way caffeine is. It doesn’t impair one’s judgement or alter one’s mind in the same way alcohol, cocaine, heroine, etc, does.
If I can take said drug and still be as adept as I was OFF the drug, then it’s not a recreational drug.
A single beer doesn’t affect my judgement, either. It’s a mild sedative. In fact, I think one beer usually improves my performance slightly, depending on the situation and my mood. It’s a “mild depressant,” right?
They’re all recreational drugs.
Sure, but I can smoke 10 cigarettes and still be fine to drive.
Nobody is going to tell me I can’t smoke in my own damn car. My car is sovereign territory.
Smokers, I frequently say, are the last minority group against whom discrimination is still socially acceptable.
If you strangle someone in the backseat, the cops will have no problem arresting you.
If you’re parked on private property, they get to control what you do and what you have.
I don’t see how that makes any difference as to whether it’s a recreational drug or not.
Well, I guess we have a difference of opinion on what constitutes a recreational drug.
To me, recreational drugs helps one escape the tedium of reality. I infer from your posts any superfluous stimulant is a recreational drug. That’s a little broad for my definition.
That’s kind of how I use cigarettes and alcohol, so, yes, we have different definitions.