Gamer Fired for taking "Pokemon Breaks."

[keinechance]

Since nicotine IS a physical addictiv substance, you will notice a difference as they will go into withdrawel.

But they will most likely not know why they feel so "under the weather".

After the physical withdrawel stops, they will feel better, and continue to smoke their cigarettes.

It really isn't anymore physically addictive than chocolate or caffeine. In fact probably a lot less than caffeine.

The people who had both of their legs amputated because of "smoker's leg", and still continue to smoke heavily, paint a different picture.

I guess cheesburgers are the most addictive thing on the planet then. Because diabetes related amputations don't stop people from noming them down.

This just in, bad habits are hard to kick. Shocker.

Are cheeseburgers a physical addictiv substane?

 

[Starik20X6]

That is absolutely fair. Either everyone gets "smoke breaks" or nobody does. And don't give me this "oh, smokers need to be able to take breaks because of they need to smoke" crap. Nobody needs to smoke. This isn't like bathroom breaks or lunch breaks- human beings need to eat and pee in order to stay alive. You don't need to smoke to survive.

 

[Baneat]

You should have kept doing it anyway, then sued when he/she fired you.

Good luck. I believe there are smoke break regulations that allow employees them by law but no such thing for a nintendo DS.

Smokers get more than enough shit already, people here have seriously suggested banning smoking in one's own home (I thought they were making a reductio ad absurdum argument against the smoking bans at first). Leave Britney alone.

Yeah, I know. I've never bought onto this need to bully smokers. It's exactly their choice, and their right, to do what they want with their own lives. The disgust these forumites are expressing are ridiculously over the top; this is the type of irrational hatred our country needs to protect our minorities from, even minorities like smokers who are unfashionable to defend.

I agree, if you agree that your freedom to smoke stops at blowing your smoke into my face.

Don't stand in my way if it bothers you. I'm not being a dick, I'm not going out of my way to annoy people.

 

[MalakaiDemonia]

So junkies and pot heads should be allowed to take breaks too because they have an addiction that needs to be fed so they can be productive? Bullshit.

 

[JediMB]

Smokers deserve no extra privileges to satisfy their addictions.

Slap on a damn nicotine patch and get back to work.

 

[keinechance]

Since nicotine IS a physical addictiv substance, you will notice a difference as they will go into withdrawel.

But they will most likely not know why they feel so "under the weather".

After the physical withdrawel stops, they will feel better, and continue to smoke their cigarettes.

It really isn't anymore physically addictive than chocolate or caffeine. In fact probably a lot less than caffeine.

The people who had both of their legs amputated because of "smoker's leg", and still continue to smoke heavily, paint a different picture.

I guess cheesburgers are the most addictive thing on the planet then. Because diabetes related amputations don't stop people from noming them down.

This just in, bad habits are hard to kick. Shocker.

Are cheeseburgers a physical addictiv substane?

That doesn't matter to the argument you just made. Which completely ignores the reasons that people would carry on smoking after having their legs amputated. Namely that they're hooked on cigarettes, not nicotine.

And I'd imagine that non-organic cheeseburgers probably do contain thousands of addictive properties.

Then both contain addictive substances.

I agree with you.

 

[Hafnium]

Giving additional breaks to smokers is bullshit, I definately don't support it. If you must be a dumbass and smoke, take the time out of the normal break. If you can't handle a few hours without it, quit smoking so much or quit your job. I don't have much tolerance for smokers as they bother me almost every day I'm out and about, they've proven to me to be selfish pricks for the most part.

Don't stand in my way if it bothers you. I'm not being a dick, I'm not going out of my way to annoy people.

"Don't stand in my way" - this attitude is typical, so you think we should give you as much clearance as it's needed to not get smoke in the face? I can tell you that it's a lot, the shit lingers and moves and spreads. If someone is walking at the same pace as me 20 metres in front and smoking, the smoke is easily noticable and irritating. This example is something I've experienced many times - Several people are waiting in the busstop under the small roof, perhaps to avoid crappy weather. A smoker enters and pollutes the whole goddamn area, and the people (sometimes including me) are to un-confrontational to remark on his shitty behaviour and have to move to avoid it. In my experience they don't give a shit even when you do ask them to not blow it in your face, they are either too ignorant to see how they bother people, or they're doing it to feel big. Hate em.

 

[keinechance]

You should have kept doing it anyway, then sued when he/she fired you.

Good luck. I believe there are smoke break regulations that allow employees them by law but no such thing for a nintendo DS.

Smokers get more than enough shit already, people here have seriously suggested banning smoking in one's own home (I thought they were making a reductio ad absurdum argument against the smoking bans at first). Leave Britney alone.

Yeah, I know. I've never bought onto this need to bully smokers. It's exactly their choice, and their right, to do what they want with their own lives. The disgust these forumites are expressing are ridiculously over the top; this is the type of irrational hatred our country needs to protect our minorities from, even minorities like smokers who are unfashionable to defend.

I agree, if you agree that your freedom to smoke stops at blowing your smoke into my face.

Don't stand in my way if it bothers you. [..]

Does that also go for you when I fart in your face?

 

[ZeroMachine]

So junkies and pot heads should be allowed to take breaks too because they have an addiction that needs to be fed so they can be productive? Bullshit.

... Yeah. I'm against using pot. But it isn't addictive. At all.

 

[NightHawk21]

snip

I think the point everyone else is trying to make and you are either not getting or ignoring is that smoking is/was a choice and as such should not be rewarded while conditions like diabetes are not (not directly and in most cases anyways). Going back to diabetes too, should someone choose to not to measure their blood sugar, the consequences can be life threatening while going an extra hour or two to your next cig are not (you might get a little cranky if you are really addicted and need to have a cig every hour).

As for the other actions that waste time (drinking coffee, talking or going to the bathroom), those don't really work as examples because it assumes that the smoker does not do them.

I'll just go off my personal experience here, but employees at my job were only allowed to smoke on breaks and would take a a leisurely 15 minute smoke break every 3.5 hours (roughly) on a typical 8.5 hour work day (with 2x 15 min breaks and 30 minute lunch - the amount you are legally allotted in Canada). That's not a long time to go without a smoke, and is not an unreasonable request to make by the employer.

I think the major issue at play here is that smokers are allotted preferential treatment based on their life choices to an extent that is not seen for any other circumstance.

 

[Lunar Templar]

given that I'm the kinda of person that rolls they're eyes when they hear people whining about needing smoke breaks.

i don't think the gamer in question should be fired, but then i view 'smokers' in general as a liability

 

[razer17]

Well, I don't believe that smokers should be allowed to take smoke breaks, apart from at lunch, or any other official break. You wouldn't let a functioning alcoholic pop out to swig some whiskey, or let a heroin addict shoot up on company time (Yes, I know that heroin is going to have a much bigger effect than fags, I'm exagerating.)

Please don't try to "trap" me by goading me into defending something I'm not here to defend and is different than what we're talking about. Besides, you still haven't shown me why smoke breaks should be done away with in regards to the productivity of the worker and company time. At best, your argument have been "because I don't get a smoke break", "smoking is bad", and "I don't get to get wasted at work". These really aren't compelling arguements and they don't really matter.

The reason "I don't get a smoke break" is surely the best reason? Companies should treat all employees equally. As far as I can tell smoke breaks are giving certain employees a distinct beneft the others don't get.

Also, if you were a functioning alcoholic, then have a swig of alcohol probably wouldn't have a noticeable effect upon your ability to do your job.

No, we're talking about regularly sanctioned cigarette breaks. Reread the thread.[/quote]

No, you reread the thread, it's clearly unsanctioned breaks he's talking about. They are breaks in addition to the normal lunch break, for the purpose of smoking.

 

[razer17]

So junkies and pot heads should be allowed to take breaks too because they have an addiction that needs to be fed so they can be productive? Bullshit.

... Yeah. I'm against using pot. But it isn't addictive. At all.

It most certainly is psychologically addictive. Sure, it means that you might not have
physical withdrawal symptoms, unless you count crippling anxiety and being unable to cope without it as not being withdrawal symptoms...

 

[Lilani]

I worked at a McDonalds for a year and a half, and I did notice very quickly that the smokers were taking a lot more breaks than me. At the very most I would take ONE five minute break during a shift to pee, but only if I had to and my next full break was too far away. But I'd see the smokers getting fives three to five times in an 8 hour shift. That's 15 to 25 minutes worth of paid breaks in a shift. The managers were perfectly aware of this, but it didn't matter much to them because they were smokers, too.

And it's not that they denied my potty breaks, or threatened my job to keep me from taking them. It's just that I had fewer excuses to take fives.

So I think this whole situation with this guy is bullshit. A five is a five. If you're going to let people take five to sit on their asses and fill their lungs with cancerous fumes, then you're going to have to also give fives to people who want to sit on their asses and catch a few Pokemon.

 

[keinechance]

Since nicotine IS a physical addictiv substance, you will notice a difference as they will go into withdrawel.

But they will most likely not know why they feel so "under the weather".

After the physical withdrawel stops, they will feel better, and continue to smoke their cigarettes.

It really isn't anymore physically addictive than chocolate or caffeine. In fact probably a lot less than caffeine.

The people who had both of their legs amputated because of "smoker's leg", and still continue to smoke heavily, paint a different picture.

I guess cheesburgers are the most addictive thing on the planet then. Because diabetes related amputations don't stop people from noming them down.

This just in, bad habits are hard to kick. Shocker.

Are cheeseburgers a physical addictiv substane?

That doesn't matter to the argument you just made. Which completely ignores the reasons that people would carry on smoking after having their legs amputated. Namely that they're hooked on cigarettes, not nicotine.

And I'd imagine that non-organic cheeseburgers probably do contain thousands of addictive properties.

Then both contain addictive substances.

I agree with you.

Which is why everyone that eats one becomes addicted? Chocolate contains addictive properties, must be why everyone gets hooked on hershies. Sex also releases more dopamine than cigarettes, along with a slew of other chemicals that are linked with the reward centre. Must be why there are so many more sex addicts than smokers.

If you can't tell what I'm getting at it's that it's an impulse control issue, not a chemical dependency.

Psychological addiction can be just as detrimental as chemical addiction, minus the absurd withdrawals.

But it doesn't mean they're the same thing.

And smoking is most certainly a psychological addiction.

Being addicted to nicotine is a physical addiction.

Being addicted to "smoking" is a psychological addiction.

 

[NightHawk21]

Dear god, please elaborate on that before I and many others tear you a new one.

Please show proof that smoking isn't physically addictive. I have friends that are addicted to cigarettes that would say otherwise.

And it better not be "it's the nicotine that's addictive, not the cigarette HAR HAR!"

(For the record, part of me is hoping you aren't as wrong as I think you are for the sake of the current argument in the thread. They would have no excuse for taking smoke breaks of that was the case.)

Not dismissing you off-hand, but unless you can give me a better source on your claim than the NHS [http://www.nhs.uk/chq/Pages/2278.aspx?CategoryID=53&SubCategoryID=536]...

When you stop smoking, the loss of nicotine changes the levels of dopamine and noradrenaline. This can make you feel anxious, depressed and irritable.

...then yeah, I'm dismissing you off-hand.

I really don't want to go hunting down sources, I know they're out there but by god is it annoying having to go and find them all over again.

Just let me leave you with a bit of logic and see if that sates you for the time being, you're more than welcome to go look for the studies in your own time.

But if nicotine created a true chemical dependence, why wouldn't nicotine patches or gum satiate that chemical need completely? Often patches especially, contain and release far more nicotine than is contained within a single cigy. But they're one of the least effective methods of weaning someone off them. Whilst fake cigs and hypnotism are far more successful.

The answer is because it's the act of smoking which is, for lack of a better word, addictive. Not the chemicals they releases themselves.

The act of deep breathing, the holding of the cigarette, the almost automatonic way that smokers carry out the activity. It's a habit. Not a true chemical addiction like say heroine or alcohol. If it were then hypnotism really wouldn't work, and to break it by willpower alone would cause severe comedowns as your body is desperately trying to make you fix what joneses it.

Now lets be clear, your body itself does release different chemicals when you're smoking and that is part of why people find it such a hard habit to kick. Seriously, fuck you reward centre.

But gaming also changes your brain chemistry, as does sex and other non chemical taking acts. Infact the chemicals that your brain releases during coitus are much, much more geared to the reward centre than the dopamine released during smoking. Oxytocin being an obvious example. As is the serotonin release from eating chocolate.

It really all comes down to what you would call an addiction, personally I think unless your body actively punishes you for not taking a substance, it isn't an addiction. Just a habit, going without a cig might make someone irritable, but the same could be said for just about anything you do habitually. I've personally seen more violent reactions to facebook withdrawal than I have cigarettes.

I would argue that like most addictions there is a physical and a chemical side to the dependance. I would also argue that in most cases addiction is largely not an issue in this situation due to the lengths of time being covered. I've yet to meet a sizable amount of people that cannot go a couple hours without a cig.