Nicotine activates pleasure receptors in the brain (much like 'rubbing one out'). As I don't smoke I can't say whether the effects of short term withdrawal are enough to force consumption, but I will agree that it is largely psychological (in the short term). The point I'm trying to make however is that the times were talking about here are so short they really shouldn't be making a difference. IMO the only reason most (99.99%) of people smoke during work is because it helps them relax for a couple minutes, and not out of a need.Abandon4093 said:
Gamer Fired for taking "Pokemon Breaks."
- Thread starter Strain42
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Are you kidding me? Tobacco, according to research, is the third most addictive drug in the world, behind heroin and cocaine. Admittedly, this also reported that psychological dependance is much higher thanm physical (2.6/3 compared to 1.8/3) however, 1.8 on the physical scale puts it above cocaine, and on a level with Benzo's and barbiturates.Abandon4093 said:
Everyone should get the same amount of break time to do with what they wish. If you can't handle going without a cigarette outside of those times, maybe you shouldn't be working. Wouldn't it be considered discrimination to allow some people to have extra breaks because they smoke?
I think it's too much of associating games with a drug. Smoking is addictive and urges must be taken care of due to the physical drawback of withdrawal. Games are not analogous to drugs, despite what the mainstream media has to say about it. I'd say it's harmless on paper but the context leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
You've identified one of the key reasons many shift workers start smoking. Employers (who often smoke themselves) completely overlook those paid breaks - which are a chance to socialize with coworkers outside, have a snack, or in this day and age whip out the smart phone ad check email/facebook too - whilst nothing of the kind is ever offered to non-smokers. As a result many non-smokers just start going out on those smoke breaks to chat or check email, even though they don't smoke themselves, as otherwise it's grossly unfair. And it doesn't take long before they're offered a cigarette, try it, and become addicted - or do so consciously because their employer gives them trouble for going out for the same length of time as the smokers, only not smoking.
I've seen some employers try to make this fair. When I worked as a barista we were allowed two coffee breaks (paid) of 15 minutes each, as well as an unpaid lunch. However, no "smoke breaks" were permitted, and everyone got these breaks. If you couldn't hand less than six cigarettes on an eight-hour shift (one before work, one right after, one on each coffee break and one at lunch) it was time to suck it up and slap on a patch, as someone else suggested, or find a new job.
So that's likely what I'd do if I were an employer myself. Offer a paid 15 minute coffee break to everyone, but smokers could in lieu of, not in addition to, said break take a few minutes to step outside every once in a while. That's perfectly fair for everyone involved.
I've seen some employers try to make this fair. When I worked as a barista we were allowed two coffee breaks (paid) of 15 minutes each, as well as an unpaid lunch. However, no "smoke breaks" were permitted, and everyone got these breaks. If you couldn't hand less than six cigarettes on an eight-hour shift (one before work, one right after, one on each coffee break and one at lunch) it was time to suck it up and slap on a patch, as someone else suggested, or find a new job.
So that's likely what I'd do if I were an employer myself. Offer a paid 15 minute coffee break to everyone, but smokers could in lieu of, not in addition to, said break take a few minutes to step outside every once in a while. That's perfectly fair for everyone involved.
He's implying it's physically addictive (at least I think so as he's equating it with "junkies" which are usually associated with hard drugs). That's what I meant. EVERYTHING is potentially psychologically addictive.razer17 said:
I've always been against smoke breaks that are in addition to regular breaks. I don't care if someone is addicted, that was and continues to be their choice. If they wanted to quit they would (with aid if necessary) or they should, at the least, get their addiction under control. They should not get preferential treatment just because they choose to smoke. During your normal breaks you can do whatever the hell you want.
Almost nobody smokes at my current workplace. But I used to work at a factory where not only did people smoke, they did it on the job. The boss did too so it was acceptable behaviour, people smoked in the offices and the forklifts all had ashtrays. I eventually quit for other reasons, but I think I'd rather they just took the extra few minutes out of their day to do it outside, whether it's fair to the rest of us or not.
I have indeed seen this situation unfold before in my own life, what with other employees getting breaks to smoke for 5 minutes every hour.
My stance on this issue is quite simple:
I'm okay with not having the breaks for the small price of "not killing myself with cigarettes".
My stance on this issue is quite simple:
I'm okay with not having the breaks for the small price of "not killing myself with cigarettes".
I've never encountered this 'smoke break' thing where I live. At my work, people got their lunch break and if they wanted to smoke then, they could. They didn't get extra time.
Having said that, it's pretty fucking childish to get butthurt over someone getting an extra five minutes. Some people at my work (non-smokers) would often overstay their breaks by five minutes or so and I never resented them.
Having said that, it's pretty fucking childish to get butthurt over someone getting an extra five minutes. Some people at my work (non-smokers) would often overstay their breaks by five minutes or so and I never resented them.
At my work us non smokers are allowed an extre ten minutes at lunch time because we don't smoke. Doesn't really mean much though because technically we don't get a lunch break (understandable because we work with the disabled, and are expected to cater to them so long as we are working, and also we get plenty of time to relax, when they're relaxing).
I do smoke, and yes it is a choice to continue to do so.
I don't however expect special treatment for it.
Being granted a smoke break is a luxury, not a right, so it's asking for a favour. What do I do to earn that favour? I work faster, and a little harder. By putting in that extra effort, and staying ahead of the "game" I have never had a manager, even a non smoking one, deny me a few 5 minute breaks throughout the day.
Lazy sods that whine about it though as if being punished, should just GTFO.
On other side of the coin, smokers choose to smoke, same way non smokers choose not to. The non smokers have already forced their views on smokers with the bans now in place in many countries. Your choice, has forced a law upon us. I personally feel, smokers should be allowed short breaks through the day, it is fair after all, if your choice is valid, ours must be just as valid, if that is denied, it stops being a legitimate health issue, and starts veering towards persecution.
OT: Guy simply should have asked, if he was a good enough worker, any half decent manager would allow it. Certainly shouldn't be fired for it, at least, not at the first incident.
I don't however expect special treatment for it.
Being granted a smoke break is a luxury, not a right, so it's asking for a favour. What do I do to earn that favour? I work faster, and a little harder. By putting in that extra effort, and staying ahead of the "game" I have never had a manager, even a non smoking one, deny me a few 5 minute breaks throughout the day.
Lazy sods that whine about it though as if being punished, should just GTFO.
On other side of the coin, smokers choose to smoke, same way non smokers choose not to. The non smokers have already forced their views on smokers with the bans now in place in many countries. Your choice, has forced a law upon us. I personally feel, smokers should be allowed short breaks through the day, it is fair after all, if your choice is valid, ours must be just as valid, if that is denied, it stops being a legitimate health issue, and starts veering towards persecution.
OT: Guy simply should have asked, if he was a good enough worker, any half decent manager would allow it. Certainly shouldn't be fired for it, at least, not at the first incident.
It's a fine case of smart-assery, and all smart-ass behaviour necessarily constitutes the two titular elements, that of being smart, and of being an ass. I've had coworkers almost constantly wandering off for a cig. Ultimately it's not fair, but I believe I should not model my professional conduct on those who's conduct I do not feel to be appropriate.
It's been my experience that there are two kinds of smokers in the workplace. There's the smokers who also happen to be bludgers, who will use their habit to swindle as much extra break time out of the company as they can; and there are also the smokers who are normal workers who have a smoke during their usual smoko/lunch time. For example, I happen to work at a munitions factory where smoking (or any means of procuring a naked flame) is strictly prohibited on site, so effectively the smokers can't smoke while they're at work. But the guys who do smoke seem to get by just fine with only taking a smoke break during their lunch.
I don't see why this principle wouldn't apply to gamers as well. If you want to play games then do it on your lunch break (or even wait till you get home). In my experience managers don't like smart-arses, so if you're going to take breaks without asking to play Pokemon then you're going to come into conflict with your boss, irrespective of what the smokers are doing.
I don't see why this principle wouldn't apply to gamers as well. If you want to play games then do it on your lunch break (or even wait till you get home). In my experience managers don't like smart-arses, so if you're going to take breaks without asking to play Pokemon then you're going to come into conflict with your boss, irrespective of what the smokers are doing.
I'm all for Smokers Rights (I have some friends who smoke) but really - a medical condition? Bullshit.EClaris said:
Smoking is not a medical condition - it's an addiction. Nothing wrong with that - I'm addicted to caffeine. I get headaches if I don't get my daily fix.
However, my addiction to caffeine is not a medical condition. I will call bullshit on my own addiction as much as any smoker's.
If you're a heroin addict, then withdraw symptoms can kill you. If you're a smoker - or a coffee drinker - then symptoms will annoy you. Not the same thing.
And don't bring up the diabetes thing again. It's offensive to everyone with diabetes (comparing it to tobacco withdraw is offensive, not mentioning it for other reasons, in case that wasn't clear).