Friday, January 17, 2014

Should E-Cigarettes Be Permitted in the Workplace?

Should E-Cigarettes Be Permitted in the Workplace? - At Work - WSJ

There is a poll:-)


  1. In many workplaces ecig bans are largely irrelevant. Unlike cigarettes, their use can go undetected. The vapour disappears in around 8 seconds and, without strong flavouring, doesn't leave a smell. In fact, if you hold the vapour in your mouth for a few seconds before breathing out, it gets absorbed. Otherwise, any toilet cubicle, store cupboard or deserted stairwell will do. For anyone in a single occupancy office, a ban is completely irrelevant.

    1. A couple of weeks ago I flew out to Asia (where I still am) on a Qatar flight. They specify, in no uncertain terms, that the use of e-cigs is prohibited on all their flights. No prob. A quick trip to the loo for a nice relaxing postprandial puff on my e-cig, holding it, as you point out, to reduce any vapour emissions that might set off the smoke alarm. Job done.

      However, it pisses me off that I have to go through the charade. I could vape in my seat at will without it disturbing even the most fanatical anti as long as they weren't actually looking at me to be optically offended by my actions. It's the stupidity of these people that really annoys me. Just what is wrong with the fanatics? Haven't they heard of 'live and let live'?

      Silly question. Of course they haven't. Their way is the only way. Fools.

    2. It's like the anti-smoking/anti-vaping movement has morphed into some sort of strange, new religion where only the most orthodox can dictate what is or isn't "acceptable".

      Just think of all of the things that can be banned on the premise of being "optically offensive".

      Have a safe trip:-)

    3. Further to my comment yesterday about Qatar's e-cig policy, I just came across this:

      Just what is wrong with these people? I came across another, much worse case a few months ago, where a girl smoked an e-cig on a Qatar flight, and ended up spending a week or so in a Qatari jail, and being fined a huge sum. I think I still have the link on my desktop at home, but not on my laptop that I have with me. A totally disproportionate response to a non-event.

    4. Here is the link (the first one doesn't work):


  2. 58% Yes.
    39% No.
    At 17.47 GMT.
    Why on earth is there 39% No? Talk about gullibility!
    Could that result be an indication of what proportion of the population do not think? Oh, wait! That poll is in the Wall Street Journal! Surely, the readers of that journal MUST be thinkers by and large. So .... if the readers of that journal react emotionally rather than thinking, then ordinary people can be expected to think even less before reacting emotionally. What do you think? Is 5% too high?

    1. "Surely, the readers of that journal MUST be thinkers by and large."

      That's not always the case obviously.

    2. "... Why on earth is there 39% No? ... "

      Because, if you are working for ASH and others in the hugely profitable big budget Tobacco Control Industry, then you can afford to supply staff, paid students and volunteers with computers to be used only for taking online polls and surveys. The trick is, vote in the poll, clear out all tracking cookies and cache, etc., go back to website, vote again, clear out cookies/cache, go back to website, vote again - repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat.

      Pretty soon a handful of highly paid professionals and students earning piece-rate for posting remarks, comments and voting in polls have amassed enough to make it look like many more are on their side than there actually are.

      But that is what I think they are doing, as it's technically possible, with a lot of online polls and voting, as long as you don't mind losing all your saved, cached and cookied information, but if you use a computer just for that, as principle activity, then no problem.

      And, if you're with Big Tobacco Control Industry, money is no object as they are drowning in it.