Forum menu
He is a colleague
And he's a carrying out behaviour that other colleagues are annoyed by and about which he's already been warned.
The rest of your post isn't even worth a response.
You've witnessed him breaking company rules and you have done nothing........best clear your desk.
Clearly, the vaping man is a dick.
aye extremely dubious that...paulosoxo - Member
How do you know he's on his final warning? Office gossip? Surely that's confidential.
People really want others dirty second hand shitty vapour blown in their face ,honestly dirty b*****ds should be shown outside.
You should probably walk outside every time you want to breathe then...
Just tell him to piss off outside loudly in front of the office.
You should probably walk outside every time you want to breathe then...
Maybe but I'd prefer not to inhale whatever concoction of nicotine other people are sucking down on to feed their addiction. That and the guy is obviously one of those that thinks the rules don't apply to him. Not somebody I'd like to be working with.
Maybe but I'd prefer not to inhale whatever concoction of nicotine other people are sucking down on to feed their addiction.
Exactly
Just go and have a word with him and remind him if he gets caught he's out, someone night even grass him up 😉
In the first instance i'd approach him. If you already had previously it's a redundant point. Not everyone should have the whiff of plastic cherries floating around. Or the 'it's safe mate for you to also breath in'. Employers also need to be careful of any future action. Perceived or not that may happen if it turns out to be a hazzard
I'd just remind him what the consequences are, no need to tell on him. If he's carrying on as he is HR will soon find out.
As someone who uses an e-cig I wouldn't dream of doing so in an office environment. Its just inconsiderate ****tery.
Have you considered killing him and burying his body in a shallow grave on the moors?
Not everyone should have the whiff of plastic cherries floating around.
I'm surprising myself by being on the side of the esmokers. Genuine question - is there a health issue with being in the presence of an esmoker or is more about the smell and it being antisocial because of that? If the latter why is it different to the woman with pungent perfume or the bloke with a curry flavour pot noddle habit. And definitely less unpleasant than the chunky chap with a BO problem (or the woman with a yeasty issue!) or the commuter cyclist drying their manky clothes on the radiator next to the desk. My work colleague confessed that she can't stand the smell of coffee the other day which is a bit of a shame as she has endured my half a kilo a week of beans habit for the last 6 years.
It's a shame they can't make an office friendly version as if you believe them to be better than smoking it might help people to make the leap.
Anti social and then there's the health risk.
It's a shame they can't make an office friendly version as if you believe them to be better than smoking it might help people to make the leap
It's a shame people can't **** off outside or just get on and do some work.
Binners do you have one of those steam engine-smoke ones? When you see a car with the window open with one I always think of a steam train 'on full chat'
Mine is a far more modest affair Hora. Not one of those that makes it look like you're filming the next Cheech and Chong film. I don't think I know anyone who actually smokes fags any more. I know loads of people using e-cigs though.
As for using them indoors, I know some pubs who won't let you use them inside. But they tend to be the ones frequented by whiney bedwetters anyway, so it's not really an issue 🙂
Well my local has the strong smell of weed on some drinkers
[img] 
[/img]
then there's the health risk.
That's not evidence of any for of passive risk though. There doesn't appear to be any evidence of any risk to third parties like there was with cancer sticks.
As for 'anti social' that's a pure moralistic argument, and you could argue all sorts of stuff about it being equally anti social making your workers stand out in the street and excluded as if they were 'dirty' for partaking in something perfectly legal.
Don't get me wrong, I think that cigarettes should be banned, after too many long discussions with the people who actually did the research on cigarettes (former tobacco research council labs) however the opposition to e-cigs/vaping has little scientific backing.
Should we ignore the WHO?
At the moment there is little data about the health effects of eciggs,
Which is why people like the WH0 are erring on the side of caution
Ongoing studies point to them being the most effective aid to quit smoking there is and much less harmful than fags, (irresponsible headlines in crap papers like the Sun and Telegraph aside)
Obvs it will be 30 years before we know what the long term effects will be but science has come a long way from the 50s and the kind of stunts the tobacco industry pulled back then would almost impossible to get away with now.
They also have the potential to much better control what is exhaled than regular fags
As a recreational drug delivery system they are probably the future. So stuck it up and get used to it !
But still the guys a dick and of have a weird with him
the kind of stunts the tobacco industry pulled back then would almost impossible to get away with now.
They are still getting away with it all over the globe. Just not so much as before here.
Should we ignore the WHO?
Yes, the PHE report is more recent and is comprehensive:
As for the 'better To err on the side of caution despite no scientific evidence they are dangerous' approach, I would respond 'isn't that what the anti-vaccination lot say?'
Depends. Considering the latency of tobacco harm, it might be worth keeping an eye on it for at least a decade or so.
nicotine is well known to have harmful effects. Vaping will release nicotine into the air. therefore its reasonable to assume vaping has passive / secondary harmful effects.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence
But still the guys a dick and of have a weird with him
Don't follow this advice, MadBill, or it might be you on the end of a dismissal.
Normal cigarettes were given as a health aid not so long ago. I'd rather be on the side of caution rather than put up with someone elses habit of smoking flavoured nicotine.
nicotine is well known to have harmful effects. Vaping will release nicotine into the air. therefore its reasonable to assume vaping has passive / secondary harmful effects.
The PHE England report deals with that in detail on P65, four separate studies say otherwise and that Passive exposure levels recorded were equivalent to eating a tomato
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence
So much for the principles of science based medicine and public policy.
I take it you're still holding off on shaking hands with HIV victims or using public toilets in case you catch AIDS?
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence
IIRC you are a scientist of some sort? This is a basic tenet of medical research.
Its proven HIV cannot be transmitted like that. 😯
Its proven HIV cannot be transmitted like that.
Just like It's proven that nicotine levels ingested from passive vaping are harmless. Go and read the PHE report.
No its not. I suggest you read the report again with your scientist head on. What it shows is no proven harmful effects not that its safe. Nicotine is known to be dangerous. any release of it into the air others breathe must have some effect. Described in that report as negligable not zero.
EC release negligible levels of nicotine into ambient air with no
identified health risks to bystanders
.
Not the same as saying its safe. thats absence of evidence not evidence of absence. Harmful effects will not be known for decades.
Nicotine is known to be dangerous. any release of it into the air others breathe must have some effect
Yes, as much harmful effect as ingesting a tomato - because thats the level of exposure that the [i]science[/i] says is involved.
It seems you're slipping into daily mail 'everything causes cancer' mode here TJ - we don't decide public or medical policy on evidence of absence - try applying 'evidence of absence of harm' rather than 'absence of evidence of harm' to any medicine, environmental exposure or other public health issue and it would fail, its an impossible hurdle as you well know - MMR being probably the best example.
And I thought you were a scientist 🙄
😆tjagain - Member
No its not. I suggest you read the report again with your scientist head on. What it shows is no proven harmful effects not that its safe. Nicotine is known to be dangerous. any release of it into the air others breathe must have some effect. Described in that report as negligable not zero.
So all those saying that it's harmless and it's just the smell that folks unreasonably object too, presumably you are OK with a colleague dropping his guts next to your desk or belching in close proximity? No harmful effects, just a bad smell. Or maybe basic consideration for fellow human beings has a bearing.
The problem is your dealing with ex smokers who just like to feel persecuted. Everything is just so unfair man....
AFAIK the content is still unregulated and you can make your own liquid to use so studies of the branded stuff may not apply to what's being used.
But put simply it's not allowed in this office and the guy knows it. He is taking the piss.