Posts by Jill Reade
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
I try to make sure that my bad habits don't aversely affect those around me, and really, that's all I can do
That's all that anyone can ask. My point is that smoking is probably the hardest thing to do that with. I really don't care if people smoke so long as I don't have to smoke their smoke. Tedious though that may be.
-
Hi Craig,
Well, I expected a smoker to respond with perfume and BO as arguments but you got me on the germs! Perfume and BO aren't known as killers even in the long term and most people don't willingly take on a viral load. There are, though, many pressures on them to keep on functioning out in the world. None of these are the same as choosing to smoke.
I am sorry for your loss. I'm sure most of us have been down that road and willingly so whatever the circumstances. A smoker suggested, in support of the notion that her smoking would affect no-one but her, that she would forego a lung transplant. The fact that she would still need other medical care and and/or require the care of others makes this a spurious argument. Her point was that smoking is an individual act. I disagree and not because it may cause the need for medical treatment down the line. As I said but you didn't copy, that argument only leads to a conclusion that only those that have led blameless lives will qualify. Which is none of us.
A polite "Will you please move?" removes the smoker (sometimes). It does not remove the smoke for some considerable time after, nor mitigate any harm done in the meantime.
I will continue to believe that those in the throes of nicotine addiction are unable to accept that their behaviour impinges on others and you will continue to believe that anyone that dares to say it does is poisonously self righteous. So be it.
-
"As for my respiratory tract, as a lifelong fag smoker, thats my problem. I won't be expecting a lung transplant for free anytime soon. In return I think mountain climbers, and other dabblers in extreme or dangerous sports shouldn't be expecting free life-saving surgery and treatment either LOL"
The trouble for me is that what you and other smokers (of anything )are doing to your respiratory tracts often is my problem. It staggers me that smokers who are arguing the freedom to do what they want completely ignore the fact that it is a habit completely invasive of other peoples spaces and removes their choice to be smoke free. Work places are supposed to be work free but many, especially low paid retail workers, have no control over the smoke drifting in from the tossers parked outside smoking. Employers aren't required to and the health dept can't do anything if the smoking isn't happening on the actual premises. The smoke lingers long after the smoker is gone.
Walking down the street behind a smoker means walking in a putrid (and damaging) cloud. Working or living with a smoker means having your space invaded by the particularly foul stuff that clings to them even after the butt has been crushed outside. It is definitely not something that affects only the smoker unless they go to a roped off area a considerable distance away and then spend ages waiting for the smoke to disperse in another area way away from the smoking paddock. If you did that I'd be fine with it - maybe you could harm yourself without harming me but in the real world you are just totally kidding yourself.
The children of smokers are now so well educated about why they shouldn't smole that they also have to live with the fear of what might happen to their parent(s) as a result of smoking.
You may not be demanding a lung transplant but you will probably want some tax payer funded pain relief if you are one of the people who end up with lung cancer and some hospice care unless you think that your family deserve having to watch you die and care for your every need as a reward for putting up with the costs and invasiveness of your smoking? Actually I would not deny you either thing, nor the mountain climbers, because the only place that that argument goes is free health care only for those that have led blameless lives.
I loved it when the Maori party announced at one point they were going to ban tobacco (haven't heard any more about it though) but we all know that doesn't work either. Ther's no simple answer but don't kid yourself it is just about you!
-
We need a "printer version" button on this one 'cos I'll certainly be sharing it. I hope, for your sake, that the subsequent stabbings were, if not equally, almost as hilarious! We await the tales!
**REPLY:** Thanks for the kind words, Jill. There is actually a 'printer version' button (marked 'Print') on all the PA posts -- right down the bottom on the far left (opposite the 'Discuss' button). Took me while to figure out what exactly it was for, but it works a treat -- Cheers, DH.
-
Sorry, that was Tom, not Craig.
-
Craig Said...BTW, if want to talk about "re-traumatis[ing] victims"...
I thought Mark Sainsbury's interviewing of one of the survivors was appalling. "Do you sort of feel any survivor guilt?" he asked or something similar. The young man handled it very well but it was unnecessary and abusive in my opinion.It's not only the police who need retraining on interviewing technique. Mary Wilson and Jim Mora are two who repeatedly tell people what they are going to say in closed question form.
-
Maillard reaction
Try the Mallard reaction instead. No caramelisation so not very sweet .... but I hear it packs a real punch!
-
Rich said <But the NZ economy has a massive imbalance between those who live off earned income and those who live off capital (not helped by the way our "Labour" government has unaccountably maintained a tax system biased towards rentiers)>
This fascinates me too. My thought is that in the income bracket that being an MP puts you in, MP's and buddies are likely to be the ones doing very well out of it. Likewise, the way that the accommodation benefit tops up (keeps up) rents. No easy way out of it, people need a roof over their heads and I don't begrudge the topup to the people who need itto stay housed but it seems to me it could act to stop rents decreasing by artificially making it look like "the market" can support them. More money in the same middle class- plus pockets.
-
Shep - I'm not a franchise owner but presumably they take them on board to up the foot traffic. I don't think the Post franchise in itself is a problem but you would have to talk to th owners. It's having kiwibank on top that I understand to be a problem.
EPMU seemed fairly unresponsive to the situation of franchise workers when I spoke to them. We are very little fish to a very big union I imagine. I asked for join up papers and a copy of the award even though it would not apply but never heard another dicky bird.
Steven - I am sure Kiwibank will see the situation differently. Perhaps some franchise employers pay more fairly.I can only speak from my own experience and we were told not to discuss wages with other same shop staff. Divide and conquer. Hopefully Kiwibank could still do it better but ensure some kind of equity to the pepople delivering its services.
-
Russell said :How about Kiwibank promote itself on the basis that it offers better services and lower fees?
Tom said : I am a nationalist and we need to stick up for ourselves & make our own luck in the world, if we don't then foreign corporates will shaft us quicker than you can say "economic colonialism".
We don't need foreign nationals to shaft us when kiwibank is completely capable of doing it by themselves. Better services, lower fees? The cost of the latter is in the wages of the people providing the services. I think that most people delivering the services are employed by franchises. In my own experience franchise workers are paid at or near the minimum wage. This is several dollars an hour less than they would be paid working at a New Zealand Post Corporate shop, doing the same job but without having to have knowledge of stationery and books as well. The difference is that Corporate workers have union representation and award wages. Franchise staff may join the union (EPMU) but will still not be covered by the award. Franchise owners plead that they cannot pay as the corporate shops and indeed other banks do because of low transaction fees paid to them by Kiwibank. Some suspect the transactions are costing them. My understanding is that if they do not want to provide Kiwibank services then they also lose the Post franchise. Kiwibank may be able to undercut its competitors but it's by virtue of the Employment Contracts Act and the franchise sytem not by being smarter. Never mind the hokiness, the sheer hypocracy of their advertising really annoys me.