Fair enough, although it’s still hard for me to imagine a smoke break taking 20 minutes. Those people must have to walk pretty far.
And what, did you search on my name to find every Pit rant I’ve made in the last month? Sheesh!
I should also explain my non-conformist comments. When I started smoking, I was a teenager. Yes, it was partly to fit in with the cool kids, but it was also to rebel against adult world. When I was firmly and solidly hooked, that’s when the anti-smoking nazis started coming out of the woodwork. Yes, I know that they are not the norm, but like in any organization, it’s the lunatics that yell the loudest. And anti-smoking loonies tend to be self-righteous pricks of the worst order. I’ll be damned if I’m going to give in to people like that.
I started because my dad smoked and the people I hung out with smoked. It just seemed like the thing to do. I suppose you could label that conformist if you like, but attitudes toward smoking were far different 30-odd years ago. These days, I think you could label someone who wanted to smoke as non-conforminst.
Heaven forbid someone actually enjoy smoking. That could never happen, right? It’s impossible, for someone to smoke, other than for the sole purpose of fitting in.
Except that isn’t true at all.
Why is it that everyone feels the need to make such massive, sweeping generalizations?
I think the hardening of attitudes towards smokers is fueled by the increase in our knowledge on the dangers of second-hand smoke. There was a time when the danger to non-smokers from just being around a smoker wasn’t really addressed. As soon as it became common knowledge that the non-smokers health was being impacted by breathing in second-hand smoke, the whole ball game changed.
Most people, unless they are allergic, will tolerate the stink. They won’t so easily tolerate the damage to their own health from your smoking.
I was just taking exception to tdn’s claim that smokers were non-conformists. I’m sure some are (there’s an exception to every rule, and all that) but I’m also sure that most people who start smoking do so because of peer pressure.
Now some wiseass is going to come in and ask for a cite that most people begin smoking due to peer pressure.
I think you’re right about that, but I’ve heard from a few different sources that the studies that proved this were falsified. And that the falsified data have since been greatly exaggerated. I have no idea how true that is, as objective reports are hard to come by, and questioning the study seems to amount to some sort of heresy.
At any rate it’s snowballed out of control. It used to be that smokers were made to go to special smoking rooms. Not good enough. Send them outside. Still not good enough. Get them away from any doors that might conceivably be used in the near future. Not good enough. Ban smoking in entire towns. And some people want to criminalize it.
I get that breathing smoke directly into a baby’s face is a bad idea. But “your second-hand smoke is killing me” has turned into a religion.
I walk outside every day. What is the most common street litter? Cigarette butts & packs. Do all you outside smokers bring ashtrays with you?
What’s the most asked question when I am walking outside? “Ya got a cigarette/match?” Not only do they smoke, they think I should pay for it. To which I always reply: “Of course not. Do I look stupid?”
Evidence continues to grow that second-hand smoke is harmful. Some studies are getting tossed out because of methodological problems, so the data really doesn’t prove the point. But the studies don’t show that second-hand smoke is harmless, either. Other studies are definitely demonstrating a high likelihood of increased risk from second-hand smoke.
It is well documented that kids who have asthma do worse if either of their parents smoke even if the parents never smoke around the kids or in the house that the kids live in. And since between 5-12% of children have asthma, and since asthma fatalities have been rising in the last 20 years, that alone gives folks plenty of motivation to try to remove as much second-hand smoke from the environment as is possible.
I expect arguments against second-hand smoke being harmful will tend to diminish even as they get more specious and convoluted, as more long-term study results are introduced.
We’re getting away from one of the OP’s main complaints: how stinky many or most smokers are after they come back from their smoke breaks, and how it stinks up the office and other people have to endure the nasty smell.
That residual smoke smell is one of worst smells I can think of. It’s all about proper hygiene in a workplace, really. If you had a coworker who never bathed who had really bad BO and was making coworkers sick, don’t you think someone would have a talk with that person and say that that wasn’t up to the minimal standards of workplace hygiene? Or, if someone wore heavy perfume? Well, what is the difference between that and smokers who fill the room with putrid smoke smell eminating from their clothes, skin, and hair??
The point is, no one wants to work in an office where they are exposed to bad smells. Considerate people would not subject their coworkers to an office environment where they were exposed to bad smells.
So if you’re one of the smokers who say “screw you!” to the people who don’t like to smell your nastiness, then you’re an asshole.
Yes. I’ve also heard that we didn’t land on the moon. From where? Different sources. I don’t know who these sources are, but still, it’s compelling evidence in anyone’s book, eh?
Regarding the smell of smoke and it stinking up an office, even before I smoked I was never bothered by the scent of smoke on someone else. I just don’t see how it would be potent enough to troublesome unless someone worked in a small closed office less than a foot away from someone that smokes.
