Hey, if the smokers in the OP’s office are treated to long cig breaks, why not go with the obvious solution and buy some cigarrettes? You do not have to inhale, just but a pack and take the pack outside with you. If you must, light one up and watch it burn. Seems like an easy solution.
My first job was at Best Buy. My buddy and I argued to our manager that since smokers got to take 10 minutes or so every hour to go feed an addiction, we should be allowed to do the same. We claimed to be addicted to video games.
He didn’t go for it.
How about the CIAR study? Yes, it has received criticism, and yes, it was funded by the tobacco industry, but I think it at least raises valid concerns.
The original ACS study finds that family members of smokers suffer from risk, but that’s not what I’m talking about. I’m talking about the hysteria that some people display even passing a smoker on the street.
You accused me of woowooism by not citing a study I’d only heard about a couple of times. Fair enough. What about the woowooism of people who never read the ACS report but go around spouting “Second hand smoke kills!”?
Well, the next logical step is to paly video games and then just claim you were demonstrating the system for the customers, 
.
This may be the second bit of absurdist lore I’ve ever read on The Dope that as actually made me tear up in laughter.
“I’m a non-conformist; see, I smoke American Spirits instead of Marlboros!”
You, your emphysemic aunt, and everybody else who took up smoking did so because they thought it looked cool or mature, or would make them socially accepted in their peer group, or because it fit some kind of John Wayne/James Dean-approved image of social rebel. The notion that a child or teenager would, without societal impetus and peer pressure, take a whiff of acrid, eye-watering smoke and think, “Yeah, I bet it would feel great into my lungs!” is about as likely as a Sasquatch winning the PowerBall.
Smoke, don’t smoke; as long as it doesn’t affect my work, and as long as I don’t have to be cooped up in an elevator with your ash-smelling presence, or kiss your ashtray of a mouth I really don’t care. But if you’re going to pretend that smoking makes you some kind of non-conformist, be prepared for derision and laughter.
Stranger
You didn’t actually read the rest of the thread, did you?
You’re assuming that the smokers are having only one cigarette. I’ve observed smoking-break huddles outside buildings often enough to have observed one common scenario:
-
Smokers arrive, light up, chat.
-
Smokers finish first butt, continue ongoing conversation.
-
New batch of smokers arrive, light up, join conversation.
-
First batch light another butt and go on yakking.
Heck, I’ve seen them light up a second cigarette even without new smokers joining the break group. Gotta load up on the nicotine to get them through to the next break.
And by the way, I was a smoker for 20 years; quit cold turkey about 14 years ago. And no, I don’t lecture smokers.
Yeah, good point. I see people do that too. I’m not one of them.
Good for you! As you probably know, the one thing worse than a non-smoker is an ex-smoker.
Well, not to cut into your general assumptions here, but yes, in fact, I did. I got particular titillation out of:
and
So, how is that “rebel[ing] against the adult world” working out for you? Selling rebellion, by the way, is the first lecture in “Intro to Marketing to Adolescents”.
Rationalize it all you like, but smoking != nonconformist.
Stranger
No. I didn’t start smoking for anything like that. So, that isn’t always the case. I dare say even often times it may not be.
Just to clarify my stance, I do not think smoking makes me a non-conformist. Nor does it make me a conformist. It just makes me a guy that smokes sometimes.
Uh, since I’m now an adult, it’s a non-issue.
Rebellious might be a better word. Or anti-authoritarian.
Sheesh, I had no idea one little word could get picked on so much.
Um, no. The stench coming off of smoker’s clothes, hair and skin is pretty potent, even in bigger offices. When they get off the elevator, the stench lingers. When they walk by your desk, the stench lingers. When they go into the bathroom, the stench lingers. God forbid you sit in a cubicle near one of them, or even worse, have to sit in a meeting next to them.
To me, stinking of smoke is just as bad as if you didn’t bathe and had terrible BO, or if you went around farting all the time. That is just not acceptible for a workplace environment. It’s rude.
I don’t think smokers realize how bad they stink. Probably because the smoking has dulled their sense of smell.
You’re probably right, but for the wrong reason I think. I think it’s because we’re close to the smell at it’s source, and if it travels with us, olfactory fatigue kicks in. If I haven’t had a cig in a while, I can notice other smokers.
But I am becoming more sensitive to the issue of smoky smell, just in my rebelliously non-conformisty way.
Only wusses use ashtrays anyway. Real men stomp 'em out on the floor.
Yeah sure. Everyone who ever engages in self-destructive/high-risk behavior started because of peer-pressure or to be cool; casual sex, drinking, motorcycle riding, pot, bungee jumping etc. Just like how everyone who drinks either does so because they enjoyed their very first class of wine or because they just want to be cool. In fact, no one engages in any of these activities for pleasure.
Now, I certainly don’t agree in general with the “smokers smoke because they are non-conformists” line of reasoning [though that comment has already been explained to death] but attempting to counter that argument with the sort of asinine logic shown above is simply ludicrous. Likewise, peer pressure is certainly responsible for many unhealthy behaviors but it ridiculous to claim it is responsible for all such behaviors; i.e. smoking.
Now, to address the OP. The problem described has to do with inconsiderate co-workers, not smokers. Similarly, annoying gum chewers who constantly pop their gum at work or leave wads of gum on the sidewalk are idiots not gum-chewers.
Finally, I’m curious in regards to the study that stated that children whose parents neither smoke around them or in the house have higher levels of asthma. Frankly, I’m a little unsure how, if the kids are never exposed to smoke, their asthma can be laid at the feet of smoking.
Here’s an interesting link for you.
This thread went around on the subject of the dangers second-hand smoke quite thoroughly, I think.
And yet all the sanctimonious pricks in threads like these continue to piss and moan about how deadly it has been proven to be. Fighting ignorance indeed.
The smell argument is the mosty ludicrous thing I’ve ever heard. I hate coffee. In addition to the extra bathroom breaks coffee drinkers take, the smell of brewing coffee makes me want to hurl. So I can demand that my office be coffee-free with just as much validity as the whiny bitches demanding it be smoke free, right?
God’s teeth, man, did you read the link you provided? Regarding the study:
“We are appalled that the tobacco industry has succeeded in giving visibility to a study with so many problems it literally failed to get a government grant”
“The ACS welcomes thoughtful, independent peer review of our data, but this study is neither reliable nor independent”
[ul][li]Participants were enrolled in 1959, when exposure to secondhand smoke was so pervasive that virtually everyone came into contact with it, whether they were married to a smoker or not.[/li][li]No information was collected on the sources of secondhand smoke other than spousal smoking. [/li][li]No information on smoking habits after 1972 was included in the analysis, even though the observation period continued for another 26 years. [/li][li]On average, participants were 52 years old when enrolled on the study. Many spouses who reported smoking in 1959 would have died, quit smoking or ended the marriage during the 38-year follow up, yet their surviving partners are still classified being passive smokers in the analysis. [/li][li]Much of the follow up relates to older age groups where the effects of many environmental risk factors become less apparent[/ul][/li]
Well, there is evidence that prolonged exposure to second-hand smoke does increase the risk of death from some causes, so at least the ‘second hand smoke kills’ woowoo does have some basis in truth. It’s an interesting question as to how much second hand exposure represents a ‘significant’ increase in risk, though.
Exactly right. It was almost entirely in response to tdn and those militant I’ll blow smoke in your face if I WANT to smokers out in real life and was not meant to lump smoker into one group.
Heck some of my best friends…
Seriously. My sister smokes. My bosses both smoke. We don’t beat around the bush with them. We tell them straight out. But then, they have all been trying to quit for a long time. With someone as hellbent on it as tdn, in real life, I’d give them a wide berth. Not because they were bad people, I just can’t handle cigarette smoke at all.
Although the dangers of second hand smoke haven’t necessarily been proven, I do know how I react. My throat gets tight, I get dizzy, and I feel like I’m going to throw up. It isn’t just when I am around someone who is smoking at the moment, it even happens when I am around someone who recently smoked.
Normally my allergies are pretty mild, but smoke just makes me sick. I blame my mom- seeing as she smoked my entire childhood (and let’s be honest, her entire pregnancy too). As I got older, my reactions got worse. I developed asthma. Funny thing is, soon as I moved into a non smoking environment, everything cleared up.*
*For the record I live in the most smoggy city in the country, but even the air here doesn’t make me sick.