# The world revolves around smokers.. **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [December 24, 2003, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-world-revolves-around-smokers/220927 "2003-12-24T23:29:45Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Joan\_of\_Argghh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/58956e/32.png) [@Joan\_of\_Argghh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Joan_of_Argghh)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2003, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-world-revolves-around-smokers/220927/81 "2003-12-26T21:34:05Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by lezlers \* > \*\*This is the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever read on these boards. > > There are not enough rolleye smilies in the world. \*\* Couldn’t agree more! And it reminds me to stay on topic, which is about smoking and breaks, after all. Doh! So few vices, so many nannies. In this case, the OP’s decision is just a silly bit of retaliation for deeper issues with smokers. People who are worried that others are getting away with something shouldn’t be in supervisory positions. Everybody gets away with something at some point. Let it go. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_H](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/85e7bf/32.png) [@Sam\_H](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_H)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2003, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-world-revolves-around-smokers/220927/82 "2003-12-26T21:40:45Z")
**lezlers** wrote: \*\*Sam you’re basically advocating forcing smokers to quit. Do you also advocate forcing people who drink to quit?\*\* What is with the stupid analogies on this thread? Drinking in small amounts will not harm you. It may even be beneficial under certain circumstances. Childbearing brings wonderful people into the world. Sugar, fat and caffeine if not abused have no side effects. The same fucking thing cannot even be remotely said about tobacco. It has purpose other than to kill you. \*\*Smoking is legal. Until it is made illegal, you have no right try to force your will upon another. Period. End of story. Your attitude disgusts me.\*\* I’m enforcing my will on others? Did you not read the rest of my posts? In order to get into my building I have to breathe in tobacco smoke because the front of my building is where the smokers hang out on their smoking breaks. Smokers are forcing their tobacco on me. I think they should not be permitted to do this. I also certainly do think my company has every right in the world to discourage a habit that only leads to higher medical premiums for the rest of us. Why should smokers force me to pay their medical bills and breathe in their smoke? \*\* Oh, I forgot to add, Sam, you examples of forced breaks and seatbelts ect., are examples of people enforcing laws. Yeah, the laws were put into affect for people’s own goods, but they are laws nonetheless. \*\* And there are laws placing high taxes on tobacco. Why not end them, too? After all, smoking is _legal._ Why should the poor tobacco farmers be discriminated against? :rolleyes **Smoking on break at work is not against the law. Therefore, you refusing to allow an employee to do so because you don’t want them smoking is self-rightious and ridiculously arrogant.** I don’t way to pay higher medical premiums or breathe in smoke and that’s arrogant and self righteous? Huh? Yeah big bad me not wanting to walk through a haze of carcinogens to get to work or listen to my friend cough her lungs out. What a terrible person I am! I think any company in the world would be perfectly justified in instituting policies designed to discourage smoking. Telling people they cannot smoke on company grounds is completely rational. ---
**Author:** ![PunditLisa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/4af34b/32.png) [@PunditLisa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PunditLisa)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2003, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-world-revolves-around-smokers/220927/83 "2003-12-26T22:12:12Z")
We have designated smoking areas at my work. The times that I feel a twinge of annoyance for the people who take 15 minutes out of the workday to puff on a cigarette are mitigated when I see them all huddled together like homeless people, shivering in the cold and rain on days like today. I’m so glad to be free of addictions that are not only indisputably harmful to me but that have wrestled dominion over my person. In the last months of her 45 year cigarette addiction, my mother would wake up in the middle of the night with cravings. She’d plan breaks around her cigarettes. She’d only frequent restaurants that had a smoking section. She’d dread long plane rides because she’d be in misery for the last few hours unil she could get another puff. Nope, I don’t feel anger or jealous towards people who take cigarette breaks. I feel pity for them. It’s a crappy addiction to have, even if some smokers are militantly defensive about their right to suffer such an addiction. ---
**Author:** ![amarone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e0b2c6/32.png) [@amarone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/amarone)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2003, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-world-revolves-around-smokers/220927/84 "2003-12-26T22:46:51Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Sam H. \* > \*\*But government does that all time. Would you like to get rid meat inspectors? Minimal building codes? Seat belts? Mandatory school attendance? > \*\* My dictum is that government should not be in the business of controlling the behavior of adults for their own good. (Yes, I have clarified this in view of one of your examples). So let’s answer your questions. In the case of meat inspections, what you are talking about here is whether government should enact laws to protect one person (the consumer) from the actions of another (the meat seller). This is not the same as my position of not agreeing with laws to protect an adult from themselves. Having said that, I wouldn’t have a problem with meat inspection not being mandatory. Anyone hoping to sell me meat would have to have used a reputable inspector and mark the meat as having passed, or I wouldn’t buy it. You might say that based on my position above, the government should ban tobacco to protect the consumer from the poison provided by the supplier. I think the difference here is that tobacco is poison no matter what. Meat should be safe if produced and supplied properly. Hence it is not unreasonable to have regulations covering the safe supply of meat. Building codes - largely the same argument as above. However, I have no problem with a private individual being allowed to have a home built to any “standard” he chooses. Seat belts? Absolutely. None of the governments business. I wear them because it is sensible, but I don’t think I should be forced to. Ditto motor cycle and bicycle helmets. Mandatory schooling? I do believe that government has a role in protecting kids from stupid parents so, yes, there is a role for government here. ---
**Author:** ![bsumpter](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/cdc98d/32.png) [@bsumpter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bsumpter)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2003, 11:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-world-revolves-around-smokers/220927/85 "2003-12-26T23:42:54Z")
The author of the OP was being a self-righteous asshole, period. I manage several people who are smokers, and there’s no way I would have been such a prick over a smoke break. ---
**Author:** ![lezlers](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/258eb7/32.png) [@lezlers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lezlers)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2003, 12:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-world-revolves-around-smokers/220927/86 "2003-12-27T00:28:39Z")
Wow, way to backpeddle, **Sam** > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Sam H. \* > \*\*What is with the stupid analogies on this thread? Drinking in small amounts will not harm you. It may even be beneficial under certain circumstances. Childbearing brings wonderful people into the world. Sugar, fat and caffeine if not abused have no side effects. > > The same fucking thing cannot even be remotely said about tobacco. It has purpose other than to kill you.\*\* Well, what about the people who abuse sugar fat and caffene? You keep going on and on about how you don’t want to pay higher medical premiums but guess what sparky? Obese people end up making people pay higher medical premiums as well. So should we force obese people into Overeaters Annonymous before we’ll hire _them_? Didn’t think so. > [@](#): > > **I’m enforcing my will on others?** yup > [@](#): > > \*\* Did you not read the rest of my posts? In order to get into my building I have to breathe in tobacco smoke because the front of my building is where the smokers hang out on their smoking breaks. Smokers are forcing their tobacco on me. I think they should not be permitted to do this.\*\* That’s fabulous. I agree. In my building, the smoking patio is in back. No one is forced to breathe in smoke except for those who choose to do so. Perhaps your building should impliment something similar? > [@](#): > > **I also certainly do think my company has every right in the world to discourage a habit that only leads to higher medical premiums for the rest of us. Why should smokers force me to pay their medical bills and breathe in their smoke?** Again with the medical premiums. See my obesity comments above. Overeaters Annonymous for the lot of you! Oh, and forced gym memberships as well! > [@](#): > > **And there are laws placing high taxes on tobacco. Why not end them, too? After all, smoking is _legal._ Why should the poor tobacco farmers be discriminated against? :rolleyes** What the _hell_ are you going on about here? You said that there are mulitple things the government regulates for the good of it’s citizens, and that companies routinely follow these regulations. I pointed out that companies follow these regulations because they are forced to by law. Since smoking is not illegal, companies have no place to forbid smoking during an employees break time, while they are off the clock. Seems pretty cut and dry to me. Where you got taxes from, I’ll never know. > [@](#): > > \*\*I don’t way to pay higher medical premiums or breathe in smoke and that’s arrogant and self righteous? Huh? Yeah big bad me not wanting to walk through a haze of carcinogens to get to work or listen to my friend cough her lungs out. What a terrible person I am! \*\* No, you’re arrogant and self righteous because you’re demanding someone to quit a legal, personal activity because _you_ don’t like it. As far as walking through the haze, see my back patio comments above. > [@](#): > > \*\*I think any company in the world would be perfectly justified in instituting policies designed to discourage smoking. Telling people they cannot smoke on company grounds is completely rational. \*\* Yeah, I agree. However, this is not what you were advocating in any of your previous posts. You were advocating forcing a prospective employee to enter a smoking cessation program as a condition of employment. Forcing them to quit altogether. You never once before said you just didn’t want them smoking on company grounds. That is reasonable. Your desire to force them to _quit altogether as a condition of their employment_ is not. I assume because you’ve since abandoned that ridiculous idea that you agree. ---
**Author:** ![Persephone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ecc23a/32.png) [@Persephone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Persephone)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2003, 12:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-world-revolves-around-smokers/220927/87 "2003-12-27T00:29:42Z")
> [@](#): > > I don¦t way to pay higher medical premiums or breathe in smoke and that¦s arrogant and self righteous? Huh? Yeah big bad me not wanting to walk through a haze of carcinogens to get to work or listen to my friend cough her lungs out. What a terrible person I am! You’re not paying higher premiums because of smoking. You’re paying higher premiums because medical care is MFing expensive, regardless of whether you’re being treated for smoking-related lung cancer or a yearly routine checkup. Health care providers have to get paid, and so do the folks that work for the insurance company. I have to have surgery in a couple of months–major freaking surgery, that has nothing to do with the fact that I smoke. Because I pay my premiums, the surgery won’t cost anything out of my pocket. And when I think about how much I pay for my HMO, to cover myself, my husband, my two kids, and my stepson, I praise Deity about how _little_ I pay. I know it’s more for a single person (which is, IMHO, totally rude), but the truth is, those in the health care profession have to make a buck too. And if you don’t want to walk through a haze of smoke to get to work, buy the building and change the rules. Until then, the people that run the place make the rules. ---
**Author:** ![chicksdigscars](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/838e76/32.png) [@chicksdigscars](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/chicksdigscars)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2003, 1:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-world-revolves-around-smokers/220927/88 "2003-12-27T01:07:34Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Ellis Dee \* > \*\*By that logic you would only get one break in an eight hour day. (Technically you would only have worked 7 hours 45 minutes, thus not qualifying for the second break.) > > The OP was being a hardass. \*\* Did I say that we normally worked 8 hours per day? No, I did not. ---
**Author:** ![JamesCarroll](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/5daacb/32.png) [@JamesCarroll](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JamesCarroll)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2003, 3:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-world-revolves-around-smokers/220927/89 "2003-12-27T03:25:43Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by yosemitebabe \* > **What? _What?_ You mean that I can’t contribute to this thread—why? Because I have an opinion you don’t like? Huh?** No, you’re free (you know that whole ‘free’ thing; damn isn’t it terrible how other people’s freedoms interfere with our personal view of utopia?) to speak on any topic that you want. But the difference between opinion and wisdom is experience. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by yosemitebabe \* > Not according to avabeth. Read her post. That’s what prompted mine. And in previous threads, others have experienced the same thing: _they were expected to keep working while their smoking co-workers got a smoke break._ A bit of editorial licence I think. Let’s include the rest of avabeth’s post: > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by avabeth_ > My co-workers always go smoke. I don’t mind, it gives me the chance to check my email. Hmmm… pretty interesting. Funny isn’t it how the whole light exposes fascists and their agendas? > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by yosemitebabe \* > She was expected, as a non-smoker, to _“pick up the slack”_ while her smoking peers took a break. You’re missing the entire point. Many times people have related that they were _not_ encouraged to “go out.” _They_, because they didn’t smoke, were expected to “stay in” and keep working. Only the smokers got to “go out.” > You think this is fair? Yes, or no? That’s my only point, my only beef here, my only question. Nothing else. If a person is “expected” to not take a break that is owed them then its up to them to stand up for their rights and take their breaks. Don’t you see how utterly damaging your idea is. What you are saying is that in order to be “fair” you are willing to not only take away another person’s right to a break, but to squash any attempt by others to gain the same benefit. It seems to me that you’ll only be happy when everyone else is as miserable as you. How truly, truly sad. ---
**Author:** ![Creative\_Munster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/919ad9/32.png) [@Creative\_Munster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Creative_Munster)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2003, 5:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-world-revolves-around-smokers/220927/90 "2003-12-27T05:19:49Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by chicksdigscars \* > \*\*Did I say that we normally worked 8 hours per day? No, I did not. \*\* Well, considering that the normal work day is 8 hours, and you didn’t specify otherwise, I think it is fair to say that most assumed you meant that where you work no breaks are allowed until four hours were worked in an **eight** hour shift. You seemed to have been supporting the OP’s position with your post with misleading and incomplete information. ---
**Author:** ![yosemite](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/3ab097/32.png) [@yosemite](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yosemite)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2003, 5:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-world-revolves-around-smokers/220927/91 "2003-12-27T05:58:14Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by JamesCarroll \* > No, you’re free (you know that whole ‘free’ thing; damn isn’t it terrible how other people’s freedoms interfere with our personal view of utopia?) to speak on any topic that you want. But the difference between opinion and wisdom is experience. And the wisdom the comes from _reading comprehension_ is invaluable. Try it some time. Wow, holy selective quoting there, Batman. Let’s look at what I _actually_ quoted, shall we? (bolding mine) > [@](#): > > avabeth orignally posted: > > However, it used to bug the hell out of me **when I worked as a waitress** - I didn’t smoke, so I and one other girl were expected to pick up the slack of those who did. _That_ sucked. She was, I believe, talking about a _previous job_. Unless you believe that waitresses commonly check email while their coworkers smoke. I doubt that. And even if some waitresses can check email, that’s not at all what she said. She said she was expected to “pick up the slack,” not check email. Hence her complaint. > [@](#): > > Hmmm… pretty interesting. Funny isn’t it how the whole light exposes fascists and their agendas? What? _What?_ She bitched about a _former job_, where she _was_ expected to “pick up the slack” for smoking coworkers. The first portion of her post says that, “I don’t mind [**now, at my _current job_**], it gives me time to check my email.” So let’s break that down, now shall we? She doesn’t mind NOW, (at her presumably current, non-waitress job) but she _did_ mind at a previous job [waitress, where no one could presumably check email]. At her _previous_ job, her bosses expected her to “pick up the slack” while the smoking brethren took an extra break. And avabeth didn’t like this. But apparently you must think it’s okay? Is that it? And then we have Lynn Bodoni’s experience: > [@](#): > > Lynn Bodoni wrote: > > Yep. Well, at least it’s what _I_ have been saying, if not in this thread then in others. When I worked outside the home, the smokers usually took more breaks, and were ALLOWED to take more breaks, than the nonsmokers. Since in most cases the managers were also smokers, they’d allow this. NOW do you understand the grudges that some nonsmokers are airing? For some reason or other, my bosses were willing to let people step outside for a smoke, but were not willing to let nonsmokers step outside or go sit down in the back for a breather. So apparently this is okay with you as well? What? > [@](#): > > If a person is “expected” to not take a break that is owed them then its up to them to stand up for their rights and take their breaks. And what _exactly_ did I write, Mr. Low-Reading-Comprehension? Let’s see—pulling up a quote: > [@](#): > > orignally posted by me: > > I am not expecting that non-smokers not have a smoke break. I don’t give a shit either way. As long as they go smoke outside, don’t care, don’t care, don’t care. All I’m saying is, that no boss better ask me to stay inside and keep working while select employees (the smokers) are outside. If the smokers get a special break, I’m gonna be out there too, drinking Pepsi or chewing gum. And if the boss won’t let me go outside and chew gum, then I see no reason why the smokers get to go outside. I’m saying that if they go have a break, I have a break. No boss better tell me that I can’t have an “extra” break. And if the boss tells me that I can’t have an “extra” break, I see **no reason** why smokers can. And I’d call bullshit on any boss that told me that smokers should get “extras.” That’s not fair, that’s not how it should work, and I’d fight against it. But I am assuming that you think it’s peachy keen for smokers to get extras? > [@](#): > > Don’t you see how utterly damaging your idea is. What you are saying is that in order to be “fair” you are willing to not only take away another person’s right to a break, but to squash any attempt by others to gain the same benefit. What? _What?_ I am not “willing” to _take away_ anything that is _rightfully_ someone else’s. I just don’t happen to think that someone else is “rightlfully” entitled to **extra** breaks because they smoke. My first reaction would **not** be to take away their “extras,” but to make sure everyone else has that “extra” too. Why do you have a problem with this? I can’t believe that you’d feel totally okay with the idea of going out to smoke while others covered for you—others who _didn’t_ get that extra perk that you are enjoying. Read Lynn’s post. Her husband _took up smoking_ just so that he could have that extra time of peace and quiet, along with all the other smokers. Do you think that people should have to resort to that, in order to get some peace? You see no ineqity in that? Even though you might not be the boss, you think you’d be able to go out to smoke while others “pick up your slack” and not feel that something wasn’t quite right about it? If that’s how you feel, that’s scary. > [@](#): > > It seems to me that you’ll only be happy when everyone else is as miserable as you. I’ve already covered the fact that you misinterpreted and deliberately twisted my feelings and intentions, so let’s just get past that. What I am getting from _you_ is that you don’t care who else around you is getting screwed over or not treated fairly or getting the short end of the stick. Just as long as _you_ get your extra, _unearned_ goodies, screw everyone else. How truly pathetic. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_H](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/85e7bf/32.png) [@Sam\_H](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_H)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2003, 7:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-world-revolves-around-smokers/220927/92 "2003-12-27T07:57:00Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by lezlers \* > \*\*Well, what about the people who abuse sugar fat and caffene? You keep going on and on about how you don’t want to pay higher medical premiums but guess what sparky? Obese people end up making people pay higher medical premiums as well. So should we force obese people into Overeaters Annonymous before we’ll hire _them_? Didn’t think so. \*\* > > First of all, obese people DO find it harder to gain employment so there IS a market to discourage them from overcomsumption. I don’t entirely agree with it but it’s the truth. Second of all, the difference between the obese person and the smoker is that I don’t have to breathe in the smoker’s poor choices before I walk in the building. > > **That’s fabulous. I agree. In my building, the smoking patio is in back. No one is forced to breathe in smoke except for those who choose to do so. Perhaps your building should impliment something similar?** > > There’s only one entrance to my building so I don’t have a choice. > > **Again with the medical premiums. See my obesity comments above. Overeaters Annonymous for the lot of you! Oh, and forced gym memberships as well!** > > Actually my office DOES discourage us from over eating. The only thing you can eat during office hours is a sucking candy. My boss constantly talks about healthy eating and has posted dozens of articles about the subject on our refrigerator door. I suppose I should report her for cruel and unusual treatment? > > **What the _hell_ are you going on about here? You said that there are mulitple things the government regulates for the good of it’s citizens, and that companies routinely follow these regulations. I pointed out that companies follow these regulations because they are forced to by law. Since smoking is not illegal, companies have no place to forbid smoking during an employees break time, while they are off the clock. Seems pretty cut and dry to me. Where you got taxes from, I’ll never know.** > > Oh please. The only reason smoking is not illegal is because it dates back to the days before stringent enforcement of drug laws. There’s no way it would be legal today if tobacco manufacturers had to pass muster with the FDA. They should certainly forbid it at the entrance to my building. Thanks to our local contingent of whiny smokers they don’t. > > \*\*No, you’re arrogant and self righteous because you’re demanding someone to quit a legal, personal activity because _you_ don’t like it. As far as walking through the haze, see my back patio comments above. \*\* > > Yeah I don’t like to see my co-worker hack her lungs out after sucking on a death stick. How arrogant and self righteous of me to actually care very much about a co-worker! How dare I demand that someone not force me to work to work through a cloud of carcinogens! It may be legal but it’s a lousy idea and yes I would like to demand she quit. So would her “arrogant” children and her “self righteous” mother. Might as well put my own mother in there because she frequently DID demand that her father quit smoking. So very arrogant and self righteous of her to want her father to alive instead of dead. :rolleyes: > > \*\*Yeah, I agree. However, this is not what you were advocating in any of your previous posts. You were advocating forcing a prospective employee to enter a smoking cessation program as a condition of employment. Forcing them to quit altogether. \*\* > > Oh that is not. What I said was the companies should not give smoking breaks. Besides there are plenty of professions where you DO essentially have to enter a smoking cessation program as a condition of employment. I have a friend who studying to be a nurse. She’s desperately trying to quit smoking so she can work her way through twelve hour shifts without having to run out of the hospital so she can swig a cancer container every hour. The hospital will not tolerate it so they ARE essentially forcing her to quit. > > \*\*You never once before said you just didn’t want them smoking on company grounds. That is reasonable. Your desire to force them to _quit altogether as a condition of their employment_ is not. I assume because you’ve since abandoned that ridiculous idea that you agree. \*\* > > It’s not ridiculous. See my above post. Many professions DO essentially require you to quit as a condition of your employment. I wish my company was one of them. I certainly wish companies wouldn’t go out of their way to create “smoke breaks” specifically so someone can go outside and cough their lungs up. That’s beyond stupid. Smoking is not a habit that should be accomodated or encouraged at the workplace. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_H](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/85e7bf/32.png) [@Sam\_H](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_H)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2003, 8:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-world-revolves-around-smokers/220927/93 "2003-12-27T08:11:14Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Persephone \* > \*\*You’re not paying higher premiums because of smoking. You’re paying higher premiums because medical care is MFing expensive, regardless of whether you’re being treated for smoking-related lung cancer or a yearly routine checkup. Health care providers have to get paid, and so do the folks that work for the insurance company. I have to have surgery in a couple of months–major freaking surgery, that has nothing to do with the fact that I smoke. Because I pay my premiums, the surgery won’t cost anything out of my pocket. And when I think about how much I pay for my HMO, to cover myself, my husband, my two kids, and my stepson, I praise Deity about how _little_ I pay. I know it’s more for a single person (which is, IMHO, totally rude), but the truth is, those in the health care profession have to make a buck too. \*\* > > Cite? Because everything I’ve ever read indicates otherwise. Smokers are far more likely to get all kinds of diseases non-smokers don’t get. It’s not just lung cancer. It’s heart attacks and glaucoma. > > \*\*And if you don’t want to walk through a haze of smoke to get to work, buy the building and change the rules. Until then, the people that run the place make the rules. \*\* > > Because in the meantime I obviously have no inherent right to demand a cancinogen free entrance to work. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2003, 9:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-world-revolves-around-smokers/220927/94 "2003-12-27T09:14:37Z")
**Sam H.** , speaking up for you own rights is one thing. That’s fair and reasonable. But trying to dictate someone else’s behavior for their own good is controlling. It is not good for the person who is being manipulated and it is not good for the person doing the manipulating. > [@](#): > > Might as well put my own mother in there because she frequently DID demand that her father quit smoking. So very arrogant and self righteous of her to want her father to alive instead of dead. I can understand your mother wanting her father to live. But the decision was _his_ to make – not hers. When you love a person you have to learn to let go and let them make their own mistakes – even when the consequences are obviously sad. I have had to learn the hard way. My shrink won’t even let me remind my husband to take an umbrella with him on a rainy day. 🙂 Of course, making decisions for a child is a different matter. But once a person is an adult, she or he has a right to be wrong. Pardon me if I don’t feel too much sympathy for those of you who have to walk through that cloud of smoke at the entrance to the building. Just take some glee in the fact that they have to be out in the cold. On my first job, I worked in a room with fifteen people and no windows. Over half of the employees smoked. That was my working environmnent and there was no place to go to get away from it. Yet I hear more complaining these days than I did back then. My last cigarette was 5 months, 12 days, 3 hours and 16 minutes ago. ---
**Author:** ![lezlers](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/258eb7/32.png) [@lezlers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lezlers)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2003, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-world-revolves-around-smokers/220927/95 "2003-12-27T17:29:46Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Sam H. \* > \*\* First of all, obese people DO find it harder to gain employment so there IS a market to discourage them from overcomsumption. I don’t entirely agree with it but it’s the truth. Second of all, the difference between the obese person and the smoker is that I don’t have to breathe in the smoker’s poor choices before I walk in the building. \*\* Finding it harder to gain employment and demanding they enter Overeaters Annonymous are two entirely different things. You’re starting to really reach in your arguments here. Also, demanding someone enter a smoking cessation program as a condition of their employment goes beyond you not breathing in their smoke as you enter the building. Your not smoking on company grounds covers that one, which I already agreed was reasonable. It’s the whole forcing them to quit _altogether_ that I’m taking issue with. That’s what smoking cessation programs aim for, in case you didn’t know. Try to keep up. > [@](#): > > \*\*There’s only one entrance to my building so I don’t have a choice. \*\* There’s no back to your building at all? Interesting. So don’t let the smokers smoke near the front door, then. I don’t know why this point is still being discussed anyway, since as I pointed out above, it has nothing to do with forcing someone into a smoking cessation program. > [@](#): > > **Actually my office DOES discourage us from over eating. The only thing you can eat during office hours is a sucking candy. My boss constantly talks about healthy eating and has posted dozens of articles about the subject on our refrigerator door. I suppose I should report her for cruel and unusual treatment?** The only thing you can eat during office hours is a sucking candy? That’s the strangest thing I’ve ever heard. What about your lunch hour? Can you eat _then_? See, if your company demanded you stick to a strict diet while employed with them _at home and at the office_, then you would be discussing something comprable to a forced smoking cessation program. Until then, apples and oranges my friend. > [@](#): > > **Oh please. The only reason smoking is not illegal is because it dates back to the days before stringent enforcement of drug laws. There’s no way it would be legal today if tobacco manufacturers had to pass muster with the FDA. They should certainly forbid it at the entrance to my building. Thanks to our local contingent of whiny smokers they don’t.** Are you being deliberately obtuse now? That was not my point and you know it. Who cares _why_ it’s not illegal. The point is it’s _not_. Now quit dancing around my arguments and start answering them, as I’ve been doing with yours. > [@](#): > > \*\*Yeah I don’t like to see my co-worker hack her lungs out after sucking on a death stick. How arrogant and self righteous of me to actually care very much about a co-worker! How dare I demand that someone not force me to work to work through a cloud of carcinogens! It may be legal but it’s a lousy idea and yes I would like to demand she quit. So would her “arrogant” children and her “self righteous” mother. Might as well put my own mother in there because she frequently DID demand that her father quit smoking. So very arrogant and self righteous of her to want her father to alive instead of dead. \*\* Could we please take the melodrama down a notch? I’m arguing logic here, you’re arguing emotion. We’re not going to get very far with this approach. It’s perfectly lovely that you care about your coworker. But it’s _not_ lovely to try to force your will upon another _adult_, no matter _how_ good your intentions are. See **Zoe** ’s comments for further explanation. > [@](#): > > \*\*Oh that is not. What I said was the companies should not give smoking breaks. \*\* Really? _Really?_ Times like these are when I love arguing on a message board. Let’s see here… > [@](#): > > _orignally posted by Sam H_ > **I also wish they would deprive a co-worker of mine of smoke breaks.** > [@](#): > > _originally posted by Sam H_ > I don’t think smoking should be allowed at work \*\*unless the smoker should also enrolls in a quit smoking program. \*\* > [@](#): > > _originally posted by Sam H_ > As I said, I think employees should get smoking breaks **only if they agree to enroll in a quit smoking program.** Oh, and my personal favorite, > [@](#): > > _originally posted by Sam H_ > I get slightly less upset when I see her two fellow smokers because they’re in the seventies whereas she’s a young woman. …bolding mine. So basically, you get to decide who’s allowed to smoke and who isn’t? How very arrogant of you. So, forcing employees in a smoking cessation program is _exactly_ what you were advocating in your previous posts. Those are your own words I quoted. No backpeddling, now. So, lets go on to the rest of your post… > [@](#): > > **Besides there are plenty of professions where you DO essentially have to enter a smoking cessation program as a condition of employment. I have a friend who studying to be a nurse. She’s desperately trying to quit smoking so she can work her way through twelve hour shifts without having to run out of the hospital so she can swig a cancer container every hour. The hospital will not tolerate it so they ARE essentially forcing her to quit.** That is not even comprable. I don’t know that many smokers that have to go out every hour. Myself, I take 2 smoke breaks in an 8 hour day. Most smokers I know take the same, perhaps one more at lunch. Having to smoke a bit less to be able to keep with your _allotted_ breaks is VERY different from being forced to quit altogether. The fact that this is the best comparison you can make demonstrates how ridiculously weak your argument is. ---
**Author:** ![Persephone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ecc23a/32.png) [@Persephone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Persephone)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2003, 11:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-world-revolves-around-smokers/220927/96 "2003-12-27T23:06:44Z")
> [@](#): > > Cite? Because everything I’ve ever read indicates otherwise. Smokers are far more likely to get all kinds of diseases non-smokers don’t get. It’s not just lung cancer. It’s heart attacks and glaucoma. [Here’s one.](http://www.provhosp.org/11_reasons_why_our_health_care_c.htm) I read through several reports this afternoon, and while a few mentioned “lifestyle” and “high risk” people, I only saw smoking mentioned once, and that was in with a list of other “lifestyle” things. However, pretty much every report I read listed _technology_ at the top of the list, along with population growth and aging. And your _implication_ in the above quote is that non-smokers don’t have heart attacks or get glaucoma. I’m not going to _assume_ that that’s what you really meant, but if it _is,_…well, I’d like a cite, too. Please. ---
**Author:** ![trabi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ecae2f/32.png) [@trabi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/trabi)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2003, 1:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-world-revolves-around-smokers/220927/97 "2003-12-28T01:54:29Z")
> [@](#): > > The only reason smoking is not illegal is because it dates back to the days before stringent enforcement of drug laws. Er… opium and pot have been around for a loong time, and they were only made illegal relatively recently. (Early on in the 20th century, I think). I just assumed that the reason tobacco and alchohol weren’t/couldn’t be prohibited was that they had become such a part of mainstream culture that a) a great many people weren’t prepared/able to give them up, and b) the business interests involved were too great to be defeated by mere legislation. RE: the matters addressed in the OP: I finally gave up my 15-year-old two-pack-day habit just over four months ago. (Hopefully for good this time). When I smoked I couldn’t do without frequent smoke breaks at work, and if denied them I would generally work less because I was being distracted by cravings, so this actually made me less productive. Oddly, one of my non-smoking colleagues used to complain, not about passive smoke, but that he felt left out. This occasionally bordered on a sort of paranoia, a feeling that the smokers were ‘conspiring’ to better their lot, forming a clique. I wonder how much of a part this plays - maybe subconsiously - in some non-smokers’ feelings of resentment towards smokers. I’d say that smokers deserve extra breaks. After all, the non-smokers will eventually be compensated by longer and fuller retirements… 😉 ---
**Author:** ![yosemite](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/3ab097/32.png) [@yosemite](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yosemite)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2003, 2:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-world-revolves-around-smokers/220927/98 "2003-12-28T02:06:38Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by trabi \* > I’d say that smokers deserve extra breaks. I assume that the winky smiley meant that you were kidding about this, right? 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_H](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/85e7bf/32.png) [@Sam\_H](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_H)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2003, 6:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-world-revolves-around-smokers/220927/99 "2003-12-28T06:22:48Z")
**Zoe** wrote **Sam H., speaking up for you own rights is one thing. That’s fair and reasonable. But trying to dictate someone else’s behavior for their own good is controlling. It is not good for the person who is being manipulated and it is not good for the person doing the manipulating.** People do this all the time. I try to get my husband to lose weight and excercize more. That’s not controlling and it’s hardly hurt him at all. Together we are losing weight and eating healthier. The government also does the same thing by running public service adds. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. If my husband smoked, I would be on his ass to quit a dozen times a day. I would do the same if he had a drug or alcohol problem. It’s called loving someone. \*\*Your not smoking on company grounds covers that one, which I already agreed was reasonable. It’s the whole forcing them to quit altogether that I’m taking issue with. That’s what smoking cessation programs aim for, in case you didn’t know. Try to keep up. \*\* I certainly DO think the government would be justified in making people quit or at least making it illegal. We do that with cocaine and heroine. Cigarrettes are just as useless as those other drugs. \*\*There’s no back to your building at all? Interesting. So don’t let the smokers smoke near the front door, then. I don’t know why this point is still being discussed anyway, since as I pointed out above, it has nothing to do with forcing someone into a smoking cessation program. \*\* I work in NYC a few times a week. As far as I know there is no back door and the front door is where the smokers congregate. The smokers have been allowed to smoke there despite the fact that my co-workers have made numerous complaints to building management. \*\*The only thing you can eat during office hours is a sucking candy? That’s the strangest thing I’ve ever heard. What about your lunch hour? Can you eat then? See, if your company demanded you stick to a strict diet while employed with them at home and at the office, then you would be discussing something comprable to a forced smoking cessation program. Until then, apples and oranges my friend. \*\* You can eat whatever you want on your lunch hour obviously. You can’t march around the office and eat drip chili fries everywhere during work hours. And comparing food to tobacco is not apples and oranges. It’s apples and rat poison. You don’t need tobacco to live. And if one of our office co-workers were either bulimic or using cocaine they would probably told fix the problem or get fired. I don’t see why tobacco is any different. **Who cares why it’s not illegal. The point is it’s not.** I do. I care why it’s not illegal. I care because I’d like to see it illegal. That’s the whole point. It shouldn’t be legal. It’s a dangerous drug that serves no other purpose than to kill you. \*\*Now quit dancing around my arguments and start answering them, as I’ve been doing with yours. \*\* What was your argument again? That’s it’s legal so nothing else matters? That forcing people to stop giving themselves terrible diseases would be a horrible idea? I don’t find that argument very convincing. \*\*But it’s not lovely to try to force your will upon another adult, no matter how good your intentions are. See Zoe’s comments for further explanation. \*\* See my comment above. You’re simply ignoring the fact that ARE dozens of situations where we do try to force our will on another adult. You’re also ignoring that fact that the majority of people who smoke \* weren’t \* adults when they started smoking. They were forced to smoke by peer pressure and tobacco company advertising. Would you have a problem making a fifteen year old quit? Because that’s what I would do if I found my daughter anywhere near a death stick. One more question. Smoking also inceases the possibilty that a smoker’s kids will have all kinds of serious illness. Do those kids have the right to force Daddy to stop smoking? Or is it okay for him to make them sick? \*\*Could we please take the melodrama down a notch? I’m arguing logic here, you’re arguing emotion. We’re not going to get very far with this approach. It’s perfectly lovely that you care about your coworker. \*\* I watched my grandfather cough his lungs out while smoking himself to death. I listen to a co-worker cough her lungs out on a daily basis because she’s addicted to nicotine and has a place to indulge that terrible habit. She’s had two asthma attacks in the last three months, both of them very serious and both of them triggered because she smoked. Incidently she started at thirteen so free will is a bit of a moot point. I also have a friend who is raising a child without a father because his Daddy died of lung cancer. None of this is “melodrama.” It’s simply the truth. I’m sorry all this emotion is entreating on your defense of the sacred right to suck on a cancer stick. \*\*So basically, you get to decide who’s allowed to smoke and who isn’t? How very arrogant of you. So, forcing employees in a smoking cessation program is exactly what you were advocating in your previous posts. Those are your own words I quoted. No backpeddling, now. \*\* Oh read my posts. I never said I have any say in who smokes at my workplace. I said that I am more concerned about the younger woman simply because she is younger and has two small kids. It is a bit more tragic when a thirty year old dies than when someone passes away forty years later. How on Earth is that arrogant? Or is that merely your all purpose insult? And yeah I would like to see smoking ended period. In the workplace and everywhere else. Fortunately I’ve got a lot of company. **That is not even comprable. I don’t know that many smokers that have to go out every hour. Myself, I take 2 smoke breaks in an 8 hour day. Most smokers I know take the same, perhaps one more at lunch. Having to smoke a bit less to be able to keep with your allotted breaks is VERY different from being forced to quit altogether. The fact that this is the best comparison you can make demonstrates how ridiculously weak your argument is.** The smokers that I work with take four breaks in a day in a nine hour day. I have no idea what your situation are. There’s nothing weak about pointing out that there are simply professions where you can’t take two breaks a day merely to smoke. Nurses do indeed often work twelve hour shifts with maybe a twenty minute break and they can’t leave their patients to suck on a tobacco fix. But you know what? You just go keep chugging on death sticks. I hear they decrease your lifespan so we’ll get your extra social security money a few years from now. 😉 I plan to do everything I can to help my friend and so does the rest our office. We’ll take arrogant and self righteous over dead any day of the week. **Persephone** Any given smoker is still far more likely to use health care services than any given non-smoker. If you wanted to reduce a single disease – lung cancer – by a significant percentage all you’d have to do is get people to stop smoking and rates would decrease by more than half. Lung cancer kills thousands of people each year and it’s solely due to smoking. Your risks of lung cancer are much, much higher if you smoke. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_H](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/85e7bf/32.png) [@Sam\_H](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_H)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2003, 6:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-world-revolves-around-smokers/220927/100 "2003-12-28T06:26:20Z")
OOPS! Sorry. Most of the above quotes were my reply to \*\* Lezlers\*\* not **Zoey**. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-world-revolves-around-smokers/220927.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-world-revolves-around-smokers/220927.md?page=6)