# 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:** 6
**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, 8:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-world-revolves-around-smokers/220927/101 "2003-12-28T08:01:38Z")
BTW, this is a [news story](http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-smoking18dec18,1,7143470.story?coll=la-headlines-california/) from another thread where it’s been pointed out that it IS legal to screen out smokers from the hiring process simply because they are smokers. You may not be able to get them into a smoking program after you hire them but you can indeed refuse to employ them in the first place. ---
**Author:** ![catsix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e19b73/32.png) [@catsix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/catsix)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2003, 2:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-world-revolves-around-smokers/220927/102 "2003-12-28T14:53:31Z")
This is why I never state that I’m a smoker in an interview. Always find a way to deflect the question. ---
**Author:** ![Persephone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ecc23a/32.png) [@Persephone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Persephone)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2003, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-world-revolves-around-smokers/220927/103 "2003-12-28T15:43:43Z")
going to sky > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Sam H. \* > > **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. \*\* Ummm…no shit? I think pretty much everyone in the civilized world knows that, and probably the majority of the uncivilized world, too. But seeing as how the primary reasons for the increase in insurance premiums aren’t related to the number of lung cancer cases per year…I’m not sure what you’re point is with this statement. What’s probably a pretty safe bet, though, is that if you _do_ get everyone on the planet to quit smoking, and eradicate lung cancer entirely…premiums are _still_ going to skyrocket, because people will live longer and get sick for other reasons. ---
**Author:** ![lezlers](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/258eb7/32.png) [@lezlers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lezlers)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2003, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-world-revolves-around-smokers/220927/104 "2003-12-28T19:02:37Z")
You know what **Sam H**? You are WAY too emotionally charged about this subject to participate in a logical argument. You’re making comparisons where no comparisons exist (comparing urging someone to diet and excerise and doing it with them when they are a willing participant with forcing them into a smoking cessation program as a condition of their employment) and that it should be illegal (when that wasn’t even an argument). If you are unwilling to discuss this matter rationally and unwilling to discuss anything other than the fact that you hate smoking, using that as your main argument, then I refuse to participate in this discussion anymore. I hope one day you’ll be able to see past your own views and opinions and gain the ability to open your mind enough to engage in a rational argument. ---
**Author:** ![Rilchiam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@Rilchiam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rilchiam)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2003, 7:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-world-revolves-around-smokers/220927/105 "2003-12-29T07:02:45Z")
Everyone should get a 15 minute break for every four hours that they work (inclusive). If they smoke, they can spend the time doing that. If they don’t smoke, they can make it a “cookie break”, or a reading break, or a napping break. My co-worker, Sally, spends her 15 minutes listening to New Age music on a headset. That’s how she decompresses. Then I take my break and sit on the stairs in the parking garage reading and smoking. That’s how I decompress. Then Jack takes his break and gets tea and a bagel; that’s how he decompresses. And so on. What bothers me about non-smokers is how eager **some** (not all!) of them are to climb up on the cross. “I don’t smoke, so I don’t need a smoke break. In fact, I don’t need to take a break at all! I live a life of pure virtue and _never_ indulge myself in _any_ way! Hey, I think I’ll go post about it on SDMB, while I’m still clocked in and at my desk!” I agree that it’s heartily unfair for smokers to get breaks if their non-smoking co-workers don’t. But is it possible that these incidents happened back in the '70s or earlier, when people looked at you funny if you _didn’t_ smoke? Back then, when people said, “I gotta take a smoke break,” what they really meant, and what others heard, was “I gotta get outta this madhouse for ten minutes, and I’ll be all the better for it when I return.” And to be fair, “I don’t smoke” _was_ probably interpreted as “I’m a saint, so I don’t need _any_ time to myself”. Now that smokers are a vanishing breed, they generally mean the same as I said above when they say they need a smoke break, but what people tend to hear is, “I don’t have my heart in my work to begin with, so let me go prove it by doing that thing that you can’t even do in bars any more (in California).” But you _can_ say “I need a sanity break” or “I’m totally stressed out”, and people will understand that, as opposed to looking at you the same way they would have pre-1980 if you’d said you didn’t smoke. So take your sanity break, and spend it however you see fit. Except…\*_yosemitebabe_, regarding your demand to be able to “be out there swigging Pepsi” with your smoking co-workers…You do realize that not everyone can leave the store/office/restaurant at once, right? Take your Pepsi break, but take it before or after the smoker. Singular, that is; I further agree that not all the smokers in one department or whatever should get their breaks as a group. ---
**Author:** ![yosemite](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/3ab097/32.png) [@yosemite](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yosemite)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2003, 7:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-world-revolves-around-smokers/220927/106 "2003-12-29T07:23:51Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Rilchiam \* > Except… **yosemitebabe** , regarding your demand to be able to “be out there swigging Pepsi” with your smoking co-workers…You do realize that not everyone can leave the store/office/restaurant at once, right? Take your Pepsi break, but take it before or after the smoker. Singular, that is; I further agree that not all the smokers in one department or whatever should get their breaks as a group. Of course I understand. I was trying to make a point. For every xx minutes of “extra” break that a smoker gets, I would take the same amount too. And in some work places, I could take that time at the _same_ time. I doubt that this “extra breaks for smokers” phenomenon is obsolete. Probably less now, but not obsolete. The cluelessness of some people (especially bosses) can be staggering. In a former job, not too many years ago, we had an employee who often took “extra” breaks. I never thought much of it, but yeah. That’s what they were. It didn’t seem like an “extra” break so much because she simply stood at the front entrance of the store and smoked for a few minutes. It wasn’t part of her scheduled lunch or break. I never bitched (she was a nice lady for the most part) but had I asked to stand outside for a few minutes to drink a Pepsi, what do you think the answer would be? (No guessing here—the answer would be _no._) ---
**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 29, 2003, 7:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-world-revolves-around-smokers/220927/107 "2003-12-29T07:31:18Z")
\*Originally posted by lezlers \* \*\*You know what **Sam H**? You are WAY too emotionally charged about this subject to participate in a logical argument. You’re making comparisons where no comparisons exist (comparing urging someone to diet and excerise and doing it with them when they are a willing participant with forcing them into a smoking cessation program as a condition of their employment) and that it should be illegal (when that wasn’t even an argument). If you are unwilling to discuss this matter rationally and unwilling to discuss anything other than the fact that you hate smoking, using that as your main argument, then I refuse to participate in this discussion anymore. I hope one day you’ll be able to see past your own views and opinions and gain the ability to open your mind enough to engage in a rational argument. \*\* The problem is that there are NO rational arguments in favor of smoking. It’s like talking about being “open minded” about cancer. \*Originally posted by Persephone \* **Ummm…no shit? I think pretty much everyone in the civilized world knows that, and probably the majority of the uncivilized world, too. But seeing as how the primary reasons for the increase in insurance premiums aren’t related to the number of lung cancer cases per year…I’m not sure what you’re point is with this statement. What’s probably a pretty safe bet, though, is that if you do get everyone on the planet to quit smoking, and eradicate lung cancer entirely…premiums are still going to skyrocket, because people will live longer and get sick for other reasons.** [Any given smoker is still going to cost an employer 40% more in health care costs.](http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/short/337/15/1052/) And even this study indicates that’s no cause to believe rates would “skyrocket.” Besides any single digit increase would be more than worth it to save thousands of people from earlier death. My grandfather would have been in the workforce another ten years had he not been killed by tobacco. ---
**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 29, 2003, 8:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-world-revolves-around-smokers/220927/108 "2003-12-29T08:32:01Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Sam H. \* > \*\*BTW, this is a [news story](http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-smoking18dec18,1,7143470.story?coll=la-headlines-california/) from another thread where it’s been pointed out that it IS legal to screen out smokers from the hiring process simply because they are smokers. You may not be able to get them into a smoking program after you hire them but you can indeed refuse to employ them in the first place. \*\* Well, if it’s legal, it must be right then. Hell, this is a great idea. Might as well screen for people who drink a bit too much on occasion. Obese people would of course also be screened out without a second thought. How about people who don’t take their vitamins and work out at least thirty minutes a day? After a while, we will all either be healthy as hell or homeless. ---
**Author:** ![amarone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e0b2c6/32.png) [@amarone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/amarone)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2003, 1:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-world-revolves-around-smokers/220927/109 "2003-12-29T13:06:45Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Creative\_Munster \* > \*\*Well, if it’s legal, it must be right then. Hell, this is a great idea. Might as well screen for people who drink a bit too much on occasion. Obese people would of course also be screened out without a second thought. How about people who don’t take their vitamins and work out at least thirty minutes a day? After a while, we will all either be healthy as hell or homeless. \*\* I have no problem with employers being allowed to do that, even though I fail on all counts except non-smoking. If an employer wants to try ensure a healthier workforce, he should be allowed to - as long as the conditions are defined prior to hiring. ---
**Author:** ![Merijeek](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f05b48/32.png) [@Merijeek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Merijeek)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2003, 3:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-world-revolves-around-smokers/220927/110 "2003-12-29T15:47:10Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by This Year’s Model \* > \*\*Cigarettes or no, she’s right. If you’re making your people work 4 hours without allowing them a break, you’re not only following your company’s policy, you’re likely breaking the law. \*\* Ahh…loopholes. I knew a Waldenbooks manager (Hi Bonnie!) who decided, once she got her own store, that she was going to do it RIGHT. As one who controlled the means of production, she was going to milk the proletariat for as much as she could. How? Simple, schedule everyone for three hour and forty-five minute shifts. I’m kinda surprised she didn’t get lynched. -Joe, morale matters, people ---
**Author:** ![lezlers](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/258eb7/32.png) [@lezlers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lezlers)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2003, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-world-revolves-around-smokers/220927/111 "2003-12-29T17:55:59Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Sam H. \* > \*\*\*Originally posted by lezlers \* > \*\* > The problem is that there are NO rational arguments in favor of smoking. It’s like talking about being “open minded” about cancer. > > \*\* Good answer. _IF_ that were what we were discussing. As it turns out, we were discussing the issue of being forced to enter a smoking cessation program as a condition of employment. A point I’ve been trying to distinguish for you since about the second post. Obviously it’s a lost cause. I hope you don’t have this much trouble finding the crux of every argument you enter into. If so, I fear for you. ---
**Author:** ![rostfrei](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/7bcc69/32.png) [@rostfrei](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rostfrei)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2003, 11:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-world-revolves-around-smokers/220927/112 "2003-12-29T23:47:27Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by catsix \* > \*\*This is why I never state that I’m a smoker in an interview. > > Always find a way to deflect the question. \*\* With all due respect, most smokers have an odor about them. There’s really no need for a potential employer to ask…they already know. ---
**Author:** ![lezlers](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/258eb7/32.png) [@lezlers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lezlers)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2003, 2:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-world-revolves-around-smokers/220927/113 "2003-12-30T02:01:54Z")
Are you kidding me **rostfrei**? You finally meander in here after _your own thread_ has gone on for three fucking pages and THAT’S all you contribute? Yeesh. ---
**Author:** ![catsix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e19b73/32.png) [@catsix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/catsix)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2003, 2:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-world-revolves-around-smokers/220927/114 "2003-12-30T02:25:39Z")
> [@](#): > > With all due respect, most smokers have an odor about them. There’s really no need for a potential employer to ask…they already know. If you’re wearing a freshly dry cleaned suit, and you are freshly cleaned and have not smoked, and I do not smoke in my house or in my car, how would they? There’s nothing left on me to smell like smoke. ---
**Author:** ![Persephone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ecc23a/32.png) [@Persephone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Persephone)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2003, 4:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-world-revolves-around-smokers/220927/115 "2003-12-30T04:15:07Z")
**Sam,** that link gave me a “page not found” error, and asked me if I wanted to search. So I tried a search, but I’m not sure which article you linked to. What was the title of the article, so I can try again? Thanks. ---
**Author:** ![TeaElle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8491ac/32.png) [@TeaElle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TeaElle)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2003, 4:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-world-revolves-around-smokers/220927/116 "2003-12-30T04:24:46Z")
**catsix** , I’m afraid not. Unless you only smoke when you’re naked, encased in plastic and freshly shorn, you move smoke in and out of your home and car in your clothes and your hair and on your skin. And because smoking deadens your sense of smell, you don’t even recognize the fact that there is a lingering aura of smoke that stays with you, simply from the contamination of your belongings. ---
**Author:** ![yosemite](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/3ab097/32.png) [@yosemite](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yosemite)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2003, 5:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-world-revolves-around-smokers/220927/117 "2003-12-30T05:59:27Z")
I have to agree that many smokers don’t know how much the smell can linger. I buy books off of eBay, and I can tell when the book comes from a smoking home. The minute you pull the book out of the box, you _know_. Not _all_ smokers smell of smoke, but many do. Also, other give-aways might be that stereotypical “smokers voice.” Not in _all_ smokers, but in some. ---
**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 30, 2003, 7:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-world-revolves-around-smokers/220927/118 "2003-12-30T07:17:28Z")
lezlers, rostfrei didn’t want to contribute more than that because I think she thought she was going to get a lot of pat on the backs for her actions and was taken aback when so many people pointed out what a bitch she was. ---
**Author:** ![Lynn\_Bodoni](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e47c2d/32.png) [@Lynn\_Bodoni](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lynn_Bodoni)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2003, 7:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-world-revolves-around-smokers/220927/119 "2003-12-30T07:38:11Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by catsix \* > \*\*If you’re wearing a freshly dry cleaned suit, and you are freshly cleaned and have not smoked, and I do not smoke in my house or in my car, how would they? > > There’s nothing left on me to smell like smoke. \*\* It lingers in the body of a smoker. When my husband smoked, his BODY (and not just his mouth, if you know what I mean) tasted of smoke and ashes. Yuck. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by yosemitebabe \* > \*\*I have to agree that many smokers don’t know how much the smell can linger. > > I buy books off of eBay, and I can tell when the book comes from a smoking home. The minute you pull the book out of the box, you _know_. > > Not _all_ smokers smell of smoke, but many do. Also, other give-aways might be that stereotypical “smokers voice.” Not in _all_ smokers, but in some. \*\* OH yeah. I buy things from eBay too, and I know right away when they’ve come from a smoker’s house. I recently bought a glass bank shaped like an owl (I collect owls, and I particularly love owl banks) and I had to set it out in one of the storerooms for a couple of weeks, because it smelled so strongly of smoke, even after I washed it. And this was GLASS, mind you, which is not known for retaining odors readily. Fabric items can take months to completely lose the scent. When I played a collectible card trading game, I wouldn’t trade cards with smokers, because their cards stink. I think that the “smoker’s voice” sounds sexy, but the smoker’s odor is NOT at all sexy. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Cynical](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ee59a6/32.png) [@Mr.Cynical](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Cynical)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2003, 7:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-world-revolves-around-smokers/220927/120 "2003-12-30T07:49:54Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Nvme77 \* > **I wish that asking someone if they are a smoker was allowed in interviews. I wouldn’t hire a smoker. They miss more time at work, and yes they do stink and hack and cough like death is immenent.** Generalize much? I haven’t missed time at work in a very long time. The last time I did miss work was due to intestinal flu, which I’m pleased to report, was not because I was smoking cigarettes through my anus. Additionally, I smell like your mother’s rosewater, and cough only when the doctor cups my balls. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-world-revolves-around-smokers/220927.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-world-revolves-around-smokers/220927.md?page=7)