Smokers are people too!

To the people that complain that smokers at their place of employment get more smoke breaks and work less, I highly suggest that you take this up with your management team, as it would seem that they are condoning that behavior. You have a management problem, not a smoker problem. In my state people working eight to ten hours per day are aloud two ten minute breaks and one thirty minute lunch. That's it, so what you choose to do with that time is your business. Some smoke, some read a book, some choose to stay at their desk and make like they are working so they look good to the powers that be in their office.

I live in a border town, my city spans two states. My state that I actually live in has banned smoking everywhere and the local bars have gone out of their way to accomodate the smokers, we have smoking patios now, with heaters, tables, music and waitstaff. It's nice, and when the weather is nice guess what, smokers will be outside of the bar rather than in it, and then the non smokers are going to get mad that the smokers are enjoying private waitstaff and fresh air, while they are stuck inside the bar smelling cougar perfume and bo from the fat guy chomping down on cheeseburgers that are on two for one special. Now the other side of the state line is not banning smoking in all places, those business owners that have over 60% of their sales from alcohol will still be able to allow smoking. Which means our precious Westport will be safe. Westport is our bar district, and I can tell you if they were to take away smoking everyone of those places would go out of business in a heartbeat. Those hard core college kids likes their smokey treats. Hey for college students they sure are stupid to smoke.

All this being said, I am a smoker and I do have rights, you take them away from me, fine, I will laugh my butt off when I am outside this spring and summer smoking in the fresh air, with private waitstaff and comfy tables and chairs on the smoking patio of the local bar while you are all stuffy inside the bar trying to avoid me and my smoke.

Originally posted by Cowgirlstraitup7
To the people that complain that smokers at their place of employment get more smoke breaks and work less, I highly suggest that you take this up with your management team, as it would seem that they are condoning that behavior. You have a management problem, not a smoker problem. In my state people working eight to ten hours per day are aloud two ten minute breaks and one thirty minute lunch. That's it, so what you choose to do with that time is your business. Some smoke, some read a book, some choose to stay at their desk and make like they are working so they look good to the powers that be in their office.

And yes yes to that ! I was meaning to mention this in my earlier posts but got sidetracked
Anybody working is entitled to their breaks, do with them what you will, just don't get mad at people utilizing their time to smoke.

Next we'll be mandating what people cook for dinner and what they watch on TV lol

Originally posted by sparda4355
reply to post by darcon

 

Are you joking, no seriously, are you @#$%ing kidding me?

You honestly believe they should just play mom and dad and tell us that because they don't think it is good for us... we can't do it anymore?

Where do you draw the line? Should we make drinking illegal? How about buttered popcorn? Fastfood? Let's just all get in a line, bend over, grab our toes and beg them to shove sharp pointy objects up our rear ends!

Why even vote anymore? We can't handle the awesome power it holds, lets just them pick our leaders, our judges, and our politicians... Just give up completely cause we don't like smelling smoke when we eat dinner!

Alcohol should be illegal. Yet it isn't and it kills more people then weed does, oh wait, weed is illegal, does that makes sense? If you would have read my earlier post, you would have known that i am not for banning smokers in public places, i am for banning smoking altogether. But the government is making to much money off of it. If you would have read another earlier post, i said that smoking is not the only thing that is killing us slowly, for example SUV's. you should read my posts before you start flapping your jaw. KNOW THE SITUATION. I was defending smokers in my last post, and you just bash me for doing that. Anyone that says otherwise of what you think just gets yelled at with curse words as such. Calm down buddy, Just remember that your defending a Cigarette, that contains rat poison in it. Enough said.



[edit on 5-3-2008 by darcon]

[edit on 5-3-2008 by darcon]

I used to smoke. I quit on April 22nd, 2001. I went to one of those group hypnotherapy sessions. It was the best fifty bucks I ever spent. . .

Now- I cannot stand the smell of cigarette smoke. So for me, anywhere there's no smoke is a good place. But- I do understand that it's quite hypocritical to ban smoking under the guise of health concerns when there are many other habits & public actions that are just as bad.

As far as the work place goes here's my take on things;

Scenario A: If I am an employer, and I myself decide there is be no smoking on the premises, inside or out, then that's my choice. I hired people to do a job, not to accomodate their vices on my dime!

Scenario B: If I am an employer, and the government decides there is be no smoking indoors on my property, then I'm being told how to run my business. I don't know if I agree with that considering that my place of business is right next door to a trucking company that spews unburnt diesel all over the place.

The most puzzling thing to me is this;

If negative advertising & government bans on smoking are slowly causing more & more people not to smoke, then the taxes collected on cigarettes are diminishing in direct proportion.

Are you telling me that my government cares about my health to the point they are willing to take a cut in revenue over it?

That would be a first. . .

2PacSade-

Originally posted by sparda4355

I personally think the way they are treating smokers in several areas, is simply unconstitutional! Smokers are not a protected class, but in today’s society, we should be!


[edit on 4-3-2008 by sparda4355]

is this a joke?

take your chimney away from me, my lungs and my bloodstream

simple as, i don't need all the crap you want to put into your lungs and bloodstream into mine

as my new cells grow (skin, muscle, anything) they will at some point use things from my blood, the very same blood that gets oxygen from my lungs, the very same lungs that breathe in the garbage that's in cigarettes, therefore my entire body is now #tier thanks to a smoker that's comforting




[edit on 5-3-2008 by OSSkyWatcher]

Originally posted by Toy_soldier

Smokers DO have rights, but they do not have the right to take away my right to fresh air. You can keep your toxic cancer causing smoke to yourself.

And we do. So stop crying.

Hell, I'm saying 'we' and I'm not even a real smoker I just enjoy a cigarette a few times a month (if that.)

Honestly, calling people idiots for having a smoke is so pointless. Do you realize how many lethal additives are in our food? The government puts it there and doesn't tell you a word.

You're getting cancer and all kinds of diseases just from eating American food. Just because we aren't educated about this in public school, every other American is walking around with their nose in the air, "I don't smoke cigarettes. I'm healthy. Cigarette smokers are stoopid."

Originally posted by mandrake
Smoking causes diseases. It is the undeniable FACT that has been proven time and again by an innumerable amount of medical research.

Why quit when there are TONS of machines billowing out enormous ammounts of smoke. Seems that me quitting would be uneventful, with all that other smoke around.

Originally posted by JPhish
yeah but fat people don't hurt other people.

That is not entirely true, look at health insurance. I am fairly certain that obesity has caused that to rise do to all the ill effects. Now Mr. So-and-so can't afford health care cause Mr. Overeater has gotten a heart clog one too many times.

Originally posted by Toy_soldier
Smokers DO have rights, but they do not have the right to take away my right to fresh air. You can keep your toxic cancer causing smoke to yourself.

Define "fresh", like I have said many times before...

MACHINES produce SMOKE

There are more cars than smokers, more machines than smokers. A cigarette produces (i think) 1.47 grams of smoke. How much does an engine billow out? How much per second? Stop whining about my cigarettes!

Originally posted by Cythraul

In all seriousness, despite the fact that I personally don't drink, I would defend people's right to alcohol because:
a) Used responsibly, it isn't a dangerous addiction.
b) This is the most important point - drinking doesn't directly affect those around you who choose not to drink.

Well point (A) works with many things, including cigarettes. And pint (B), are you serious? Ever heard of a drunk driver? Or does killing other people with a car mean the car did the killing?

Originally posted by OSSkyWatcher
simple as, i don't need all the crap you want to put into your lungs and bloodstream into mine

Boy some people do not apply thoughts. Do you live in a city? Does that city have cars, trucks, busses, an airport? Guess what!

Those ALL produce smoke!

So chances are you don't need my cigarettes to get that "crap" into your bloodstream/lungs.


Let's talk about the real problem.

Anti-Smoker: "Federal Governess I'm going to be honest, I just don't like the smell. I know lots of other things make smoke, but those don't smell as bad. And I can't make machines stop smoking."

Federal Governess: "You're right Anti-Smoker! Machines don't have a mind "we" can change for them. We better get rid of that mean old nasty smell for you."

THAT is the problem, YOU don't like the smell. Otherwise YOU would be just as gung ho about removing machinery as well as us smokers.

People might not like smoke. They might find it unpleasant. But it's a huge jump to say it's actually harming their bodies, as though they were coal miners, soon to be diagnosed with Black Lung Disease. In fact, we have two studies that measured Environmental Tobacco Smoke--the scientific name for it--and came to the conclusion that, first of all, the smoke inhaled from the air is chemically and physically different from the smoke inhaled from the end of the cigarette, and, secondly, people who work eight hours a day in heavy-smoking environments had the following CE's (Cigarette Equivalents):

Sydney: 0.2

Prague: 1.4

Barcelona: 4.3

That's cigarettes per year. The worst case they could find had the bartender adding to his cancer risk at the rate of 4.3 cigarettes per year, which is, of course, like saying somebody who eats six Lifesavers is a candidate for heart disease.

Even more to the point, scientists computed what would happen if a 20-by-20-foot room with a nine-foot ceiling were filled with smoke, and then compared that exposure to the EPA's lowest published "danger" doses. Here are the results:

For the lowest level of danger for benzopyrene, you would need to have 222,000 cigarettes burning in the room.

For the lowest level of acetone, you would need to burn 118,000 cigarettes.

For the lowest level of hydrazine, you would need 14,000 cigarettes.

And for toluene, you would need a cool million smokes, all burning at the same time.

Unless, of course, you opened the door or window--then you would need more.

Source

(Thank you to Rasobasi420 for that info, from this thread)

reply to post by adigregorio


as much as you sound like a broken record, Im glad you keep emphasizing this. How ludicrous. I can just imagine some anti-smoker lecturing someone for smoking a Marlboro, right before they jump back into their V8/Hummer and stop by McDonalds for a healthy snack.

reply to post by adigregorio


Enough said! I still am looking forward to the summer though with the smoking patios and watching all the people inside NOT SMOKING complain that we are smoking outside and soaking up all the fresh air while they are stuck inside!!!!

When the tobacco executives testified to Congress that they did not believe that smoking caused cancer, their answers were probably truthful and I agree with that statement. Now, if they were asked if smoking increases the risk of getting lung cancer, then their answer based upon current evidence should have be "yes." But even so, the risk of a smoker getting lung cancer is much less than anyone would suspect. Based upon what the media and anti-tobacco organizations say, one would think that if you smoke, you get lung cancer (a 100% correlation) or at least expect a 50+% occurrence before someone uses the word "cause."
-------
Would you believe that the real number is < 10% (see Appendix A)? Yes, a US white male (USWM) cigarette smoker has an 8% lifetime chance of dying from lung cancer but the USWM nonsmoker also has a 1% chance of dying from lung cancer...
-------
You don't see this type of information being reported, and we hear things like, "if you smoke you will die", but when we actually look at the data, lung cancer accounts for only 2% of the annual deaths worldwide and only 3% in the US.**
-------
When we look at the data over a longer period, such as 50 years as we did here, the lifetime relative risk is only 8 (see Appendix A). That means that even using the biased data that is out there, a USWM smoker has only an 8x more risk of dying from lung cancer than a nonsmoker. It surprised me too because I had always heard numbers like 20-40 times more risk. Statistics that are understandable and make sense to the general public, what a concept!
-------
6. Certain types of pollution are more dangerous than second hand smoke.3
7. Second hand smoke has never been shown to be a causative factor in lung cancer.
8. A WHO study did not show that passive (second hand) smoke statistically increased the risk of getting lung cancer.
9. No study has shown that second hand smoke exposure during childhood increases their risk of getting lung cancer.
10. In one study they couldn't even cause lung cancer in mice after exposing them to cigarette smoke for a long time.23

Source

I figured as much. Perhaps you should chew on those numbers for awhile?

As for me, I'm going to have a cigarette. Then head down to the gas station to get a picture of the sign that warns of cancer caused by gasoline. And refill my tank before the prices get to $5.19 here too.

reply to post by adigregorio


Thanks for backing me up man, the o.p. bashed me for saying driving is just as bad as smoking, it doesn't even make sanse, he is the one defending smokers write?

my workplace conspired to ruin my health by forcing me to inhale the left overs of smokers delights------i retired a year early because i could take no more .
39+years in the workforce with the majority of fellow employees addicted to this killer.

i watched as one after another of the heavy chain smokers my age at work took massive heart attacks and drop dead due to constricted arteries.

my father ,a heavy smoker lived through his heart attack and decided it was time to quit---my mother smoked herself into severe bronchitis and i have shortness of breath thanks to others "thoughtfullness" of not loving their neighbors as self.

the government should have banned smoking period decades ago.

reply to post by yahn goodey


I agree with you man, instead of putting smoking bans, they should just ban it completely. Instead of outing smokers Socially, they should just make it Illegal and be done.

Why such the antagonism towards smokers? Because the gov't not only allows it but promotes it. Some have to have something to bitch about and society has made smokers the target. See the post above mine, "just make it illegal". Why? There will be some that even if smokers all gathered together in the Sahara, miles from anyone, there will still be some that whine about smokers. Lack of power in ones own life? That wasn't directed at anyone. Just speculating.

Conspiracy against smokers? You bet. Look at all the different clubs out there, mens clubs, womens clubs, curling clubs, damn near any type of club. What do you think the outcry would be like if there was a "smokers club"? No worry of that happening anyways, smokings against the law in public buildings. Screwed before you start.

reply to post by darcon


And while they are at it they should ban...

Cars
Trucks
SUV's
Lawn Mowers
Planes
Trains
Fireplaces
Volcanoes
Buses
Coal Power Plants
Gas Power Plants
Generators
...

ALL of these produce MORE SMOKE than smokers!

I will keep saying this, broken record or not it is true! Also, any of those co-workers overweight? How do we know that being fat didn't kill them? Are you 100% sure it was smoke? Where did they work? Any machinery producing smoke around them?

I say it again, many anti-smokers just do not like the smell! I don't like gagging at perfume, or farts. But you don't see me on a ban-wagon. I have the right to smoke, period. And making it illegal will just add to the already overcrowded prisons.

Of course a smoker should be in prison before a violent crime ofender. We all know that pedophiles are much nicer than smokers, and serial killers (well unless they smoke too.)

[edit]adding image


[edit on 3/5/2008 by adigregorio]

reply to post by adigregorio


I agree completely. They should fix the world, not only smokers.

reply to post by darcon


Well I dont actually think "they" should do anything. "They" do too much as it is.

Those references are an attempt to show how foolish it is to think that smokers are the cause of all the smoke. (Not that you did that btw)

Also, since you said they should fix the world.

How do you propose we stop volcanoes from spewing up the smoke/ash? Somehow I don't think they can go to jail for not obeying the rules.

i don't care if others smoke but i hate it it when they force their habit on me.i worked for the federal government for 34+ years----i think 10 years ago smoking was banned in government offices/buildings------but it makes no difference---the lawless ones defy the rules and kept on smoking anyhow.

smokers were supposed to go outside the buildings away from doors but they just love to mill around the doors and set up a cloud for non-smokers to gag thru.

my work was involved with mechanical/electrical repairs in hundreds of different government buildings.every trip it was the same story----the same smokers at the same buildings practically always there smoking .

i couldn't afford to hire workers to smoke for me as their "main" job?or so it seemed but i guess the government and tax payers can afford it ?

reply to post by yahn goodey


Do you hate that you force the same habit on others while you drive around in a vehicle? Or use power that may be coming from a smoky power source? What about when you mow your lawn?

Smokers are NOT the only ones making smoke!

Generally speaking, I don't care what you do to yourself. But when it effects me, I do.

If your right to swing your fists stops at my face, why doesn;t your right to smoke too? They're both harmful and not somthing I'm out to encounter and I sure as hell shouldn;t have to put up with either.

You're cold when you smoke? Aww. Suck it up princess and put on a coat or stop smoking.

You have no right to inflict your damaging habit on me...