The why smoke thread

[Zaia]

Never smoked, never will. I have asthma, and am a singer. It would just be stupid.

[Beaker]

Never smoked, never will. I have asthma, and am a singer. It would just be stupid.

I am also a singer and it didn't affect me either way...my voice is the same now I don't smoke as it was when I did

[aerius]

I am also a singer and it didn't affect me either way...my voice is the same now I don't smoke as it was when I did

You wouldn't happen to sound like Tom Waits would you?

[Zaia]

Never smoked, never will. I have asthma, and am a singer. It would just be stupid.

I am also a singer and it didn't affect me either way...my voice is the same now I don't smoke as it was when I did

Hmm. Some points of interest and/or questioning on my part (hope you don't mind ):

1) I'm a classical singer. Are you?
2) How long did you smoke?
3) (Sort of related) How old were you when you started?

It just seems like an incredibly dumb idea to me to mess with something I wouldn't have any way to fix if I fucked it up (for all you tards, I mean my voice). Plus, since smoking one cigarette would probably send me straight to the emergency room due to the first reason I mentioned (el asthma), I think I'll pass.

[Tsyroc]

I've never smoked.

I have been around a lot of second hand smoke, especially in the Navy before the USN really started working against smoking.

My grandfather smoked for a long time, although I only remember him ever smoking a pipe. After he had a heart attack he quit smoking but twenty years later he still ended up dieing from lung cancer (he was 81).

[Darth Wong]

The smoking and non-smoking section is separated by doors and there are even two separate bars... It is as though you were in two different establishments.

Yes, one which is habitable to non-smokers, and the other really not. That's how I think it should be. It would be enough to stop most of the complaints from non-smokers. Of course, you're always going to have assholes who manage to get smoking in bars and restaurants legally banned, like in New York and California. Sorry, but as much as these people may dislike smoke, the place is a private establishment, and you can't tell them to not have their patrons smoke any more than you can tell a homeowner that people can't smoke in his house.

Bullshit. In case you hadn't noticed, these private establishments are also workplaces to people known as "waiters" and "bartenders"; perhaps you've heard of them. The workplace health conditions of any and all private businesses are subject to government regulation, and rightfully so. These people are forced to work in conditions which have been scientifically demonstrated to be extremely hazardous, and for shit pay to boot. The government is not overstepping its bounds to ban smoking in all workplaces, including bars and restaurants.

Honestly, I'd have to see the place to really make a judgment call. If the non-smoking section is utter shit, then there's reason to complain. Ultimately, it's a private establishment, and the owner makes the rules. If you don't like them, you're free to leave.

So if you were working in a factory and the owner decided that it was OK to pump poisonous gases into your work environment, you would have no problem with that? His private business, his rules, right? You can just leave, even if the economy is shit and you're not sure whether you can get a job anywhere else? And every other factory owner does the same thing anyway, so you really have to get a whole new type of job?

[PrinceofLowLight]

Don't smoke, tobacco at least. Never saw the point, seeing as how it's only any good once you're already addicted. Costs money for no good reason, other than something to do with your hands.

[Darth Wong]

There's also the fact that smokers expect to be able to take a half-dozen 5-10 minute breaks every day at work in order to go outside and smoke.

[Beaker]

Hmm. Some points of interest and/or questioning on my part (hope you don't mind ):

1) I'm a classical singer. Are you? No...I sing in a Funk/Soul band...I have a pretty decent range though...and my voice is as clear as a bell...not gravelly in the slightest

2) How long did you smoke? 10 years

3) (Sort of related) How old were you when you started? 17

[Chardok]

There's also the fact that smokers expect to be able to take a half-dozen 5-10 minute breaks every day at work in order to go outside and smoke.

That's rather sweeping, don't you think? I don't expect any more breaks than the other people in my office, and I take just as many/few as they do (That being a one hour lunch and two 15 minutes breaks per day) As a matter of fact, I see quite a few people in my office take longer than their scheduled break where I do not, coming back a minute or two early, while they sit at their desks and bullshit around with their buddies. The ration of smokers to non smokers who do this are roughly the same.

[Zaia]

There's also the fact that smokers expect to be able to take a half-dozen 5-10 minute breaks every day at work in order to go outside and smoke.

My office is the same way. Annoys the hell out of me.

[Darth Wong]

There's also the fact that smokers expect to be able to take a half-dozen 5-10 minute breaks every day at work in order to go outside and smoke.

That's rather sweeping, don't you think? I don't expect any more breaks than the other people in my office, and I take just as many/few as they do (That being a one hour lunch and two 15 minutes breaks per day) As a matter of fact, I see quite a few people in my office take longer than their scheduled break where I do not, coming back a minute or two early, while they sit at their desks and bullshit around with their buddies. The ration of smokers to non smokers who do this are roughly the same.

Bullshit.

http://tc.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/10/3/233
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articl ... 9EC588ED9F
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/1524684.stm

While it is difficult to perform controlled studies, every major attempt to examine the issue concludes that absenteeism is higher and productivity is lower for smokers as opposed to nonsmokers.

[Chardok]

The first link I raised an eyebrow at (Tobacco control, and all) But the second one is scientific american, so....okay. I'm the exception rather than the rule.


Point conceeded.

[BrYaN19kc]

The one thing I find amazing about this sports bar (whose non-smoking side is the newest and much nicer with the exception of smaller screens) is that there is NEVER a problem with getting help - even in the smoking section. Hey, if they want to work around the smoke, then it's their problem. If they do not, they should look elsewhere for work.

I'm have allergies to varous perfumes and colognes - I don't make a public spectical about it, nor do I race up to people and tell them that they will have to wash their pits and body because their perfume is gaging me to death.

All I'm saying that if there are places designated as smoking areas, then non-smokers should recoginze that and not try to control it - they should find their own area. I don't even smoke, but I know that if it bothers me that much, I'll just leave it alone.

I work in a data center which is (naturally) a non-smoking environment, over half of our staff smokes. NO, they don't run for a cigarette every ten minutes (they wouldn't have a job if they did). Besides, they deserve as much time to smoke as the non-smokers get with their health food visits and the time it takes to clean their crumbs out of the keyboards. HEHEHEH... Or all the phone calls, or bathroom breaks!

The smoking and non-smoking section is separated by doors and there are even two separate bars... It is as though you were in two different establishments.

Yes, one which is habitable to non-smokers, and the other really not. That's how I think it should be. It would be enough to stop most of the complaints from non-smokers. Of course, you're always going to have assholes who manage to get smoking in bars and restaurants legally banned, like in New York and California. Sorry, but as much as these people may dislike smoke, the place is a private establishment, and you can't tell them to not have their patrons smoke any more than you can tell a homeowner that people can't smoke in his house.

Bullshit. In case you hadn't noticed, these private establishments are also workplaces to people known as "waiters" and "bartenders"; perhaps you've heard of them. The workplace health conditions of any and all private businesses are subject to government regulation, and rightfully so. These people are forced to work in conditions which have been scientifically demonstrated to be extremely hazardous, and for shit pay to boot. The government is not overstepping its bounds to ban smoking in all workplaces, including bars and restaurants.

Honestly, I'd have to see the place to really make a judgment call. If the non-smoking section is utter shit, then there's reason to complain. Ultimately, it's a private establishment, and the owner makes the rules. If you don't like them, you're free to leave.

So if you were working in a factory and the owner decided that it was OK to pump poisonous gases into your work environment, you would have no problem with that? His private business, his rules, right? You can just leave, even if the economy is shit and you're not sure whether you can get a job anywhere else? And every other factory owner does the same thing anyway, so you really have to get a whole new type of job?

[Darth Wong]

The one thing I find amazing about this sports bar (whose non-smoking side is the newest and much nicer with the exception of smaller screens) is that there is NEVER a problem with getting help - even in the smoking section. Hey, if they want to work around the smoke, then it's their problem. If they do not, they should look elsewhere for work.

So you oppose all workplace health regulations on principle?

I'm have allergies to varous perfumes and colognes - I don't make a public spectical about it, nor do I race up to people and tell them that they will have to wash their pits and body because their perfume is gaging me to death.

"False analogy" fallacy. Cigarette smoke does not require special sensitivities on the part of its victims to be toxic, unless you think hydrogen cyanide is just good ol' healthy shit.

All I'm saying that if there are places designated as smoking areas, then non-smokers should recoginze that and not try to control it - they should find their own area. I don't even smoke, but I know that if it bothers me that much, I'll just leave it alone.

I see you completely ignored the point about workplace health regulations.

I work in a data center which is (naturally) a non-smoking environment, over half of our staff smokes. NO, they don't run for a cigarette every ten minutes (they wouldn't have a job if they did). Besides, they deserve as much time to smoke as the non-smokers get with their health food visits and the time it takes to clean their crumbs out of the keyboards. HEHEHEH... Or all the phone calls, or bathroom breaks!

So smokers make up for their smoke breaks by not eating, using the phone, or going to the bathroom? How believable.

[BrYaN19kc]

The law where I live is simple, smoking is permitted inside. 2.) The owners of the bars permitt smoking. 3.) Smokers take the risk to smoke and are allow to smoke inside. 4.) Non-smokers HAVE THE RIGHT NOT TO BE AROUND IT - as workers or patrons. 5.) Yes, I have just as much right not to smell someone's cheap cologne and have a (potentially fatal asthma attack) as the non-smokers have a right to not be around smoke. 6.) Yes, the non-smokers have their little past times just as much as the smokers do. My boss even notices that!

The one thing I find amazing about this sports bar (whose non-smoking side is the newest and much nicer with the exception of smaller screens) is that there is NEVER a problem with getting help - even in the smoking section. Hey, if they want to work around the smoke, then it's their problem. If they do not, they should look elsewhere for work.

So you oppose all workplace health regulations on principle?

I'm have allergies to varous perfumes and colognes - I don't make a public spectical about it, nor do I race up to people and tell them that they will have to wash their pits and body because their perfume is gaging me to death.

"False analogy" fallacy. Cigarette smoke does not require special sensitivities on the part of its victims to be toxic, unless you think hydrogen cyanide is just good ol' healthy shit.

All I'm saying that if there are places designated as smoking areas, then non-smokers should recoginze that and not try to control it - they should find their own area. I don't even smoke, but I know that if it bothers me that much, I'll just leave it alone.

I see you completely ignored the point about workplace health regulations.

I work in a data center which is (naturally) a non-smoking environment, over half of our staff smokes. NO, they don't run for a cigarette every ten minutes (they wouldn't have a job if they did). Besides, they deserve as much time to smoke as the non-smokers get with their health food visits and the time it takes to clean their crumbs out of the keyboards. HEHEHEH... Or all the phone calls, or bathroom breaks!

So smokers make up for their smoke breaks by not eating, using the phone, or going to the bathroom? How believable.

[Darth Wong]

The law where I live is simple, smoking is permitted inside. 2.) The owners of the bars permitt smoking. 3.) Smokers take the risk to smoke and are allow to smoke inside. 4.) Non-smokers HAVE THE RIGHT NOT TO BE AROUND IT - as workers or patrons.

And as workers, how do they exercise this right? Oh yeah, by refusing to serve a patron, which will mean that they get fired. What a crock of shit. Do not parade your medieval local workplace health regulations as a benefit.

5.) Yes, I have just as much right not to smell someone's cheap cologne and have a (potentially fatal asthma attack) as the non-smokers have a right to not be around smoke.

I already explained why you don't. Either answer the point or shut your pie-hole; I don't appreciate the tactic of deliberately ignoring a point and pretending it's OK by slapping a smiley on it.

6.) Yes, the non-smokers have their little past times just as much as the smokers do. My boss even notices that!

Bullshit. I already posted the links relating to this subject, and you ignored them too. Do you have shit in your ears? Or is it brain damage from the smoking?

[Spanky The Dolphin]

No. Never have, never will.

[BrYaN19kc]

The law where I live is simple, smoking is permitted inside. 2.) The owners of the bars permitt smoking. 3.) Smokers take the risk to smoke and are allow to smoke inside. 4.) Non-smokers HAVE THE RIGHT NOT TO BE AROUND IT - as workers or patrons.

And as workers, how do they exercise this right? Oh yeah, by refusing to serve a patron, which will mean that they get fired. What a crock of shit. Do not parade your medieval local workplace health regulations as a benefit.

5.) Yes, I have just as much right not to smell someone's cheap cologne and have a (potentially fatal asthma attack) as the non-smokers have a right to not be around smoke.

I already explained why you don't. Either answer the point or shut your pie-hole; I don't appreciate the tactic of deliberately ignoring a point and pretending it's OK by slapping a smiley on it.

6.) Yes, the non-smokers have their little past times just as much as the smokers do. My boss even notices that!

Bullshit. I already posted the links relating to this subject, and you ignored them too. Do you have shit in your ears? Or is it brain damage from the smoking?

LIKE I SAID, not so rudely as your comments, if they don't want to work around smoke, then get another job in a smoke-free facility. GEEISH! LISTEN!

And yes I breezed through your politically motivated articles as well.

Plus, being rude is not a way to win an argument either SIR!

[Durandal]

Bullshit. In case you hadn't noticed, these private establishments are also workplaces to people known as "waiters" and "bartenders"; perhaps you've heard of them. The workplace health conditions of any and all private businesses are subject to government regulation, and rightfully so. These people are forced to work in conditions which have been scientifically demonstrated to be extremely hazardous, and for shit pay to boot. The government is not overstepping its bounds to ban smoking in all workplaces, including bars and restaurants.

The link between second-hand smoke and lung cancer is purportedly tenuous at best. Penn and Teller even did a Bullshit on it.

[Darth Wong]

The link between second-hand smoke and lung cancer is purportedly tenuous at best. Penn and Teller even did a Bullshit on it.

Since that link does not work for any visitor from outside the US, I'm not particularly interested in its contents. But the last time I heard someone "debunk" this, he used statistical forensics in order to refute the known toxicity of the chemicals in cigarette smoke

[Darth Wong]

LIKE I SAID, not so rudely as your comments, if they don't want to work around smoke, then get another job in a smoke-free facility. GEEISH! LISTEN!

And you demonstrate yet again that you are too fucking stupid to understand what I said, dumb-fuck. For the third fucking time, you could say the same thing about any health hazard in the workplace, but it is not reasonable to operate workplaces which inflict preventable health hazards upon their employees. The "go somewhere else" retort is just bullshit and could be used to reverse every single labour law in existence.

And yes I breezed through your politically motivated articles as well.

"Appeal to motive" fallacy. BTW, it's interesting that you had no rebuttal for these "politically motivated articles".

Plus, being rude is not a way to win an argument either SIR!

"Style over substance" fallacy, asshole. Grow a brain.

[BrYaN19kc]

LIKE I SAID, not so rudely as your comments, if they don't want to work around smoke, then get another job in a smoke-free facility. GEEISH! LISTEN!

And you demonstrate yet again that you are too fucking stupid to understand what I said, dumb-fuck. For the third fucking time, you could say the same thing about any health hazard in the workplace, but it is not reasonable to operate workplaces which inflict preventable health hazards upon their employees. The "go somewhere else" retort is just bullshit and could be used to reverse every single labour law in existence.

And yes I breezed through your politically motivated articles as well.

Interesting how you had no rebuttal for them, then.

Plus, being rude is not a way to win an argument either SIR!

"Style over substance" fallacy, asshole. Grow a brain.

Funny, you only listed articles about how smoking reduces productivity in the workplace.

How about Untreated depression, Substance abuse - drugs and alcohol, Violence in the workplace, bad driving, injury due to repetitive motion, and spam. You skimmed over that.

Also, I do not call being rude "Style" either... Substance what substance? Vulgar is vulgar... plain and simple and there is no fallacy bull about that.

[Darth Wong]

Funny, you only listed articles about how smoking reduces productivity in the workplace.

Funny, you claimed that it doesn't make any difference in the workplace.

How about Untreated depression, Substance abuse - drugs and alcohol, Violence in the workplace, bad driving, injury due to repetitive motion, and spam. You skimmed over that.

This is like saying that drunk driving is not really bad because tired driving is also bad, dumb-ass. Of course there are other things which can cause problems. So what? How does that exonerate smoking?

Also, I do not call being rude "Style" either... Substance what substance? Vulgar is vulgar... plain and simple and there is no fallacy bull about that.

Wrong. In case you are too stupid to figure this out for yourself (and you appear to be), a logical argument is either valid or invalid, regardless of whether it is rude. The substance of an argument is its underlying facts and reasoning, not the language in which it is stated. Get it now?

[BrYaN19kc]

Funny, you only listed articles about how smoking reduces productivity in the workplace.

Funny, you claimed that it doesn't make any difference in the workplace.

How about Untreated depression, Substance abuse - drugs and alcohol, Violence in the workplace, bad driving, injury due to repetitive motion, and spam. You skimmed over that.

This is like saying that drunk driving is not really bad because tired driving is also bad, dumb-ass. Of course there are other things which can cause problems. So what? How does that exonerate smoking?

Also, I do not call being rude "Style" either... Substance what substance? Vulgar is vulgar... plain and simple and there is no fallacy bull about that.

Wrong. In case you are too stupid to figure this out for yourself (and you appear to be), a logical argument is either valid or invalid, regardless of whether it is rude. The substance of an argument is its underlying facts and reasoning, not the language in which it is stated. Get it now?

All of those reports list some sort of reduction in productivity in the workplace -- picking the one that you want doen't "validate" your point either. By not lisiting other potiential causes it only weakens your all ready weak point. Considering the fact that you ommitted underlying facts to try to strengthen you weak argument.

Calling people names to try to dominate the issue is INVALID as well.