Rules on Smoking - Too Strict?

[Irony]

My city goes through days in which the air quality is so bad healthy individuals are told not to go outside. I have never seen people smoke up so much of a storm that a place gets shut down on the other hand. Again it is not an issue of who is worse, it is an issue of both are doing bad things. If automobile exhaust was just south of harmless, okay you would have a point, but as we both know that is not the case, as a healthy person , living in a city of only about 80,000 people there are days i won't walk around the city.

That doesn't explain why you expect him to provide proof that it "isn't harmful" when he didn't make that claim.

At any rate, what exactly is your point? That there are other bad things so everyone should ignore smoking? I've never had to deal with excessive gum, but if it was a problem a workplace would be completely justified in banning it entirely.

Back when I was in school it was banned, and though there were some complaints, I don't recall anyone going on about "gum Nazis" and how unfair it was because they didn't ban candy bars.

 

[xjx388]

I object to e-cigs because I don't know for sure that they are not harmful. There is zero regulation and most of these products are made cheaply. You simply do not know what you are actually inhaling and exhaling, so you can't assess the risk at all. I say treat them as cigarettes until there's better research.

As for actual smoking, do whatever you want with your own body as long as it doesn't affect me. To a non-smoker, there are very few things that are more disgusting than the smell of cigarette smoke, the look of an ashtray and the stench that follows a smoker around like Pigpen's dirt-cloud. Don't mean to be harsh but that's the way it is.

 

[Checkmite]

Getting near a puff of smoke when it is raining ( which is usually when awning space becomes a hot smoker commodity.) , or snowing, outside, from 15 feet away, is not going to kill anyone.

Neither is having to wait until you're off work to smoke.

 

[Emperor_Gestahl]

I haven't had any contact with these “e-cigarettes”, but it seems to me that there is a concern to be raised abut them. It may not smell as foul, but just as with a conventional cigarette, you're consuming a harmful, addictive drug, in a gaseous form; and forcing those around you also to partake of this nasty drug, whether they want to or not. That's just wrong. Perhaps it is even more wrong, if there isn't the foul smell to warn nonsmokers of the presence of this drug in the air that they are breathing and to induce them to try to avoid it.

I'll give you addictive, but harmful? I was under the impression it was tar and polonium doing most of the objective "harm" where cigarettes were concerned, if nicotine is harmful by itself that's news to me.

I object to e-cigs because I don't know for sure that they are not harmful. There is zero regulation and most of these products are made cheaply. You simply do not know what you are actually inhaling and exhaling, so you can't assess the risk at all. I say treat them as cigarettes until there's better research.

I agree that research should be done and contents verified on e-cigs, but saying "treat them as cigarettes" is a bit much. We know for sure tobacco cigarettes are harmful, with proper regulation of the contents of the cartridges we could say almost for sure that e-cigs are not harmful. I'm sure the FDA would rather just ban them though than do their jobs, especially if Altria's feelings might get hurt.

 

[linusrichard]

If driving were as useless as smoking, the comparison would be more apt.

I am as anti-smoking as anyone, and I have a good friend who's as pro-smoking as anyone. E-cigarettes are good for both of us. He says they're about as good as the real thing, and they don't smell like anything at all. We can play board games at my house without him having to step out onto my porch every hour. He even "smokes" them at the grocery store, which I find pretty funny. I don't know if anyone's hassled him for it yet. It would be stupid, and completely unsurprising.

 

[sadhatter]

To respond to an anecdote with an anecdote, it has been months since I've seen gum stuck anywhere other than the parking lot of my local walmart. It's been even longer since I've even seen someone chewing gum (the last time I saw it was when I was in grad school). And forgive me for an appeal to emotion here, but I'm pretty sure that both of my grandfathers didn't die before I was born from chewing gum.

Gum's annoying, sure, but it's not really in the same sort of ballpark with cigarettes. You're really comparing apples to oranges. Why stop there? You might want to include people who chew toothpicks/straws, eat tic-tacs nonstop, and suck lollipops (and leave the gross sticks behind on desks and the like).

I am not comparing the personal effects of smoking ( your my grandfathers comments) to the personal effects of gum. Hell i am not even comapring the effects of second hand smoking with gum, what i am comparing is the effects of smoking in an enclosed hut 50+ feet away from the property ( which's main concern to the non smokers would be cigarette butts.) and smoking within about 10 feet of a doorway. I seriously, very much doubt anyone in your family has died from being within 10 feet outside of a cigarette.

If you want to call anecdote, i will be back tomorrow with pictures. You want to try and keep the debate absurd because you really don't have a way to logically claim that being exposed to cigarette butts in one case, and a bare whiff of passing smoke, more than likely when it is already raining snowing or windy out, from meters away, in the other is the giant crime you want to make it out to be.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

But when your near it ( and keep in mind i am not defending it in the workplace, or any enclosed area, just within a reasonable 10 feet from a doorway, possibly relaxed a bit if it is raining and there is a lack of awning.) from ten feet away, walking in a door, you are in direct contact with it , briefly, in a diluted state, for a second or two. Chewed gum on the other hand is an adventure to get out of anything it gets into. And this isn't even taking into account the amount of machines, both arcade and otherwise, gum chewers decide they can vandalize with their refuse.

I mean if you would like i have an arcade machine i bought last year that i have half scraped free of gum, and there is still a small mountain worth of the stuff. Have you ever walked by a cigarette from 5-10 feet away, when it is raining, and it has stayed forever? Each vice has its attributes, gum has the staying power, smoking has more of an effect off of the bat.

I've never seen anyone with such a bizarre obsession with chewing gum.

 

[linusrichard]

I'll give you addictive, but harmful? I was under the impression it was tar and polonium doing most of the objective "harm" where cigarettes were concerned, if nicotine is harmful by itself that's news to me.

I'd argue that addiction is a harm, but even so e-cigs are a damn sight less harmful than the real thing.

 

[fls]

Have some stats on the number of asthmatics killed by second-hand cigarette smoke?

This doesn't really matter in that the rational perspective would be to establish that it is safe. And even if you want to argue that the studies are equivocal on the issue of harm, they clearly do not show that there is no harm. And those things which second-hand smoke puts into the air are already subject to regulation and standards which are violated in the presence of second-hand smoke, like "inhalable particles".

Linda

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Something to back that up might be nice, something showing car exhaust isn't harmful perhaps? As someone who walks a lot i can tell you i notice high traffic days pretty easily off of the bat.

The original claimant must provide the evidence to support their claim.

 

[A Laughing Baby]

I am not comparing the personal effects of smoking ( your my grandfathers comments) to the personal effects of gum. Hell i am not even comapring the effects of second hand smoking with gum, what i am comparing is the effects of smoking in an enclosed hut 50+ feet away from the property ( which's main concern to the non smokers would be cigarette butts.) and smoking within about 10 feet of a doorway. I seriously, very much doubt anyone in your family has died from being within 10 feet outside of a cigarette.

If you want to call anecdote, i will be back tomorrow with pictures. You want to try and keep the debate absurd because you really don't have a way to logically claim that being exposed to cigarette butts in one case, and a bare whiff of passing smoke, more than likely when it is already raining snowing or windy out, from meters away, in the other is the giant crime you want to make it out to be.

I apologize if it seems that I think that secondhand smoke is a huge crime. My entire stance here regarding the main issue of the thread is that the business is free to do what it wants in this regard. I even stated that I think the e-cig rule it had in place is ridiculous.

My talking about damaging effects and so on was due to your implicit argument that gum-chewing is just as detrimental to society or the average public experience.

 

[sadhatter]

That doesn't explain why you expect him to provide proof that it "isn't harmful" when he didn't make that claim.

At any rate, what exactly is your point? That there are other bad things so everyone should ignore smoking? I've never had to deal with excessive gum, but if it was a problem a workplace would be completely justified in banning it entirely.

Back when I was in school it was banned, and though there were some complaints, I don't recall anyone going on about "gum Nazis" and how unfair it was because they didn't ban candy bars.

No , not that there are other things and that people should ignore smoking, simply that A) the existing rules regarding smoking shacks with walls, were perfectly fine. B) having to be 100 feet plus away from a doorway is silly, especially considering that the majority of the time when the space nearer to the door is a hot commodity, it is windy raining or snowing. C) That smoking is targeted because it is a socially acceptable annoyance, when there are other things that do just as much damage, albeit in different ways, to others ( and i really want to drive the point home again, i am not endorsing smoking on workfloors, schools etc, only that a reasonable distance from a doorway is somewhere in the neighbourhood of 10 feet, and smoking areas with walls placed within a reasonable distance of traffic areas should be allowed. ) in both terms of property loss, disgusting factor, and clean up.

And with a bit of an addendum that it is not only socially acceptable , but encouraged to treat smokers very poorly. If i were to ask someone to stop chewing gum because it was loud and i found the sound and smell disgusting, i would be considered rude. Tell smokers to go sit in a hut out in the arctic and one gets cheered.

 

[Emperor_Gestahl]

I'd argue that addiction is a harm, but even so e-cigs are a damn sight less harmful than the real thing.

I'm afraid I can't agree with any blanket statement that might reflect poorly on my beloved coffee.

 

[Arus808]

I'm as anti-smoking as you can get. My father smoked for 20+ years and in that time I had the worst of lung related illnesses growing up, including Pneumonia and Bronchitis.

When my father quit, I rarely got a cold and I rarely got lung related illnesses.

today, I can't stand the smell of cigarette smoke. It makes me physically sick (sometimes to the point of wanting to vomit). I can't bare to sit next to any smoker and if I'm on a plane and the person next to me reeks of smoke, I asked to be moved elsewhere.

And if I know a friend smokes and they want to drive somewhere, I make sure that I'm the one driving and I'm not sitting in their stank car.

your workplace is fine to set the rules they want. If enough smokers complain, i'm sure they can build you a shelter 100 feet away from the building so you can be covered from the elements.

as for e-cigs..don't know, but if it doesn't cause the smell or create an environment that would bother others, then I don't see why you can't just smoke it by the awning.

 

[sadhatter]

I apologize if it seems that I think that secondhand smoke is a huge crime. My entire stance here regarding the main issue of the thread is that the business is free to do what it wants in this regard. I even stated that I think the e-cig rule it had in place is ridiculous.

My talking about damaging effects and so on was due to your implicit argument that gum-chewing is just as detrimental to society or the average public experience.

When compared to the horrors of dealing with cigarette butts, or smoke from 10+ feet away, outside. Yes i would say, directly that it is about equal. You may not have to deal with it, somehow you may have avoided any contact with gum, but not everyone is that lucky. Someone has to clean it, whether " clean it" is your pants, shoes, or vending machine. And while wherever you go is somehow gum free, i could take pictures of dozens of locations i go in any given day with gum wads aplenty.

It kind of seems like your trying to actually say there are not a lot of gum wads everywhere. Are you really trying to say that? Go look at a sidewalk, go to a library and look under a desk, go to a movie theater, a subway station, anywhere there are people. Maybe if your very rich, and never had to deal with anywhere with a lot of us common folk i could understand your stance. But if your just one of us regular guys, i have to call you on just arguing for the sake of it here. When it is gum wads versus cigarette butts i would rather deal with the cigarette butts any day.

 

[A Laughing Baby]

I'm really not arguing for the sake of argument. Full disclosure: I live and work in Birmingham. I really honestly just haven't seen gum anywhere in a long time.

 

[roger]

No , not that there are other things and that people should ignore smoking, simply that A) the existing rules regarding smoking shacks with walls, were perfectly fine. B) having to be 100 feet plus away from a doorway is silly, especially considering that the majority of the time when the space nearer to the door is a hot commodity, it is windy raining or snowing. C) That smoking is targeted because it is a socially acceptable annoyance, when there are other things that do just as much damage, albeit in different ways, to others ( and i really want to drive the point home again, i am not endorsing smoking on workfloors, schools etc, only that a reasonable distance from a doorway is somewhere in the neighbourhood of 10 feet, and smoking areas with walls placed within a reasonable distance of traffic areas should be allowed. ) in both terms of property loss, disgusting factor, and clean up.

And with a bit of an addendum that it is not only socially acceptable , but encouraged to treat smokers very poorly. If i were to ask someone to stop chewing gum because it was loud and i found the sound and smell disgusting, i would be considered rude. Tell smokers to go sit in a hut out in the arctic and one gets cheered.

Many places have laws against idling cars near doorways, etc. For example, google quickly gave me: http://www.eagletribune.com/local/x1876451511/Schools-to-put-a-halt-to-idling-cars
http://www.globalclimatelaw.com/200...e-trend-of-state-and-local-idling-regulation/
http://www.scribd.com/doc/2170989/2008-Idle-Laws-by-State (note 100' limit as the allowable distance in some states)


Smokers aren't being specially signaled out - they are being asked to stop polluting people that don't want unnecessary/easily avoidable toxins/pollutants.

 

[sadhatter]

I'm as anti-smoking as you can get. My father smoked for 20+ years and in that time I had the worst of lung related illnesses growing up, including Pneumonia and Bronchitis.

When my father quit, I rarely got a cold and I rarely got lung related illnesses.

today, I can't stand the smell of cigarette smoke. It makes me physically sick (sometimes to the point of wanting to vomit). I can't bare to sit next to any smoker and if I'm on a plane and the person next to me reeks of smoke, I asked to be moved elsewhere.

And if I know a friend smokes and they want to drive somewhere, I make sure that I'm the one driving and I'm not sitting in their stank car.

your workplace is fine to set the rules they want. If enough smokers complain, i'm sure they can build you a shelter 100 feet away from the building so you can be covered from the elements.

as for e-cigs..don't know, but if it doesn't cause the smell or create an environment that would bother others, then I don't see why you can't just smoke it by the awning.

And i get physically sick when i have to deal with a wad of chewed up gum, especially when someone tries to be polite by putting it in the wrapper, yet still leaving it there. Yet i don't think if i explained and even proved this any workplace would institute a no gum policy.

And why? Because you and me are both on the fringes of what we really hate. Most people can deal with these things to a greater or lesser extent, and the rules should be made to reflect a reasonable compromise using the middle of the road on both sides , not people like yourself and I.

 

[sadhatter]

I'm really not arguing for the sake of argument. Full disclosure: I live and work in Birmingham. I really honestly just haven't seen gum anywhere in a long time.

Alabama, or england? If your talking the uk, that may be where the discrepancy lays. I hear , when it comes to public places us in Canada and north america are pretty bad.

 

[A Laughing Baby]

The whole problem could have been avoided, had it not been for the insidious lobbying efforts of Big Gum.


edit to avoid cluttering the thread:

Alabama, or england? If your talking the uk, that may be where the discrepancy lays. I hear , when it comes to public places us in Canada and north america are pretty bad.

Alabama.