U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 04-26-2013, 10:21 AM
 
29,719 posts, read 16,424,516 times
Reputation: 13806

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robin Rossi View Post
Actually, tobacco effluent DOES cause cancer, both among those addicted to it, and thos involuntarioly exposed to it. It also cause a lot of other helath/comfort issues. Do you LIKE inflicting msery on your fellow citizens?
Im a non-smoker and think its a disgusting habit, but even more disgusting is a tyrant who wants to dicate what people put into their own bodies.

 
Old 04-26-2013, 10:25 AM
 
Location: SGV
24,761 posts, read 9,647,370 times
Reputation: 9715
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank DeForrest View Post
Im a non-smoker and think its a disgusting habit, but even more disgusting is a tyrant who wants to dicate what people put into their own bodies.
If the effects of smoking were localized to the person who chose to smoke instead of everyone around them then you'd have a point.

If a diabetic sits next to you and starts eating bacon you don't get put at risk for diabetes.

Don't you understand this?
 
Old 04-26-2013, 10:29 AM
 
3,742 posts, read 2,592,189 times
Reputation: 891
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank DeForrest View Post
Im a non-smoker and think its a disgusting habit, but even more disgusting is a tyrant who wants to dicate what people put into their own bodies.
I am curious, do you know any one who fits that description?

I don't give a damn what a smoker does to himself. I don't give a dman if they get cancer and die, either, nor do I care if they mainline nictine and die of a self-inflicted overdoes.

What I do care about, is that they spoil the air with their toxic effluenct. Nobody has the right to foul the air people are breathing, with toxic effluent.

Capiche!!!!
 
Old 04-26-2013, 10:30 AM
 
3,846 posts, read 1,961,301 times
Reputation: 390
Quote:
Originally Posted by T-Rob123 View Post
I'm sitting here in my office minding my own business when a co-worker walks in, straight from a smoke break, to ask for my help on something.
The entire time he's in the office and for at least a minute after he left the stench of smoke was in the air, and my eyes literally began to water.

This is of course nothing new, something I along with many others have encountered for years. The issue I've always taken with it is that in every office I've worked for a part of the employee handbook states that women should not wear an excessive amount of perfume, nor should men with cologne, because many people are sensitive to those. Well the same is true of cigarette smoke. Sending smokers outside for a break doesn't help much at all.

Is there any reason employers don't just simply ban their workers from entering in to the office smelling at smoke? If went to the city dump this morning and rolled around in trash for an hour I'd smell terrible, if I showed up at work my boss would send me home. Why not the same treatment for smokers?
It might be possible that you smell bad without smoking and with or without cologne.

Have you ever considered that people may smoke as a desensitization shield from other people's "natural" and masking emanations? (literal biological and chemical)

I have a strong impulse to smoke whenever I'm in the presence of a bullscatter, and can't leave.

Bullscatters are more offensive to my sensibilities that over-dosed cologniacs.

Their words smell worse to me than their mouth bacteria. Cigarette smoke is an effective shield. It helps to protect and defend one's personal space when short on farts. It also removes judgmentalism from the discourse.

When you come into my office, you say what you need to say, and then you leave.

This is a place of business!

Of course, I'm blowing smoke right now.
 
Old 04-26-2013, 10:30 AM
 
3,742 posts, read 2,592,189 times
Reputation: 891
Quote:
Originally Posted by No_Recess View Post
If the effects of smoking were localized to the person who chose to smoke instead of everyone around them then you'd have a point.

If a diabetic sits next to you and starts eating bacon you don't get put at risk for diabetes.

Don't you understand this?
In my experience smokers care or understand only one thing, their drug addiction.
 
Old 04-26-2013, 10:31 AM
 
Location: Florida
19,786 posts, read 19,886,317 times
Reputation: 23202
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robin Rossi View Post
I am curious, do you know any one who fits that description?

I don't give a damn what a smoker does to himself. I don't give a dman if they get cancer and die, either, nor do I care if they mainline nictine and die of a self-inflicted overdoes.

What I do care about, is that they spoil the air with their toxic effluenct. Nobody has the right to foul the air people are breathing, with toxic effluent.

Capiche!!!!
This thread is about the temporary lingering odor on somebodies clothing.
Capiche!!
 
Old 04-26-2013, 10:32 AM
 
Location: Central Jersey
386 posts, read 577,288 times
Reputation: 962
I'm not a smoker, and I'm not really bothered by smokers' smell, but I can sympathize.

I was watching a bit of an extended ad for e-cigarettes yesterday, and I wondered if that would be the trend in the future. It was odd to see the actors eagerly "smoking" indoors and around kids, which brought back memories of my childhood in the smoke happy '70s. Supposedly electronic cigarettes only release water vapor, so they're "safe" to that extent. Are they as satisfying to smokers? Do they help the smokers avoid smelling like a chimney?

Maybe e-cigarettes would be a decent workplace compromise.

Or do anti-smokers find the thought of people essentially mimicking the act of smoking to be repulsive, as well?
 
Old 04-26-2013, 10:32 AM
 
Location: North Texas
23,991 posts, read 32,804,883 times
Reputation: 27517
Quote:
Originally Posted by T-Rob123 View Post
I'm sitting here in my office minding my own business when a co-worker walks in, straight from a smoke break, to ask for my help on something.
The entire time he's in the office and for at least a minute after he left the stench of smoke was in the air, and my eyes literally began to water.

This is of course nothing new, something I along with many others have encountered for years. The issue I've always taken with it is that in every office I've worked for a part of the employee handbook states that women should not wear an excessive amount of perfume, nor should men with cologne, because many people are sensitive to those. Well the same is true of cigarette smoke. Sending smokers outside for a break doesn't help much at all.

Is there any reason employers don't just simply ban their workers from entering in to the office smelling at smoke? If went to the city dump this morning and rolled around in trash for an hour I'd smell terrible, if I showed up at work my boss would send me home. Why not the same treatment for smokers?
Sounds like a first world problem to me.
 
Old 04-26-2013, 10:33 AM
 
3,742 posts, read 2,592,189 times
Reputation: 891
Quote:
Originally Posted by old_cold View Post
This thread is about the temporary lingering odor on somebodies clothing.
Capiche!!
Stench is stench, and come up with your own word, and stop stealing mine.

Capiiche!
 
Old 04-26-2013, 10:34 AM
 
Location: Columbia, SC
18,151 posts, read 10,132,898 times
Reputation: 7049
Quote:
Originally Posted by T-Rob123 View Post
I'm sitting here in my office minding my own business when a co-worker walks in, straight from a smoke break, to ask for my help on something.
The entire time he's in the office and for at least a minute after he left the stench of smoke was in the air, and my eyes literally began to water.

This is of course nothing new, something I along with many others have encountered for years. The issue I've always taken with it is that in every office I've worked for a part of the employee handbook states that women should not wear an excessive amount of perfume, nor should men with cologne, because many people are sensitive to those. Well the same is true of cigarette smoke. Sending smokers outside for a break doesn't help much at all.

Is there any reason employers don't just simply ban their workers from entering in to the office smelling at smoke? If went to the city dump this morning and rolled around in trash for an hour I'd smell terrible, if I showed up at work my boss would send me home. Why not the same treatment for smokers?
If I were an employer, I would never hire a smoker. They have a full-time job already feeding their addictions.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top