Wirehead Studios

Source 1 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4213441.stm)

As of today, the owner still has no numbers on how much the company has saved. Interesting, you go so far to do something to save money, and your people money but do not have anything to show for it...good job!




Source 2 (http://www.lsj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20041030/OPINION02/410300314/1087/opinion)

I will let you guys form your opinions...

Interesting...                  as a non-smoker i don't really give a crap, yet being brought up by smokers i feel this is a kind of discrimination


I find it kinda funny that people get bitchy about smoking y'know considering tobacco helped this country flourish in it's beginning...
(yep there's my family talkin...)

I don't smoke. I used to, but stopped before my first son was born. Smokers have an addiction, and therefore lose thier freewill. thats what addictions do to you. they convince you you want to carry on, and enjoy it. That is not you talking, but the addiction has taken over your free will.

Why do it? its exspencive and very harmful. why would a person in command of thier free will do it?

I really don't think that a "company" shall decide where ever you do on your spare time. course taking any drugs that whould reduce your ability to work should, of course be banned but hey takning a smoke won't make you see pink elephants.

In my company we are encouraged to not to smoke during working hours but there's noon saying that you can't.

The problem is that smokers tend to disrespect their fellows by putting their so-called "right to smoke" ahead of everything else.  That's the behavior of an addict on a drug, which is exactly what nicotine is.  Until it was against the law to do so, smokers routinely exposed their coworkers to second-hand smoke without asking their consent, and often objecting violently if their non-smoking coworkers protested.  Since smoking is no longer (in the US at least) permitted in most work places except in designated areas, smokers often take "smoke breaks" - unscheduled time away from their tasks that non-smoking coworkers are not allowed - in order to feed their habit.  This results not only in lost productivity since they are taking extra breaks, but also is unfair to their non-smoking coworkers who would be punished for taking an unscheduled break.  Then there's the "cheaters" - smokers who violate company rules and smoke in places like bathrooms, or private offices, or "hang their head out the window" instead of going to designated areas like other employees.  This is unfair to everyone else.  Then there's the spitters - the ones who use chewing tobacco on company premesis.  That's just plain disgusting.

I have absolutely no sympathy for a person who smokes and gets "the shakes" because they're made to not smoke while on duty.  Smoking is not a right, it's a dirty, nasty addiction that hurts not only you, but everyone else who has to breathe the same air around you.  It hurts children, who routinely get stuck in smoke-filled houses and cars because their parents are more concerned in feeding their own addiction than caring for the health of their children.  Think about that, it's illegal to sell filtered tobacco products to minors, yet it's legal for them to breathe unfiltered, second-hand smoke because their parents just don't give a damn.  You love your children?  Don't force YOUR PROBLEM on them.  They didn't ask for it, and you owe them better.   It hurts society as a whole because of smoking-related illnesses driving up insurance and healthcare costs.  It also hurts the poor because a lot of poor people become addicted at a young age owing to peer pressure and lack of self esteem, as well as marketing by tobacco companies, so the money they could be spending on clothing, food, better shelter, or on their children is spent on tobacco instead.

Smoking needs to be seen for what it is, and eradicated from society.  Those who do smoke need to understand that they are addicts, and stop living in denial of the harm they are doing not only to themselves, but those who don't want to breathe their pollution.  I will also say that if anyone who reads this board has a bird for a companion, do me and the bird a favor.  Either quit smoking NOW, let the bird go, or you might as well wring its neck and get it over with.  Our lungs take in four times as much air percentage wise per breath as yours, and we metabolize on both inhalation and exhalation, making us much more sensitive to airborne pollutants and toxins.  You are showing absolutely no love by poisoning your feathered friend in this way, so please do the right thing for your bird, or I will hate you forever.  I am not kidding either.

I think if a company wants to hire only non-smoking employees they have that right because it is not discriminating against a person because of their race, or gender, or any other "can't be helped because I was born this way or got really sporked up in an accident" condition.  Smoking is a choice.  At some point, the smoker decided to take it up.  It's up to them to get off it, the same as it's up to the drug addict to get off the drugs.  Easy?  No.  Impossible?  No.  Any addiction can be overcome with help.  First, people need to stop accepting smoking as being something normal.  It is not.  It is completely unnatural.  I do, however, think companies who start a zero tolerance policy for nicotine and have employees that currently smoke should implement an assistence program to help those addicted and currently employed get off the tobacco.  If, on the other hand, the person values their addiction more than their employment, well, there are plenty of other places to work, and most employement these days is at an "at-will basis", meaning employment can be terminated for any reason with or without cause.  If that line exists in your employee handbook or application, well, then the company is well within their rights to boot you whether you like it or not, so long as it's not violating any laws in the process.

Now as for the "what you do in your own home" business, that's rubbish, and to me is just a poor defense that people who want to continue to smoke at their job hide behind the same way that porn peddlers hide behind "freedom of speech".  You can't produce methamphetamines in your own home, nor plot murder, nor can you imbibe copious amounts of alcohol "in your own home" and arrive intoxicated at work and expect to remain employed.  Failing a drug test, even if the drugs are used "in your own home" also results in Das Boot.  So yes, companies routinely decide what people can and cannot do in their own homes, and do have an interest in doing such so long as it affects the person's behavior or performance at their place of employment.  Telling someone they can't shag a sheep in their own bedroom is going too far, but then, sheep-shagging doesn't affect one's on the job performance any more than any other sexual behavior would.

Shambler:  The problem with drug addictions is that the person is not in command if their own free will - the drug is.  Nicotine is a harder addiction to break than even cocaine.  I know people who have done it, but it's damned difficult, especially since most people who are addicted to tobacco live in denial and become viciously defensive about it when confronted.  The fact that it's so readily available doesn't help much either.  Anyone who ever wants to talk about how "legalizing drugs" will solve the drug problem needs to take a good, hard look at alcohol and tobacco.  Now imagine cocaine, meth, and heroine sold like that.  What a nightmare!

You forgot caffeine, pho ;)

Now while I agree that smoking is a dirty habit; and highly addictive. There are a couple of issues that I think need to be gone over. Not all smokers who complain about being discriminated against based on their choice to smoke fit within the blatant jerks you describe. I know a number of smokers, my father included, who have always been very careful about limiting the exposure to those around them; Smoking outside, in designated rooms, or making sure they've got a window cracked in the car. But when you're at a public park, and someone crosses a 30 yard distance to tell you to put out your cigarette because their child who is on the other side of the park is going to die of cancer? That's entirely unacceptible. As a general rule, the most responsible smokers I know have been going out of their way to avoid exposing other people; and their complaint is that they're running out of places in which they CAN do so. Smokers are increasingly pigeon-holed outside a single entrance to a building that noone uses, and in some cases can no longer smoke on company property at all. Restaurants locally no longer have smoking sections, and bar smoking on company property.

Bars have been placed under a smoking ban AGAINST THE OWNER'S WISHES, because a grand total of 24 people snuck a vote in by advertizing that the vote was a week after it was actually scheduled. Instead of opening a smoke-free bar, which I have no doubts would have received business, they forced smokers out of the area. The bars have lost, in some cases, in excess of 60% of their business. Bouncers have an increased workload as they have to stop locals and non-locals from smoking, or the owner gets hit with a $1-5k fine per reported smoker.

I will not argue that smoking is unhealthy, and can impact productivity; but then, so is almost any addictive substance when abused. Coffee, for example, is just as bad as smoking, if not moreso in a number of cases. The difference is simply that second-hand coffee is far less likely an occurrence. ;)

what is the worst? smoke or car exhaust?

As I always have to say after posting, I'm not lumping the people who go out of their way to try to be respectful with the ones who I described above, but for brevity's sake I thought I could actually make a post for once without having to add a disclaimer to it.  Sheesh.  -_-

And yes, I'm aware that caffeine is also a drug.  The difference, as you pointed out, is that it has almost no adverse affect on other people around the person.  Remember that aspirin, pseudoephedrine, and prescriptions are drugs as well, all of which have beneficial effects.  Not all drugs are necessarily bad, but the act of smoking is in itself harmful.  Instead of pining about not having places to smoke, why not endeavor to break the habit instead?  Then it won't be a problem anymore.  I know I'm being simplistic, but it is certainly true.  The problem is that too many people want to smoke, even if they don't know it, while knowing all the harmful effects of it.  As for the park reference...  ever think some of those people might be looking for a place out and away from the city to try to get clean air, and end up being downwind?  I know I'd be unhappy too, and my sense of smell is stronger than that of humans.  I can smell tobacco from 100 yards away easily if I'm downwind.  Now as for how I'd allow myself to be put in such a situation, like I said, I know people who used to smoke.  I'm part of the reason one of them no longer does.  I can be very... persuasive.

Shambler:  Depends on who you listen to and what condition the vehicle is in.  Car exhaust mostly consists of water vapor, carbon dioxide, some carbon monoxide, some nitrous oxide, and unburned hydrocarbons.  CO2 is picked on by people who are convinced that CO2 emissions are causing the earth to get hotter, but in itself is not a dangerous gas.  The others are, but not nearly as bad as sulphur dioxide and other industrial chemical wastes and also tend to be highly regulated through emissions testing in many places.  Still, automobiles could be made 100% clean by running them off pure hydrogen since the only byproduct would be water vapor, but that's a ways off.  If automobiles used turbines instead of piston engines, they would burn clean of hydrocarbons since turbines have an almost 100% complete combustion rate and produce almost no unburned fuel as a byproduct.  As for CO2 causing global warming, I think that giant nuclear fireball in the sky has a lot more to do with the temperature of the earth than anything man is doing.  Too much of the global warming debate is political, and very little good science is being published in the news and talk circuits.  Besides, if people would plant more trees and pave less roadways you'd have a use for all that carbon dioxide as it gets converted to oxygen by plants, which also scrub the air of pollutants.  You'd be healthier, have more oxygen to breathe (which I wouldn't mind myself either) and it would help keep surface temperatures cooler.  Go walk in a forest, then go stand in a downtown city block.  You tell me which is cooler and more pleasant under the same weather conditions.  There's a reason that blast furnaces are made from brick.

The world whould be such a better place without humans ;)

Just a quick note to Pho's initial post.

I agree with you wholeheartedly.  Over here, workplaces do indeed have designated smoking areas - sometimes that's in an outside area, sometimes not.  Here are some examples:-

One place I am aware of, had a nice garden area that workers could sit down and eat their lunch outside (providing the weather was nice).  But it became a haven for smokers who would literally toss the cigarette butts onto the ground without a care of where it landed.  Let's just say there isn't a blade of grass to be seen nowadays.

A few months ago, I had to attend a Health & Safety course at my company's HQ.  At HQ, we were told that a woman who smokes went to the ladies toilets to have a quick smoke...rather than going to a designated smoking area...guess what she done? She smoked just enough cigarettes to trigger the smoke alarm!

Suffice to say, in my own workplace this is what happens:  one of my (female) colleagues will call for me or someone else to cover for her whilst she "goes to the toilet".  Well, one of my (also female) supervisors follows her now into the ladies toilet to make sure she isn't trying to have a quick smoke.

Now if I was to do that...every day that I worked...I would indeed get into trouble (as Pho points out).   Also, if I have to cover for someone so they can take a sneaky cigarette break, that means anything I was told to do won't be getting done for at least 10 minutes.  Some people might not think that's anything to complain about...but unless I can work extremely fast and get onto the next task (of which there almost always is), I'll be constantly 10 minutes behind.

And then I would get into trouble for "working too slow" and/or "not giving my 100%".

Bah!

Regards,

Yickle.

That isnt such a bad deal about banning smoking in workplaces though, here in our town they want to pass a bill to make it illegal to smoke anywhere out in public on sidewalks, down the road in a car etc.. I do not smoke but me and my mom(smoker) thinks it is rediculous. I say they just stop selling cigarrettes alltogether would fix the problem. Making it illegal to smoke anywhere in public would cause way too many problems, and then whats next shoot kids that write on sidewalks with chalk? O_o  If that happened it would be like prohibition and would lead to more crime and criminalization of common smokers, and then they would try to ban even more stuff which just gets rediculous.  :!:

I suppose my only real complaint is that it's gotten to the point where the law is leveraging itself against the freedom of choice. At what point do we finally stop and say "you know what, I KNOW what I'm doing isn't good for me, but I'm doing it anyway because on some level, it makes me happy." Do we stop with smoking? alcohol? how about overeating or simple sloth?

At what point do we tell all these people trying to force us to live healthier against our will to shove it? Legally moving against smoking is one thing, but when the company cited actually goes out and says "obesity, alcoholism, [etc.]" are protected by law...

Frankly, I would refuse to work for a company that's going to decide how I live my life. My body is my own to use and abuse as I will. No company, or government will own me, ever.

That's the thing, you have that right to refuse to work for someone.  They in turn have the right to refuse to hire people, so long as they're working within the law and not violating any legally protected status.  Smoking is not a legally protected status, so companies, unless the law changes or some legal precedent is set in a court case, can refuse employment to smokers.  Anyone who thinks this is outside some limitation should take a good hard look at how insurance premiums are calculated.  If you smoke, you get a higher rate and sometimes even denied coverage.  If you have lung cancer or heart disease or any major illness they will deny coverage.  In this case it's a "refusal to sell" rather than a "refusal to employ", but the action is the same - you're denied something based on an action you take.

That's what's at the crux of the matter, it's a person's behavior that's the center of this.  If you think a company can't decide how you live your life?  They do it all the time.  You have to plan your life's time around their schedule.  If you fail to do this, they fire you.  If you fail to follow the commands of your superiors, they fire you.  If you engage in any "prohibited behavior", etc, same result.  There are any number of things you cannot do if you wish to remain employed, and if you have no employment then you no longer have a source of income.  If you have no income, you have no food, no shelter, no means of transport and no means to clothe yourself.  Sure, there's always welfare, but that means the government now owns you instead of the company, and if you make one cent above the "poverty line" you lose ALL assistence, so once you get stuck there you can forget about ever having any say over your own life again.

As for smoking, consider this - why do people smoke?  Either someone who's already hooked goaded them into trying it out and acted as an unpaid salesman, or they bought into the advertising.  Once you're hooked, that's it, you've got a vicious fight getting unhooked.  If you smoke, a company is already telling you how to live your life because you're addicted to their product.  You're dependent upon it, and so long as they make it, you're going to buy it unless you can overpower the addiction.  You want to rant about being "owned" by some damned company, consider that for a moment.  Slavery can be defined in many ways.

And in that regard, I'm heavily addicted to caffeine; and well aware of it. Nicotine however I'm not noticeably addicted to. Though I have to admit I enjoy the occasional nicotine buzz, it's not something I base my life around.

This is an issue that has been brought up in my economics class many times. Let me say one thing, I know it's blatant and harsh.

It really annoys me when people bitch about smokers clogging our lungs, which this annoys me as well, but they fail to look in the mirror and think about what they do to harm society. I mean do anti-smoking enthusiasts think about how much smog and pollution they put into the atmosphere everyday when they go to work in their car? Pollution puts more shit in the air then cigarettes do. You got a 8 inch muffler blasting nasty crap in the air, or a little 4mm cigarette, which will most likely cause someone to obtain cancer? You see, anti-smoking enthusiasts won't give up their cars because is will inconvenience them. Funny how people bitch about things, but won't follow through with them when it obstructs their convenient comfortable lifestyle.

Another issue is not just policy concerning tobacco use, but weight management. Companies are now instituting "wellness programs" they will weigh you, take your blood pressure, measure your fat content, and cholesterol levels. They will fire you if you go below their standards. They even measure your caloric intake and expenditure and your vitamins and minerals level. All this to lower their healthcare costs, so they can get a bigger bonus. I understand that people are stupid and eat McDonald's and wonder why they are fat, but being a dumbass is legal. I should not fired because I ate a 16oz steak because the food pyramid says you should only eat 8oz of meat a day. Like anyone cares about that stupid bullshit. I should not have to sacrifice what little free time I have to do "Tae Bo" or Sweating to the Oldies with that fag of a phony Richard Simmons. Richard Simmons, what an asshole.
These assholes are now instituting this stupid bullshit on spouses and children of the said worker. Soon phrases like, "Com?on honey and kids, it Tae Bo time! Need to pay the house payment this month!." will be ever so common in the rotting trash that is society.

I know that "rights" should not be the number one agenda on society, which unfortunately it is. But I'll be damned if I'm gonna let corporate fat assholes harass me for enjoying a burger with my family on my night off.

There's a difference between an acute irritant and a long-term hazard.  Auto exhaust is a long term hazard (unless you're confined in a garage).  Tobacco smoke is an acute irritant AND a long-term hazard.  Also, let's be reasonable here.  You don't have people parking their autos in the middle of your office, restaurant, or other indoor area where people congregate or are forced to share confined spaces.  Automobiles are also a vital part of civilization at this point.  People depend on automobiles to reach their place of employment in order to earn money so they can survive.  The next excuse would be "bicycles" or "public transit", but wait, bicycles come from factories, and public transit still consumes fuel.  Electricity and gas for refrigeration and heating also require fuel, so really, what's the point here?  You can't escape the pollution even if you could remove cars from the picture.  Tobacco, on the other hand, is completely unnecessary.  It has absolutely no beneficial properties or uses whatsoever, and even if it does to some very, very small degree, any such properties are vastly outweighed by the addictive nature of nicotine as well as the physical harm that tobacco causes, not to mention the fact that it flat out stinks.

Pointing out a different wrong does not absolve the inherent badness of the other either.  Ever hear the phrase "Two wrongs do not make right?"  Saying "Well you shouldn't gripe about smoking because people drive cars" does not excuse the smoking anymore than telling someone they shouldn't eat meat if they own a pet makes them guilty of hypocrisy for doing so.  People use this kind of circular reasoning to justify all sorts of bad behavior by blame shifting.  It's offering an excuse, a rationalization, a justification for what someone knows is bad and harmful.  "Well, Person A is doing this bad thing, so nobody has any business telling me I should not do this other bad thing."  It's just an attempt to deflect attention so someone doesn't have to deal with something.  To me it's far more logical and far wiser to see every problem for what it is and take them head-on, rather than trying to avoid certain specific problems by pointing at other problems.  You don't solve problems unless you acknowledge them first.  I agree that pollution is a horrible problem, but the solution to that is an entirely different discussion.

im all for smoking to have a 100% ban everywhere, i dont give a shit if you are too weak and undisciplined to quit. quit being a pussy and letting tobacco companies ruin yours, and everyones lives around you.

I have a friend that smokes. Last night we saw "Munich"(awesome movie btw) .. lots of people smoking in it.(being based in the 70's n all, not that much has changed really) ... so whats the first thing he does when he gets out.. you guessed it.. lights one up! .. i mean wtf is that? are you sporking kidding me, i cant beleive that ANYONE would let something have that much control over them. it freakin rediculous. you might as well sign your life away to the tobacco companies. they own you now.

ban it all. im tired of the money wasted on ciggarette smoking idiots that end up with emphysema, heart attacks, cancer and more. imagine if even.. 2% of the money that people BURN on just the after affects(not even counting the COST of ciggarettes, 2 packs is like 10 bucks right? so if you smoke 2 a day, thats 70 bucks a week!) went to say.. education? I tell you there would not be a single school in the USA that would be underfunded! Hell with all that money saved we might even afford FREE health care. but no, you addicted, no self-esteemed wusses have to ruin it for those of us that would like to live past 50.

I also think you are going to find there is going to be a decrease in tolerance for it. more people are getting smarter, and more people think its a nasty disgusting habit. so the sooner it dies. the better.

I agree smoking is a stupid habit and stuff, but the government doesnt have the right to tell people what they can and cannot do, i mean years of second hand smoke hasnt effected me, so those people that think someone smoking outside are polluting our atmosphere are just stupid imo.

Try not paying your taxes some time.  ;)

Sure you can, live like a poineer!  :smirk: I'm sure your "nest" and "squirrel" buddies can relate to this.  ;)



Unfortunatly it is not illegal to be an idiot, or a complete mental *ahem* did I say that out loud?  :)

Yes, let's ban smoking because it's addictive and controls your life.

While we're at it, let's ban caffeine and alcohol; maybe even move on to obsessive and/or habitual behaviour.

Seriously, your friend lit up after a movie, it's not that uncommon. I can't go more than 5 hours without hitting the brick wall that is caffeine withdrawal. Addiction is addiction, and fact of the matter is, while it's good to see you care about your friend; keep in mind that it's their life to live.

Nicotine is a highly addictive substance, IF ABUSED. As is just about any addictive substance or activity. The constant use changes how your brain functions. Whether this is good or bad is almost entirely subjective. Workaholics are praised, never mind the mental and physical stress they endure day after day. You can burn out just as easily overworking as you can shooting heroin into your veins.

I've seen people who regularly burn leaves and petroleum products in their back yards, walking through said smoke without any form of respirator or mask; who then turn around and throw an absolute FIT if someone lights up a single cig. People who will actually walk over onto a neighbors property, pull the offending item out of said person's mouth, and stomp it out.

That is NOT acceptible social action, in my opinion. It's beyond rude to invade someone else's property to put a stop to a single instance of (in this case) responsible smoking habits. My friend smokes 4-5 ciggarettes a day, less than my daily dosage of caffeine by far. And I'm tired of seeing people who MANAGE said habit in a responsible fashion persecuted in this manner.

There are bona fide assholes on either side of the fence with this issue, and there are at least as many good people. As far as I'm concerned, so long as people mantain control of the habit, smoking is minor. I refuse to lay the blame squarely on ciggarette companies, or nicotine itself. It's the SMOKER who has to choose how often they smoke, and where they do it.

So lay blame at the foot of those who deserve it.

I would take issue with the personal space invasion of someone crossing a property line (called trespassing, which is illegal btw).  The blatant inconsideration of someone burning as you said, hazardous materials is just as bad if not worse than the smoking because, in essence, it amounts to the same thing.  Bad behavior is bad behavior, and inconsiderate acts are what we are talking about here, is it not?  I would rather people not pollute at all, but short of extinction of the human species or some other drastic change, I don't see that happening.

The problem with addiction is that often times the addicts defend the behavior or seek to justify it in some way.  That also includes feeding the addiciton at the expense of others and without considering the rights of those around them.  When you put something ahead of your family, and your coworkers, and your friends - something that is harmful, costly, and utterly useless as tobacco, then that's a problem.  I will certainly lay blame on tobacco companies because they make money off other people's misery by selling something that has no practical or positive benefits.  They exist, like all companies, to perpetuate their existance and to expand through profit.  That they do it through and addiction, to me, is doubly damnable.  Someone might level the "misery" argument at firearms, but you can save a life or stop a theif or rapist with a gun, and police use them to protect themselves as well.  I figured I'd just cut that argument out before it even surfaces.

As for smoking being "minor", ever see a kid in a car with the windows rolled up with both their parents puffing away?  Think they asked for that or have a say in it?  You wouldn't like it if someone was shooting herione into their veins, and it's illegal to give them alcohol to drink... why is it legal for their parents to force them to breathe tobacco smoke when they cannot purchase tobacco at that age?  See, that's a double standard.

Anyone who thinks it's a minor thing should try to see how it feels to have a plastic bag over their head and try to breathe when the air starts getting thin.  I know 3 people who are so allergic they suffocate around tobacco smoke, and two of them are former smokers who became allergic after they quit, the third never smoked himself but grew up in a heavy smoking household and went the same way with the allergies.  Now imagine living with that suffocating sensation every public place you go, having to hold your breath going in and out doors because of the people standing around smoking, having to constantly stay aware of which way the wind blows, and having to roll up your car windows and cut the vent fan when you're behind someone.  No, I am not exagurrating either, it affects them that badly.  That's my grudge here is that it's hard to avoid exposure to tobacco smoke.  A person can choose not to drink alcohol or caffeine, or do drugs, or have sex even, regardless of their setting or what the people aroudn them are doing, but when it's the very air you breathe you have little say if the wind changes or you're in a confined space, and you're screwed if you have emphesema, asthma, or bad allergies.  It's murder on avian lungs too, which is another reason I outright hate it, the same as I hate any airborne contaminants.  I can't be anywhere near it myself, and I can smell it from a lot further away than any human can.

Wow I've never seen so many derogotory statements in just a few paragraphs. :wtf:

Huh?

Collectively throughout this topic, you give a feeling of personal hatred twards anyone who has ever weilded anything that has to do with smoking. You like to use "addicts" to describe smokers, and somehow all smokers are rude and incompotent. Lots of sterotypical content.

*sigh*  Again, I have to tag a freaking disclaimer because somebody misinterprets what I say.  You're reading too much into my choice of words.  Addict is used to describe someone who is addicted to a drug.  All tobacco smokers are by definition addicts because nicotine is an addictive drug.  I am not using a derogatory term, it is a descriptive term.   If you view people who are drug addicts in a negative tone, then I think you're confusing the clinical definition of the word with the connotation of a "junkie".  Addiction is an involuntary response to a chemical agent.  A junkie just gets stoned off their ass because they want to.

I also never said all smokers are rude and/or imcompetent at any stage of this discussion.  Go back and read what I said carefully and you'll see statements like this:

Or is it that people only like to read the parts they want to attack when I talk about something?  It seems to me you're getting upset because I have a strong opinion on this.  Are you taking any of this personally?  I dare say you sound like someone who smokes and is taking offense to what I'm saying.  Correct me if I'm wrong.  I'll be blunt and say I do hold a lower opinion of people who smoke, but it's because of how they treat people around them in relation to their smoking.  I'm sorry if this upsets you, but my feelings are based on what I've observed in regards to how smokers generally behave.  It's not stereotype, it's fact based on observation.

That doesn't mean I'm a heartless bastard though.  I understand what addictions are like, and how hard they are to break.  A friend of mine has a cousin who was hooked on oxy by a crooked doctor.  It destroyed her life, and has strained their family to the breaking point emotionally as a result.  Nicotine is a harder addiction to break than cocaine is.  I've seen what tobacco does to people.  Don't you understand it's the tobacco - not people - that I despise here?  I want to see people quit this nasty crap and get rid of it so they can have better lives!  My God, man! I said I have friends who used to smoke.  Do you think I hate them too?  Why would I still value their friendship if that were so?[/color]

A perfect example of irresponsible behavior, and one I cannot, and WILL not support in the least. If you can't wait until you're out of the car to light up, you've crossed the line from use to abuse.

I'm not saying that people have to put up with smokers if they don't like it, what I AM trying to say is that it's up to the smokers to regulate their behavior. The tired excuse that it's the few making a mess for the many grates on my nerves.

I take issue with the support for broad-based smoking bans because they limit the freedoms of those who do so responsibly. In most areas, when a smoking ban goes into effect, there are rarely exceptions for locations that make quite a bit of secondary business off of smokers; bars for example.

I can understand frustration in customers who don't want to deal with smokers in a bar. But keep in mind that as a general rule, smokers outnumber non-smokers there. As such, why not open a smoke-free bar? Why can't people use their own bloody freedom to MAKE something for themselves instead of stealing it from someone else?

I cannot, will not, support rude smokers; but I will not simply tolerate rude anti-smokers either. If someone responsibly imbibes nicotine, for whatever given reason, I will respect that choice. I draw the line at abuse; smoking carries risks, and I view responsible nicotine usage to be similar to any number of habits and addictions people partake in on a daily basis. I use caffeine as an example beacuse it IS as addictive as nicotine, and it's abuse can be almost, if not as damaging in the long term.

And this is the crux of the matter for me, at least.

Any form of chemical abuse is damaging, and a great number of people inhale dust particles floating about their own home that are just as harmful as anything coming out of a smoldering tobacco product. I fail to see how singling out tobacco does anything productive.

Do I smoke? yes, after a fashion. If I somehow exceed my temper, it's easy stress reduction. Certainly preferable, in my mind, to a large number of more effective forms of stress relief that involve obnoxious and easily injured coworkers. I imbibe on average 1-2 cigarettes a month, and have no troubles maintaining that limit. While I can do without the nicotine, I'm certainly happier with it on those rare occasions.

I'm not saying tobacco is harmless, I simply hold the opinion that this is more a matter of civil liberties and personal responsibility.

Paradoxical as it sounds, I believe that free will includes the right to risk harm to oneself. I don't think people need to be saved from themselves, I think they need to take responsibility for their own actions. And I think they need to be HELD responsible for said actions in order for this to occur. Quitting a habit is meaningless if the will to quit does not originate from the addict. Unfortunately, part of said responsibility involves not becoming heavily addicted in the first place.

*edit*
Slightly related rant, I'm entirely supportive of proper separation of smoking vs non-smoking areas. But I keep dealing with double standards in this arena. Smoking has no place in the office, but neither does any item that could produce a counter-productive reaction.

If smokers have to stand in the rain because it's illegal to smoke within 20 feet of an office building, maybe the women who wear strong perfume should as well. The slightest whiff of some of this stuff practically makes my sinuses collapse. To make matters worse, there's nothing I can do about the perfume because said scents, according to the supervisors, are all from a supposedly hypoalergenic brand.
*/edit*

Pho, there is no need for a disclaimer. Calling someone an addict just because they smoke is quite blatent. Sure it's addictive, but not all people do it because it's an addiction. Take me for an example, when I was pissed off, I used to have a cigarette, and that calmed me down, but I never smoked because "I needed one". Granted I don't touch them anymore, It's been at least 4 years.  It's like calling someone who plays a video game an addict or one who uses the computer other than work. I've been called an addict for going to LAN parties. I'm sure you have a nitch about you that we could link you to being an addict. Like calling someone who is overweight a fatty because they are fat, without knowing how and why they got this way.

Try going up to someone who smokes, say your best friend and say, "Hey addict how's it going?" Or you know what might work better is their name instead of addict.

I did not skip over parts of your post. My point is just calling someone a stereotype is not going to help them quit, rather increase their stress, wheather you say it to your face or not.

I did not say that you hated them, if you read my post carfully it says a " feeling of hatred" the vibe, you know.

My parents quit smoking before but went back to it, after being smoke free for a 1, and the other for 3 years so that habit must be pretty damn strong ill stay away from it. Oh i quit drinking caffeine and i can sleep much better now, and when i drank that stuff again it gave me a headache and made me all nervous. Now other habit is quake addiction lol.  :huh:

Ah yes Quake addiction, just don't fired from your job. :p And might I say that I love caffine with a passion. *Drinks a case a bawls
MMmmmmmm....... bawls. Ops hope my employer doesn't find out.

Well we can debate semantics until the cows come home.  Yes I would call a nicotine addict just that if my intent is to shock them into understanding that they are addicted to a drug.  I will not apoligize for calling a spade a spade.  I'm not as concerned about wounding someone's feelings as I am getting them help they need to break their addiction.  If someone were breaking a commandment, would you want to straighten them out, or would you just fluff over it and ignore it so you don't make them feel bad?  What if someone were on hard drugs like cocaine?  Wouldn't you want them to break free of it?  Understanding is the first step, and acknowledging that you have an addiction is the only way you can have a chance in hell of overcoming it.  Yes, I know not everyone becomes addicted to nicotine.   There are a rare few who are not prone to it, but the majority of people who start smoking have an extremely difficult time quitting.

As for the "stress reducing" effect Angst is describing, that's a chemical reaction within the body.  That's what drugs of any kind do is affect one's physiological state.  That's why people take Vallium when they can't sleep.  I sometimes have to take diphenhydramine because of my allergies to this wonderful pollution, and sometimes it makes me very, very loopy.  It's the closest you'll see me to a state of intoxication since I cannot and will not consume alcohol.  Other times it makes me very tired, and sometimes it does nothing at all.  That's a result of my physiology.  I do not depend on it though.  I don't need it, but it has some benefit when I'm absolutely miserable and is not addictive nor harmful to anyone around me.  I have absolutely no problem with beneficial, legitimate drugs when used responsibly and when they are regulated, tested, and researched.  I would never decry someone using aspirin when they have a headache, nor would I criticize someone who is dependent upon a medication for their survival.  A person who can't live without a heart pill, for example, is dependent upon a drug.  That's different from being addicted to a harmful chemical like nicotine.  Nobody needs nicotine to live.  It is harmful, addictive, and has absolutely no benefit whatsoever.  I find the entire concept of inhaling burning plant vapors ludicrous to start with.  You wouldn't stand in a burning house to breathe the vapors, why would you suck burning plant fumes into your lungs?  Talk about a stupid thing to do!

Angst:  I think perfume is evil myself, as much as tobacco.  Odds are you're not allergic to the fragrance, but rather the volatile oils used to vaporize said fragrance.  There are a lot of people beginning to have bad reactions to this, and they tend to, again, be those who are already prone to allergies and breathing problems.  The old perfumes did not have this problem so much because they were based on natural oils, but you can thank the chemical industry for making binding agents that vaporize more readily and cling to everything twice as much at the same time.

Phoenix can't help it.  He wants 100% clean air.  To me there's nothing better or more refreshing than clean, crisp, fresh air.

Okay here's an example. If someone was breaking a commandment would you go up to them and say. "YOUR GOING TO HELL YOU SORRY SOB!!!" That is not going to make them understand, especially one who doesn't even know what God is. They're going to say, "This is what a Christian is? Pheh, they're assholes. I sure don't want to be like that." Same with smoker you call them Addict (notice the capitalization) their stress will increase and make them want to smoke even more, it's ALL about HOW you approach things. You have to take it one step at a time, not shove it all in their face.

I know you are a realist, like you I am one as well. But there is a time to be a realist and a time to show compassion and help them with their problem. Being a realist twards someone show great hostility and then people will avoid you and your message you are trying to get across.

I understand what you're saying, and I do agree with your point.  No, I would not bludgeon a complete stranger like that.  I tend to beat my closer friends over the head when I feel they need it because they know I'm acting in their best interests when I do.  I suppose I should have made that distinction.  ;)