quote:Originally posted by Ana Ng: Well said, Trixie. Will I get flamed for saying I started smoking in August?
No, but you'll get a virtual slap on the wrist and a frownie face. Bad girl!
-------------------- ~~Ai am in mai prrrrrraime!~~ Posts: 10111 | From: Oklahoma | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
Dara bhur gCara
As Shepherds Watched Their Flocks Buy Now Pay Later
posted
quote:College students, not smoking!?! Hmm, are cigarettes very expensive in the UK? A name-brand pack, in the US, hovers around $4.00.
A pack of 20 fags costs just over five pounds, which is probably about nine dollars.
-------------------- This wrinkle in time, I can't give it no credit, I thought about my space and it really got me down. Got me so down, I got me a headache, My heart is crammed in my cranium and it still knows how to pound Posts: 2794 | From: London, UK | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Licorice Lozenge of the Lord! Is that the cost for American tobacco or European?
-------------------- The salty fragrance of L’EauD’I’mNotDedalus - made entirely of and entirely for sea turtles. Posts: 1983 | From: Chicagoland, IL | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
the great thing about the uk is they have 10 packs, so you can feel like you smoke less, and pay less. although its still much more pricey than in the u.s, and a psychological trick, because you feel you are so much more controlled than those 20- pack smokers. pathetic. i need to quit. arrrrgh.
Posts: 122 | From: Minneapolis/London | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
They are planning on banning packs of cigarettes, cant remember if that was just in Scotland or the whole UK though. It is in a move to try and stop underage smoking. I think most young smokers start on 10 packs and graduate to the 20 packs when they get older and have more money.
-------------------- I tried to get in touch with my inner child, but she isn't allowed to talk to strangers. Posts: 674 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
Canuckistan
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV
posted
quote:Originally posted by Dara bhur gCara:
quote:College students, not smoking!?! Hmm, are cigarettes very expensive in the UK? A name-brand pack, in the US, hovers around $4.00.
A pack of 20 fags costs just over five pounds, which is probably about nine dollars.
That's about what they cost around here, too, once taxes and such are factored in.
That's 20 cigarettes, of course. 20 fags will cost a lot more. Or so I've heard.
-------------------- People need to stop appropriating Jesus as their reason for behaving badly. It's so irritating. (Avril) Posts: 8429 | From: New York run by the Swiss (Toronto) | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:]I worked with an ISO surveillance auditor who, despite smoking regularly throughout the day, never carried a smoke order on his clothes or his breath. I'd love to know how he did it.
Same with my ex girlfriend. She smoked, not heavily but enough, and we all went down the boozer pretty regularly and she 'never' smelled of smoke. My clothes would pong the day after a session in the pub but hers? Fragrant.
I can smell a gnat fart at 50 paces and i've always found that the smell of smoke seems to cling to some people more than others, unlikely as it sounds.
People used to walk past my office to take smoke breaks, before they were further marginalised (they have to smoke in a fume chamber in one of the labs now I think!), and I could smell the various concentration of odour on them all, from nothing to mild to sour and disgusting.
"smell a gnat fart" hehehee. I'm the same way. And I've noticed the same thing about smokers - some I know, I really can't smell it on them unless maybe if we hug hello or goodbye - and some people who smoke, I can smell at the other end of the grocery store from 15 feet away. I don't know why that is, but it is.
And I do not believe that second hand smoke is not bad for you. Logically that is impossible. If smoke has carcinogens, it has carcinogens - smoke doesn't know if it's in the lungs of the person who lit the cig or the lungs of the person sitting 4 feet away. It's either toxic or it's not - and we know it is. Some non smokers are probably be exposed to less smoke than some smokers, but that's going to vary, of course, by a lot of factors.
-------------------- "Wolves, dragons and vampires, man. Draw the nut-bars like big ol' nut-bar magnets." ~evilrabbit
(snurched because one of my nutbar family members is all about wolves and another one is all about dragons...)(with apologies to surfcitydogdad) Posts: 2397 | From: Texarkana, TX | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
One odd side effect of the smoking ban in Scotland is that I have become hyper-sensitised to the smell. I find I get a whif of smoke smell when someone walks in who has just been smoking, even if they are halfway across the room. Sometimes its been so stong that I've glanced round to see who has lit up.
posted
Wow, Trixie, I really hit a nerve with that post, didn't I? I'm sorry I offended you, but I am curious as to exactly which part of my post did it. The part you quoted was my disclaimer, meant to lessen the impact of anything potentially offensive I was about to say by excluding people on this board from my generalization and by injecting a note of levity into my statement. (Really, if I got through life without ever being called anything more "hateful" than "well-informed, ethical, considerate wheezing windbag," I would consider myself lucky!) I've been away from the boards for a few days, and as it always happens, other snopesters have already beaten me to what I was going to say regarding the rest of your post. Except for one point:
quote:Originally posted by Trixie Tang: Of course your friends explained themselves in self-deluded manners. You most likely asked them pointedly why they smoked, and they most likely felt it was none of your damned business.
As a matter of fact, I have never asked anyone why s/he smoked. It has never occurred to me that there might be a good reason. The manner in which these justifications entered the conversations goes to illustrate a second generalization about (American, I guess) smokers that I would like to emphasize DOES NOT APPLY TO ANYONE ON THIS BOARD, BECAUSE CLEARLY, ALL SNOPESTERS ARE FAR TOO INTELLIGENT TO BE EITHER OF THESE THINGS: In addition to being capable of self-delusion on a Herculean scale, most smokers I've known are so defensive that they feel the need to counter-attack, even when no attack has been made. The college I attended in Boston was rife with smokers, and the few nonsmokers like me who didn't start lighting up during freshman orientation stuck out like sore thumbs. I realized that I was at a distinct disadvantage, socially, by not being one of them, because their habit brought them together in all the designated smoking areas: outside the dorm on the front stoop, under the eaves of one of the classroom buildings, in the alley behind the favorite campus bar, etc. So I made an effort to hang out in those places, even though I didn't smoke. I would sit on the dorm stoop and play my guitar late at night; I would hang out in front of the classrooms to finish my coffee; I would step out of the bar to "cool down" or "sober up" between drinks and chat up the smokers. They, being mostly very friendly folks, and seeing me without a cigarette, would offer me one, and be (perhaps understandably) surprised and puzzled when I declined. It must have made them feel defensive, too, because they would then, almost invariably, launch into their spiels about why smoking was harmless/beneficial/worthwhile. Yes, there were exceptions. Some were merely patronizing, saying "good for you for never starting! It's a filthy habit, you know..." Others asked me why I didn't smoke. None of them ever let it drop at "No, thanks."
-------------------- "If God wrote it, the grammar must be infallible. Perhaps it is we who are mistaken." -MapleLeaf Posts: 977 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
What is the difference between a smoker putting out a bunch of air pollution which affects the health of those nearby and ...
A person driving his car down to the mall putting out a bunch of air pollution which affect the health of those near by?
Posts: 629 | From: Greenwood, IN | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by jimmy101: What is the difference between a smoker putting out a bunch of air pollution which affects the health of those nearby and ...
A person driving his car down to the mall putting out a bunch of air pollution which affect the health of those near by?
There are generally no regulations limiting the amount of air pollution a smoker can put out. Many counties/states have regulations regarding how much pollutants a car can emit.
-------------------- IIRC, it wasn't the shoe bomber's loud prayers that sparked the takedown by the other passengers; it was that he was trying to light his shoe on fire. Very, very different. Canuckistan Posts: 3694 | From: Arizona | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by jimmy101: Just wondering...
What is the difference between a smoker putting out a bunch of air pollution which affects the health of those nearby and ...
A person driving his car down to the mall putting out a bunch of air pollution which affect the health of those near by?
The difference is, the guy driving the car is less likely to try a "he did it first" defence. Posts: 124 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by I'mNotDedalus: College students, not smoking!?! Hmm, are cigarettes very expensive in the UK? A name-brand pack, in the US, hovers around $4.00.
Is that so surprising? I graduated last spring, and I was actually pretty surprised that I knew so many people who did smoke, when I stopped and thought about it. It just seems sort of weird that someone my age would get addicted to smoking, since we all grew up on the same don't do drugs curriculum.
-------------------- "You can't play Electro-magnetic Golf according to the rules of Centrifugal Bumble Puppy." -Mustapha Mond, "Brave New World" Posts: 679 | From: New York | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Artemis: It just seems sort of weird that someone my age would get addicted to smoking, since we all grew up on the same don't do drugs curriculum.
That's not even the least weirdest bit of fur on the monster's pelt. Get this, I've actually heard ...oh, yer not gonna believe this...I've actually heard that kids, kids our own age, our aged kids, still...*looks around*...do drugs! I know! I know! Crazy, right? I didn't believe it either, what with the Don't Do Drugs Curriculum cementing the final brick on our drug-free utopia.
-------------------- The salty fragrance of L’EauD’I’mNotDedalus - made entirely of and entirely for sea turtles. Posts: 1983 | From: Chicagoland, IL | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by jimmy101: Just wondering...
What is the difference between a smoker putting out a bunch of air pollution which affects the health of those nearby and ...
A person driving his car down to the mall putting out a bunch of air pollution which affect the health of those near by?
The car doesn't come into your office or your home or the restaurant where you're trying to eat dinner and stand 3 inches away from you while you're trying to be polite and hide it when you throw up a little in your mouth because they smell so incredibly rotten.
I realize this is a gross generalization, and I apologize, but it's happened so many times that I'm afraid I have a dislike for stinky smokers. The non-stinky ones (and yes, I know a few of those), I have no problem with.
-------------------- It is, after all, the dab of grit that seeps into an oyster's shell that makes the pearl, not pearl-making seminars with other oysters. -Stephen King Posts: 481 | From: North Brunswick, NJ | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I realized that I was at a distinct disadvantage, socially, by not being one of them
And now that's the smoker.
I smoked for 26 years, starting when I was 12. My brother, a Kool smoker for years, was diagnosed with throat cancer in April, so May 15 I quit. But the stress of being the only one in my office for the whole summer, gaining 30 pounds, and bunches of home stress took its toll and I started again in September. I'm not smoking nearly as much as I did and I am planning on quitting again.
I think secondhand smoke is harmful, but only to those people who already have asthma, breathing problems, etc. I don't think you will get cancer from secondhand smoke unless you are predisposed to get cancer anyway. I know, and I'm sure most of you do as well, people who smoked like chimneys and died in their beds at age 80. I also know of two people who never smoked and died of lung cancer; one worked in a bar for about 10 years, the other worked in an office.
I have always tried to be considerate around non-smokers. Non-smokers have not always been considerate around me. If you ask politely, I will put out my cigarette. Coughing and waving your hand in front of your face while mumbling about me killing you is not what I would term as politely.
I understand that my friends and family are concerned about my health, which is why I quit the first time. And which is why I will quit again. But don't tell me the cigarettes are killing me.
Of course, YMMV.
BTW, my brother was told he is now cancer free.
-------------------- "Maybe getting in the last word doesn't really mean you win." - The Clarks Posts: 486 | From: Pittsburgh, PA | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I don't really see anything wrong with doing drugs, but cigarettes are kind of expensive, gross, plus they don't really alter your mind in the way that alcohol or other things do...and unlike marijuana or most hallucinogens, they're addictive. It just doesn't seem like enough fun to be worth it.
-------------------- "You can't play Electro-magnetic Golf according to the rules of Centrifugal Bumble Puppy." -Mustapha Mond, "Brave New World" Posts: 679 | From: New York | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry, but refering to someone as a "wheezing windbag" is far from jovial. It's insulting. smackmac was correct in saying that what may sound benign to a nonsmoker is actually incredibly rude.
Posts: 46 | From: Donaldsonville, LA | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm surprised to hear that there are smokers who think they don't stink. I was under the impression that we all know we smell bad and are quite paranoid about it. At least I am. Altoids, flavor floss, scented lotion, and Febreze are all mainstays in my bag right next to my smokes. My sister feels similarly. My dad doesn't think he stinks, but he's delusional about a lot of things so I always considered him the exception rather than the rule.
-------------------- Suddenly she realizes that amongst a crazy drunken schoolmarm, a navy swim instructor with a food fetish, a southern hick farmer, a porn star turned used car dealer, and a horny ex-football player, she won't be this strange outsider. Posts: 701 | From: Colorado | Registered: Dec 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
(Lights a smoke) - Smoking should not be allowed in public buildings (courthouses, etc.) - In privately owned businesses, it should be up to the owner. IF you don't want smoke where you eat or drink, go to a non-smoking bar/restaurant - If you work in a business that allows smoking and you don't like it, find a new job - If you want to smoke at work, and you're job won't allow it, find a new job
(lights a second smoke) While I'm all for individual rights, I do think that this is wrong... Tobacco Subsidies to the state of North Carolina from 1995-2004 - $166,195,887. Throw in about another $80 million for other tobacco states. So, whether you smoke or not, if you live in the U.S., you are paying for tobacco.
-------------------- "We take evil really seriously" Posts: 175 | From: Tokyo, Japan | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The place I work has a policy against smoking on company property, including outside. If you want to smoke, you have to leave the campus. I say that's a good thing. They used to provide these nice smoking areas away from doors and windows complete with seating and shade but the smokers rarely used them. You always had a bunch of them crowding around the door and leaving butts in the grass or flower beds instead. Plus, the smokers always seemed to be taking extra breaks. Instead of one in the morning and one in the afternoon, they'd wander out about once an hour or so to smoke.
Anyway, I can't say if there is any medical evidence second hand smoke is bad for you, but I know my father gets sick whenever he's around a smoker. When I was growing up, we didn't have the array of public smoking laws we do now and going anywhere with my father was like a minefield. Smokers were everywhere and my father was always sick. He used to have no smoking signs everywhere in his office that were regularly ignored. I remember one jerk who came in past a half-dozen no-smoking signs, sat down in my father's office, turned the "Please don't smoke" sign on his desk face down, lit a cigarette and used the back end of the sign as an ashtray. I could probably think of a half-dozen stories like that one without much effort. Smokers are a lot more considerate now, but I think a lot of the laws we have now are a result of people getting fed up with extremely rude smokers. Evidently, it was the only way to get some of them to listen. Note that I am not accusing anyone here of being rude. I'm speaking of smokers prior to the wave of anti-smoking laws in the 90s.
Posts: 716 | From: San Antonio, TX | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MaxKaladin: The place I work has a policy against smoking on company property, including outside. If you want to smoke, you have to leave the campus. I say that's a good thing. They used to provide these nice smoking areas away from doors and windows complete with seating and shade but the smokers rarely used them. You always had a bunch of them crowding around the door and leaving butts in the grass or flower beds instead. Plus, the smokers always seemed to be taking extra breaks. Instead of one in the morning and one in the afternoon, they'd wander out about once an hour or so to smoke.
If your work is considerate enough to provide you with a smoking area, then you should be considerate enough to keep it decent. Instead of using the supplied area where I work, smokers used to sit on the wall a few feet away and put out their cigarettes in the decorative rock. That is not only rude and inconsiderate to our employer, it was rude and inconsiderate to the other smokers (like myself) that used the right area. Eventually the smoking area was removed to another location, one which could only be used when there was no one at the picnic tables located nearby. Smokers now walk down the street and smoke in front of another building.
-------------------- "Maybe getting in the last word doesn't really mean you win." - The Clarks Posts: 486 | From: Pittsburgh, PA | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by snapdragonfly: And I do not believe that second hand smoke is not bad for you. Logically that is impossible. If smoke has carcinogens, it has carcinogens - smoke doesn't know if it's in the lungs of the person who lit the cig or the lungs of the person sitting 4 feet away. It's either toxic or it's not - and we know it is. Some non smokers are probably be exposed to less smoke than some smokers, but that's going to vary, of course, by a lot of factors.
Actually, it isn't logically impossible. Your body has many methods of removing harmful substances. If the amount of carcinogens you inhale in second-hand smoke is less than the maximum amount your body can get rid of, then you won't suffer any ill effects. But if a smoker exceeds the level that their body can get rid of, then they would face cancer risks.
-------------------- IIRC, it wasn't the shoe bomber's loud prayers that sparked the takedown by the other passengers; it was that he was trying to light his shoe on fire. Very, very different. Canuckistan Posts: 3694 | From: Arizona | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Troberg: According to Penn & Teller: Bullshit, season 1, episode 5, there are no studies proving any correlation between second hand smoke and disease. This includes studies by some serious organizations such as WHO.
I like P&T, but in this instance, they are dead wrong.
Pogue
-------------------- Let's drink to the causes in your life: Your family, your friends, the union, your wife. Posts: 11325 | From: Kentucky | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Troberg: According to Penn & Teller: Bullshit, season 1, episode 5, there are no studies proving any correlation between second hand smoke and disease. This includes studies by some serious organizations such as WHO.
I like P&T, but in this instance, they are dead wrong.
Pogue
One of our board members pointed out a while back (i cannot remember who) actually say Penn and this point was addressed. He claimed that when they actually shot the episode, it was too late to include that information and claimed that the next season would address it or something to that affect.
-------------------- W.W.F.S.M.D? But this image of Bush as some sort of Snidely Whiplash tying the fair maiden to the railroad tracks is beyond the pale. - Joe Bentley Posts: 2311 | From: Minnnesota | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here is another reply someone made on that board I mentioned:
"The CDC is unfortunately a "tool" as well as the surgeon general. Second hand smoke has been studied extensively by many researchers. Funny how none of the science is ever publicized. (Try New England Journal) What has been found was that second hand smoke raises the risk of lung cancer in those exposed to over eight hours of it a day (closed room with at least two or more smokers smoking) by a whopping less than a percent. But what did the media hoors do? They took this and made it into "significant risk", which scientifically it is not.
You actually have more of a risk of dying from lung cancer due to air pollution than from second hand smoke, but they won't publicize things like that."
-------------------- Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way, when you criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes. Posts: 2110 | From: Chicago, IL | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by snapdragonfly: And I do not believe that second hand smoke is not bad for you. Logically that is impossible. If smoke has carcinogens, it has carcinogens - smoke doesn't know if it's in the lungs of the person who lit the cig or the lungs of the person sitting 4 feet away. It's either toxic or it's not - and we know it is. Some non smokers are probably be exposed to less smoke than some smokers, but that's going to vary, of course, by a lot of factors.
Actually, it isn't logically impossible. Your body has many methods of removing harmful substances. If the amount of carcinogens you inhale in second-hand smoke is less than the maximum amount your body can get rid of, then you won't suffer any ill effects. But if a smoker exceeds the level that their body can get rid of, then they would face cancer risks.
I think it is logically impossible not to be affected by second hand smoke when you are trapped in a car or in a house with a heavy smoker. It's one thing to be able to live a smoke free life and only encounter the occasional whiff of a cigarette in passing - quite another to live with and constantly be around a smoker.
-------------------- If you can keep your head when all about you are losing theirs, it's just possible you haven't grasped the situation. - Jean Kerr Posts: 18428 | From: Ontario, Canada | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by I'mNotDedalus: ...I always very lightly spray Aspen cologne in the morning. I also down a Listerine breath strip after every cigarette. As of yet, every student or co-worker who learns my horrible secret expresses shock that I smoke...
I'm always afraid I smell like it, but I do this too. I spray on some body spray and eat a Listerine strip after I smoke at work. So far at least three people were surprised to learn I smoked and told me I never smell like it.
-------------------- Some people are like slinkies...They don't really have a purpose, but they still bring a smile to your face when you push them down the stairs. Posts: 907 | From: Oklahoma | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
My husband used to get really annoyed when the guys who smoke were out getting extra breaks to have a cig while the non smokers were still busting their asses. They work a ten hour day - they are supposed to get an hour for lunch, and two 15 minute breaks. One morning, one afternoon. There were a couple guys who would vanish every hour or so for a good 5 or 10 minutes to have them a smoke...
When he became boss he wouldn't let the smokers take extra breaks. They could certainly smoke on their regular break but they didn't get to have extra time off to smoke. - If they can smoke WHILE they work and if they are not working in a non smoking area (building a school or hospital) he will let them smoke, though. But no extra time off to do it.
I think that's only fair, myself.
When he was in the Marines, smokers could get a smoke breaks. He decided one time that by God HE was going to have a break too (I forgot what kind of duty it was, some kind of boot camp distasteful duty) and he went out with the smokers and the Sgt. made him smoke a whole cig and he got SO sick and decided he'd just have to suffer not having any breaks...of course that wasn't the worst thing that ever happened in the Marines but I thought it was a funny story.
-------------------- "Wolves, dragons and vampires, man. Draw the nut-bars like big ol' nut-bar magnets." ~evilrabbit
(snurched because one of my nutbar family members is all about wolves and another one is all about dragons...)(with apologies to surfcitydogdad) Posts: 2397 | From: Texarkana, TX | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think all workers, smokers and non, should get a morning break and an afternoon break, if only to get the juices flowing again. What bothers me are when the people (and I'm not pointing this at anyone on the boards; we actually have someone at work that does this) complain about the smokers getting a break while they don't, but yet they have no qualms about getting up from their desks and stopping off to chat to someone else 5 or 6 times a day, or walk down to Starbucks twice a day (a ten minute walk). If each of those "breaks" are five minutes long (but they're usually longer), then they are taking 25-30 minutes of time during the day while the smokers are taking 10-15 minutes. But the smokers are the bad guys for going outside to take their breaks.
-------------------- "Maybe getting in the last word doesn't really mean you win." - The Clarks Posts: 486 | From: Pittsburgh, PA | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by jimmy101: Just wondering...
What is the difference between a smoker putting out a bunch of air pollution which affects the health of those nearby and ...
A person driving his car down to the mall putting out a bunch of air pollution which affect the health of those near by?
A car serves a practical function--it gets people from point A to Point B faster than they could walk there and without exposing them to rain or extreme tempertatures. What practical purpose do cigarettes serve?
Nonny
-------------------- When there isn't anything else worth analyzing, we examine our collective navel. I found thirty-six cents in change in mine the other day. Let no one say that there is no profit in philosophy. -- Silas Sparkhammer Posts: 10141 | From: Toronto, Ontario | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by smackmac: I think all workers, smokers and non, should get a morning break and an afternoon break, if only to get the juices flowing again. What bothers me are when the people (and I'm not pointing this at anyone on the boards; we actually have someone at work that does this) complain about the smokers getting a break while they don't, but yet they have no qualms about getting up from their desks and stopping off to chat to someone else 5 or 6 times a day, or walk down to Starbucks twice a day (a ten minute walk). If each of those "breaks" are five minutes long (but they're usually longer), then they are taking 25-30 minutes of time during the day while the smokers are taking 10-15 minutes. But the smokers are the bad guys for going outside to take their breaks.
True. (Although some smokers might be taking both chat breaks AND cigarette breaks.) Being physically absent does bring more attention to the fact that you are not on task, though. Also it just depends on the nature of the job.
It's hard to do a task involving with building a structure or some other manual labor which requires using both hands and smoke at the same time - not as hard to smoke and do most desk tasks or answer the phone. But you can't generally smoke at your desk anymore.
-------------------- "Wolves, dragons and vampires, man. Draw the nut-bars like big ol' nut-bar magnets." ~evilrabbit
(snurched because one of my nutbar family members is all about wolves and another one is all about dragons...)(with apologies to surfcitydogdad) Posts: 2397 | From: Texarkana, TX | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Snap, the manual labor guys just let it hang out of their mouths when they have to use two hands. My husband is a painting contractor. He and his employees do this all day long (when they're working outside, of course).
Smackmac's point, though, had to do with people who take the chat breaks and also complain about the cigarette breaks. If they're wasting time chatting or going to Starbucks, they have no right to complain about the smokers. We used to have a woman at our office who spent an hour and a half in the nail salon once a week. She was one of the biggest complainers. Tell me how that's fair.
-------------------- And on the 7th day, God said, "Let there be lips!" Posts: 296 | From: Munhall, PA | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by NancyFancyPants: Smackmac's point, though, had to do with people who take the chat breaks and also complain about the cigarette breaks. If they're wasting time chatting or going to Starbucks, they have no right to complain about the smokers. We used to have a woman at our office who spent an hour and a half in the nail salon once a week. She was one of the biggest complainers. Tell me how that's fair.
In my experience the smokers who take frequent smoke breaks are also the smokers who take frequent coffee breaks, frequent potty breaks, long lunch hours and otherwise take advantage of their co-workers. Certain people are just natural users with enormous "I am entitled" chips on their shoulder. The difference is that the people who are like this who don't smoke don't take the smoking breaks on top of everything else.
-------------------- If you can keep your head when all about you are losing theirs, it's just possible you haven't grasped the situation. - Jean Kerr Posts: 18428 | From: Ontario, Canada | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just an fyi. Where I work, before the anti smoking craze of 2003 (just in our building, but it really did a number on the smoking circle) the smokers were actually the smartest of the bunch. Why? They spent 10-15 minutes sharing information about work and chatting away, thus not only relieving stress but sharing knowledge.
When I first started here back in 1999 I had quit smoking, but realized the smokers knew the most, and so took it up again.
Note: I have many smokers in my family, and many who lived with second hand smoke. No lung cancer in the lot of them.
Another note: What chaps my hide is the giant SUV's which get 2 miles to the gallon that have the 'save our troops' magnet ribbon thing on it. I mean come on, they are over there fighting so you can waste gas in that gas guzzler. And you can't even keep the thing between the lines on the road? Sheesh.
Posts: 69 | From: Renton, WA | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[lol]](graemlins/lol.gif)
![[fish]](graemlins/fish.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
