[geeks] This bogles my mind

[Amy]

i smoke (right now anyways--i'm quitting in august), therefor i can take
the bait and speak with relative authority on this drivel (sorry greg,
you've made some bad assumptions here).

On Thu, 28 Jun 2001, Gregory Leblanc wrote:

> I find these two -completely- different issues.  Nicotine is incredibly
> strongly addictive, and most smokers can't go 8, nor even 4, hours without a
> smoke. 

most can go 8-10 hours a day without one. they do so every night while
they sleep, for instance. 

>  So, how often does a smoker need to go suck a butt?

bout every four hours is when it strikes me while i'm working. and guess
what, there's this thing called a lunch break that generally happens
during the middle of the day...why, one can easily get in their car and go
smoke in peace while driving to mcdonald's.


> For starters, there's also an interruption of work.

you seem to be completely blaming the smokers for all of this and not the
company for allowing smokers on the property.


> I'm in the middle of some process that's taking me a while, and I start to
> get jittery because withdrawal is kicking in, I'm going to work slower until
> I get the drugs back into my system. 

personally, i end up working faster. 

> Drinking, as long as it's not alcoholism, isn't such a problem, because
> people can control it a lot better.

yeah, they cant drink at work, ergo it's "controlled". but nothing seems
to be preventing them from being alcoholics in the privacy of their own
homes, so why shouldnt smokers be allowed the similar right?

as for the extra costs (insurance) incurred, perhaps companies should also
quit hiring females (prone to breast cancer and pregnancy), men (prostate
cancer, etc), anyone over the age of 25, and anyone with a
pre-existng medical condition as well? SURELY the costs of insurance would
go down. oh no, that would be unfair, but only because you'd be affected.


> P.S.  If you haven't noticed, I'm a militant anti-smoker.  Comes from having
> watched my best friend's dad die of lung cancer, I think.  

being militant about anything will win you no friends, only enemies who
abhor those who cast out others without being reasonable.

my ex-husband only told me one thing once which was of any consequence and
it was "fix the problem, not the blame". you seem to be throwing out a lot
of blame here without offering a possible solution to the whole mess. if
you're such a militant anti-smoker who was affected by the death of a
friend's father by lung cancer (something which i've seen and
experienced a hell of a lot more personally), i would think
you would have thought a little more on it and come up with something more
than blame.

some possible solutions:

1. quit throwing your anti-smoking rhetoric around. it only makes smokers
more belligerent and less inclined to quit. a little support really does
go a long, long way these days.

2. if you abhor smoking in the workplace, be sure to find a job at a
company who does not allow smoking on the premesis or property. only deal
with companies who do the same.

3. if a smoker is annoying you, politely ask then to stop until you
leave.. most _will_. 

4. if you know a smoker who you are concerned about, skip the rhetoric and
calmly and nicely ask them why they began smoking. then ask them if they
truly like the taste (answer's almost always no). then ask them what
prevents them from quitting and ask them what you can do to help. 

but first, like a smoker quitting smoking, you've got to want to help
instead of throwing useless blame.

--a