Smoking at work........

[zobs]

Smoking at work, its all about having controlls in place.

[Dave S]

I'm going to wrap up my opinions on this subject, Adrian, I'm only yanking your chain, I admire that you are considerate of your workforce breathing safe air and I strongly believe that you must adamantly defend your decision in this regard, can I apply for a job once i've quit? lol.

Bluerock, I too have had three friends die from lung related deseases (emphasemia, and cancer), and as I have already said, I know smoking is bad for me and those that breathe my 2nd hand smoke and for this reason only, I'm going to give another shot to quiting. The point I am making, is that there is such a hype created over smoking that nobody is actually thinking with a free mind anymore, we are all following the hype rather than asking the questions that will determine our future decisions. Can science prove beyond a doubt that smoking causes cancer, or are they just assuming based on the facts of the toxins present in a cigarette?

To make a point, the hype about speeding, we all know that speed kills, but does it actually cause the accident?

I'm really serious, I'm definetely going to try (again) to quit.

It's great to be able to debate, even on sensetive topics...

[adrianh]

The point is that one has to start dealing with issues somewhere. The best way to dealwith smoking is to make it as uncomfortable as possible for people to smoke.

To make a point, the hype about speeding, we all know that speed kills, but does it actually cause the accident?

I think that speeding does cause the accident in a lot of cases. Stopping distances are lengthened, tendency to skid & roll is increased, people travelling along roads marked at certain speeds expect cars to be travelling at those speeds and hence calibrate their reaction times accordingly. You must always remember that although you may be a brilliant driver and like to drive fast the other guy might be doing 60 in a k@k mood with a splitting headache. He might not be able to react fast enough to you cutting him off at 120. Don't get me wrong, I speed all the time and I am guilty of driving like an ahole myself because I tend to get very aggressive, but be that as it may, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that speed kills. Spend some time on Youtube and look at car crashes, I've looked at 100's. It becomes abundantly clear that speeding causes many many accidents. That old lady in her Ford Fiesta doing 100 on the highway simply does not expect some person to cut in front of her at 140 and hit the brakes when they realize it is their offramp.

[Dave S]

The point is that one has to start dealing with issues somewhere. The best way to dealwith smoking is to make it as uncomfortable as possible for people to smoke..

That's the whole point, but on what is it based, your actual questions and research, or is it just the thing to do to be in accordance with the hype?

I think that speeding does cause the accident in a lot of cases. Stopping distances are lengthened, tendency to skid & roll is increased, people travelling along roads marked at certain speeds expect cars to be travelling at those speeds and hence calibrate their reaction times accordingly. You must always remember that although you may be a brilliant driver and like to drive fast the other guy might be doing 60 in a k@k mood with a splitting headache. He might not be able to react fast enough to you cutting him off at 120. Don't get me wrong, I speed all the time and I am guilty of driving like an ahole myself because I tend to get very aggressive, but be that as it may, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that speed kills. Spend some time on Youtube and look at car crashes, I've looked at 100's. It becomes abundantly clear that speeding causes many many accidents. That old lady in her Ford Fiesta doing 100 on the highway simply does not expect some person to cut in front of her at 140 and hit the brakes when they realize it is their offramp.

This is another of those topics that can go for ages, and maybe it should be in a different thread? But just to be clear, there is speeding (70 in 60 zone) and then there is SPEEDING (140 in a 60 zone), anyone doing 140 in a 60 zone is going to CAUSE an accident, but if someone fails to stop at a stop street and is hit by the guy doing 70? Both have broken the law, but what was the cause?

Sorry to do this, but I was born with a mind that has to ask questions, I do not accept things "as they are" just because "that's the way they are", I want to know why they are that way?

[adrianh]

Sorry to do this, but I was born with a mind that has to ask questions, I do not accept things "as they are" just because "that's the way they are", I want to know why they are that way?

We all have to accept some things at some time given that we cannot do all the research ourselves. I don't accept stuff for the sake of hype. I make my own mind up based on the information that I have regarding a subject. Maybe it will be proved one day that lung cancer is caused by fairy dust, I don't know, but for the time being I am happy to accept that smoking is a health risk.

The problem with speeding is that the law has to draw a line, the law can't say it is ok to do 70 in a 60k zone because then everybody would be doing 70. Many rules are made to cater for the man in the street, remember that the man in the street is not only me and you but it is also the 70 year old lady who doesn't see too well and wlaks across the road at a snails pace and also the 9 year old kid who runs across the road chasing a ball.

[Dave S]

We all have to accept some things at some time given that we cannot do all the research ourselves. I don't accept stuff for the sake of hype. I make my own mind up based on the information that I have regarding a subject. Maybe it will be proved one day that lung cancer is caused by fairy dust, I don't know, but for the time being I am happy to accept that smoking is a health risk.

The problem with speeding is that the law has to draw a line, the law can't say it is ok to do 70 in a 60k zone because then everybody would be doing 70. Many rules are made to cater for the man in the street, remember that the man in the street is not only me and you but it is also the 70 year old lady who doesn't see too well and wlaks across the road at a snails pace and also the 9 year old kid who runs across the road chasing a ball.

And you are 100% correct, on both counts, we can only make decisions based on the evidence presented before us, be it conjectural evidence, circumstancial evidence, or actual fact. BTW, you might enjoy the thread I have just started (Life Exsists)... It's a fun and analytical breather.

[Phil Cooper]

I think one can safely say science has proved smoking causes cancer.

If one says (my numbers) that 1 in 10,000 non-smokers get lung cancer, and 50 in 10,000 smokers get lung cancer, and these figures repeat themselves - all else being equal - I think that is self explanatory...

[pmbguy]

SMOKING
Excluding any personal feelings, ethical or health concerns.

Smoking at the workplace may

1.Decrease productivity, time wasted smoking and not working.

2.Decrease moral, other non smokers may feel it is unfair for co workers to be able to take a break for a smoke while they have to work. Also, some employees might be unhappy with being exposed to smoke (If smoking in the same area).

3.Negative effect on client perceptions. Employees standing around on a smoke break may harm perception. A salesman that reeks of smoke could be off putting to some clients.

Please don’t take it personally guys. This is simply a technical exercise as to the effects of smoking in the workplace. I am a smoker myself but I believe the above to be true in different measures depending on the specific business.

[Darkangelyaya]

Dave, I have lost enough friends through lung cancer caused by heavy smoking, to know what the effects of smoking is. You can keep on ignoring the facts and bury your head in the sand. As you have said; you can feel the effects of smoking. So don't pretend that it is healthy, not even to calm the nerves.

Blurock, I respect your view, but there is NO evidence that smoking is directly linked to lung cancer. It has never been proven without a shadow of a doubt.
BUT... smoking in effect depletes the oxygen levels in your blood, and is one of the three causes of cancer. As a cancer survivor, I have done my homework on this.
So, there is a link between smoking and (lung) cancer, but it is not as direct as it is made out to be.
It will always be a sensitive issue, and I am sorry for the loss of friends that you've experienced.
No, I am not a smoker, but my partner is.

[adrianh]

So what about all that black gunk that covers the insides of your lungs and bronchi?