[geeks] This bogles my mind

[Gregory Leblanc]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Amy [mailto:nospam at frenzy.com]
> 
> 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).

I'm glad to hear that you're quitting, and always open to find out where
I've gone wrong.  First, don't take any of this personally, I don't.

> 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. 

Hmm, yes, but they're unconscious.  I've not been stuck working with
smokers, but I was on a boat with somebody who smoked, and he certainly
wouldn't have made the entire 10 hour trip without nicotine.

> >  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.

Great!  However, I don't see this from the only employee on campus who
smokes.  I see him leave the other building several times a day.

> > 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.

Well, I suppose you can put it that way.  I was trying to make an argument
for why companies wouldn't employ smokers.

> > 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?

Alcoholism is when a person can't control their drinking.  If they can't
function normally through the work day because they need a drink, and they
have any reasonable work environment, their co-workers should notice, and
encourage them to get help.  If it hampers their performance enough, place
will terminate employees for not accomplishing enough work.  I don't
necessarily think that's right, but perhaps.

> 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.

No, that would be unfair because I did not choose my gender, nor do I choose
how old I am.  People choose to start smoking.  

> > 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.

And that's ok, sometimes.  I am never militant about this to individuals,
only in larger general scopes, in the hopes of discouraging people from
having anything to do with smoking.  

> 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.

Sure, I blame smokers for smoking.  It's their choice.

> 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.

It does.  I directed this at a public forum, not at any individual.  If
someone takes it as being directed at them, then they're confused.  It was
meant to go to all people, not to target smokers or non-smokers, or anybody
else.  I'm sorry if you were offended.

> 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.

It's the digital age, I don't have to smell the companies that I deal with.
I swing between idealism, and realism.  If I'm realistic, then I buy from
whoever can provide the product that I need at the best price.  Idealism, I
look into the company a lot more before I buy.  

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

And if they don't, I can just leave.  It's worked quite well so far.  

> 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. 

EGADS!  I would never direct such rhetoric at any individual.  If they ever
spoke to me again I'd be amazed!  In high school, I wasn't confident enough
in my friendships to help people quit, so I simply stopped associating with
them.  I don't have any friends who smoke, because even the smell of
cigarette smoke on clothing can be enough to trigger an asthma attack.  If I
did, perhaps I'd be better adjusted to society.  As it is, I'll never be
able to move to Europe, because smoking is so ubiquitous there (visited
recently, visits are nice, if you're careful where you go out to eat, and
pick a well ventilated table).
	Greg