I am a truck driver. Id say 70 percent of my coworkers smoke. Thankfully where I work no one is allowed to smoke in the trucks. I don't smoke myself. It really needs to be banned completely in any public places. It's a shame that I can't even go to a pool hall and play pool without smelling that nasty shit.
Cigars and pipe tobacco smell pleasant, but cigarettes just smell like shit and make you smell like shit too.
It's not about actively lighting up, it's about transferring those toxins and chemicals to your coworkers.
Fuck off.When I was little people smoked everywhere, and I don't remember really any whiny bitches bitching about it. I don't smoke but Iron and the other cry babies in this thread should move to China where they have huge business meetings to discuss new brands of cigarettes and pretty much everyone still smokes.
When smoking was legal everywhere in Cali I don't remember much road rage and violence in general was much less common. Smokers will tell you that smoking helps calms them, they're obviously right.
As stated numerous times in this thread, just because you aren't actively smoking doesn't mean the dangerous toxins and chemicals are gone. Have you ever looked at a smokers teeth?!
It's hilarious when smokers think they can hide the fact that they smoke. It's impossible.
I'd rather have my health catered by natural means than tamper with my internal structure and potentially damage my lungs.
It's not about actively lighting up, it's about transferring those toxins and chemicals to your coworkers.
You're gonna need to link something that proves that's a real issue, as opposed to something completely imagined by the "alternative healthcare" community.
But I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that you can't, because that proof doesn't exist. And since we're pulling arguments out of thin air, here's mine: a smoker that's not smoking (as in, right this moment) is less radioactive than a banana, and less carcinogenic than your water bottle. Don't eat their lungs and you have little to worry about from such a person.
If smoking is done outdoors, as is the case in practically every business, then what? The residue is left on clothing, but that gets washed regularly which ought to limit how much the residue can build up. We don't even know the full risks of third-hand smoke in buildings, so there's no way to quantify the measurable danger, if any, posed by the smoker themself.Thirdhand smoke is generally considered to be residual nicotine and other chemicals left on a variety of indoor surfaces by tobacco smoke.
Well I learned something today. However, your link only half-supports what you seem to be claiming.
Here's something more succinct.
http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-living/adult-health/expert-answers/third-hand-smoke/faq-20057791
Right at the top, If smoking is done outdoors, as is the case in practically every business, then what? The residue is left on clothing, but that gets washed regularly which ought to limit how much the residue can build up. We don't even know the full risks of third-hand smoke in buildings, so there's no way to quantify the measurable danger, if any, posed by the smoker themself.
Bottom line: third-hand smoke in buildings is recognized and serious, but fourth-hand smoke on smokers themselves is not recognized and unlikely to be serious. Furthermore, there is a quickly growing segment of smokers who won't touch a cigarette, and little to none of the above applies to them at all.
If we agree that third-hand smoke in buildings is an issue, then how can you think that the mouth and lungs of a smoker are cleaner?
If we agree that third-hand smoke in buildings is an issue, then how can you think that the mouth and lungs of a smoker are cleaner?
Do you often find yourself in the mouth and lungs of your coworkers?
So all we need is to get smokers to do their laundry with laundry detergent and we'll be fine.Do a pretty thorough cleaning up with detergent. ...
Personally, I don't have a hard time accepting the new evidence about third-hand smoke. Anyone that has seen a home where someone has smoked for a decade or two shouldn't, either.
Ever seen a restaurant kitchen where they've been running a fryer for a few years? I'm not challenging the evidence about so-called "third-hand" smoke. I'm saying that no rational person would be in the least bit concerned. When people cherry-pick science to prop up their own emotional feelings the result is always comedy, at least if it doesn't become actual tragedy.
really? texas has not banned smoking in public places yet?
I wouldn't live someplace where a cigarette smoker or a fryer had been long-term unless that place were cleaned thoroughly; they both leave a terrible mess. I also wouldn't be surprised if a survey concluded that fast food fryers are a measurable health risk for workers. Of course, "measurable" doesn't mean "large" or even "significant," which I think is your point. The health risks of third-hand smoke haven't been quantified and they may turn out to be completely insignificant. Still, cigarette smoking is a grimy habit.