Internal conflict
-
Bah. It's tyranny of the majority with little to do with actual harm when it comes to 2nd hand smoke. They had the flare up over gas stoves recently. I always knew the 2nd hand thing was a ruse and people twisting fact just to get a toehold for screwing over the rights of others in the name of their convenience and comfort. The gas stove stuff just proves it. Oh the people like gas stoves? And they'll fight for them? Nevermind then. Granted, kids have little authority/control over where they are. But it's not as though smokers even make rank on the list of bad parents they have to contend with. Ignoring the impact on those around you? Go elsewhere then. It's not any different than any number of things people may be doing to annoy/offend. Painting it otherwise was always bullshit sham.
jochance wrote:
Ignoring the impact on those around you? Go elsewhere then. It's not any different than any number of things people may be doing to annoy/offend. Painting it otherwise was always bullshit sham.
A very ignorant and selfish point of view.
Graeme
"I fear not the man who has practiced ten thousand kicks one time, but I fear the man that has practiced one kick ten thousand times!" - Bruce Lee
-
Most of them are in Norwegian, and probably not published in the US of A. One that I know is published is a photo book, aimed at preschoolers, for teaching them the difference between boys and girls: "Show Me!". I've got a couple more in the same group - in the 1980s, using photos for such teaching purposes were fully accepted. I don't know the legal status of the pocket edition of "Quotations from Chairman Mao Tse-tung" (or "The little red book"). Even if it isn't forbidden, you will be treated as a suspected communist by owing it, which would strongly affect both your social life and your professional opportunities. (I didn't buy it because of any sympathy with those ideas, but to try to see what they are. The little red book made no sense at all to me!) I've been collecting photo art books for four decades. Some of the photos in "Was ist der Mench? Eine Antwort in 1509 Photos", from the first three world exhibitions of photography, are definitely illegal in the US of A (and maybe even in Norway, but I bought the book in a Norwegian bookstore). The photo books by Sally Mann have definitely been banned from a large number of libraries and other public collections in the US of A, but I guess at least some states permit private ownership (I have bought the books through Amazon). Some of my private writings are such that even in Norway, I keep the text files encrypted. Like after Nine Eleven, I started contemplating what could be the next attack against The American Way. I frequently develop my ideas about various issues as imaginary scenarios, as a novel or script, to see what situations it would create, and which of the actors' reactions I could morally and legally defend. 9/11 led to two of those, and if they got out, I'd be arrested for planning terrorist actions (probably even in Norway). Before you ask: No, they are not, and will never be, published. Book banning is mostly a state level matter in the US of A; few books are banned by federal authorities. So it could be that for every one of my books, there is at least one state who would not ban its contents. But I am convinced that even in the most liberal state I would risk that visiting neighbors might back off in horror when they discover what is in my bookshelf. Later they might reject any invitation from me, and even be unwilling to talk to me. (Even my Norwegian photography friends are reluctant to discuss Sally Mann photos.)
Not so amusing story about books When I departed the U.S. Army in 1967 I took a job with a very reputable pharmaceutical company CIBA One of our promotional concepts was to distribute to Medical Schools and Teaching Hospitals books by Frank Netter. Frank H. Netter - Wikipedia[^] In High School for 4 years I had a Library Science Class with a wonderful teacher. So when I obtained a complete set of Netter Atlas's I decided to donate these to my High School Library The same teacher was still there and was so excited she called the Biology teacher to come have a look. Please bear in mind these lithographs are anatomically correct. Biology teacher said "I think we need to have these approved before students can see them" Now I know why I did not learn any useful Biology ! YES that was 1970 IMHO we have lost our way when we censor books
-
If people want to smoke and they do it out of harms way to others, that is fine with me. On the other hand, smokers should not be covered by insurance for any illness that is a result of their smoking, which such costs are passed on to non-smokers such as myself. Smoking is a deadly habit in which the carcinogens attack every organ in the body. Back in the days when I grew up in the 1950s and 1960s, smoking was far more prevalent but not as dangerous since it wasn't until a little later when cigarette companies began filling their cigarettes with all sorts of chemicals making them far more addictive and dangerous to one's health. This is not to say that smoking wasn't dangerous but back then many men died more from heart attacks from eating too much meat and drinking than cancer. One would think that an intelligent society would ban such substances as tobacco use. But most societies on Earth have yet to reach a level of intelligence where people do not need to indulge in such dangerous habits...
Steve Naidamast Sr. Software Engineer Black Falcon Software, Inc. blackfalconsoftware@outlook.com
My first experiment with smoking was cough cough not so smooth A pack of Cigarettes was 0.65 cents and a candy bar was 0.05 cents to 0.10 cents either way I could have 6 to 10 candy bars it was a no brainier. Fast forward to my job working for a pharmaceutical company CIBA The company had this bright idea each rep should spend a day with a physician. The fellow I choose said meet me at the hospital at 6 AM Great running late breakfast was a doughnut and glass of milk. My Physician explained we were going to observe a autopsy on a patient who had died last night did I have any issues NOPE. This patient had been a smoker and a coal miner YEP Black Lung When they removed the one lung it was the size of a small child's hand and the other lung was intact and much larger. Besides almost loosing my breakfast I knew I was never going to work in a coal mine and smoking was never ever going to be a part of my life
-
My first experiment with smoking was cough cough not so smooth A pack of Cigarettes was 0.65 cents and a candy bar was 0.05 cents to 0.10 cents either way I could have 6 to 10 candy bars it was a no brainier. Fast forward to my job working for a pharmaceutical company CIBA The company had this bright idea each rep should spend a day with a physician. The fellow I choose said meet me at the hospital at 6 AM Great running late breakfast was a doughnut and glass of milk. My Physician explained we were going to observe a autopsy on a patient who had died last night did I have any issues NOPE. This patient had been a smoker and a coal miner YEP Black Lung When they removed the one lung it was the size of a small child's hand and the other lung was intact and much larger. Besides almost loosing my breakfast I knew I was never going to work in a coal mine and smoking was never ever going to be a part of my life
I saw all that and more after I graduated high school in 1968 and attended a summer seminar in cancer research...
Steve Naidamast Sr. Software Engineer Black Falcon Software, Inc. blackfalconsoftware@outlook.com
-
Hello Codepojectens, it's been a while! So here are two conflicting views on smoking: 1) If you want to smoke, that's your business and not for others to tell you whether you can or can't (as long as you do it such that if affects no-one else), and 2) Smoking should be banned, for the good of society and also for the good of the poor victims of an addictive drug. As I get older, I'm able to think back to freer times when people really were genuinely freer to do what they want, like the teachers who used to smoke in my classrooms. They were also free to use physical violence in the case of bad behaviour. Happy days! I suppose we have 'progressed' more from 1) above to 2) or are at least heading there. The problem is, to my mind, these mutually exclusive ideas about smoking are both valid and worth defending to the hilt, which also means I don't have a valid standpoint on the subject - the logic is broken. It's fairly rare for me to be not able to reach some conclusion, even if the conclusion is flawed or just wholly incorrect. Tricky, and for context I've dithered in and out of nicotine addiction (mostly in) for the last 25 years. Vape time.
Regards, Rob Philpott.
There is a problem between these 1 and 2: "(as long as you do it such that if affects no-one else)". Many smokers do not realize how their smoke affects others. 1. I used to work in an office outside of which was a smoking area. The smoke was drawn in through two sets of doors then into my office, or somehow came in through my closed window or gaps in the outside brickwork. 2. Smoking causes illness, increasing the insurance premiums for all of us to treat those expensive to treat illnesses.
-
Rob Philpott wrote:
because people didn't worry about them then.
Or more likely because they were not aware of them.
When I was a kid, back in the day (I'm 82 now) we called them "camcer sticks". Yea, people were aware of the hazards back then. We also knew they "stunted your growth :-)
-
Sadly I think society has entered a period where rights trump responsibility. I think 'selfie sticks' sum it up, I was quite shocked the first time I saw one, what new level of vanity was this? But culture adopted this sort of thing willingly. Yes it's completely normal to take endless pictures of yourself to post on the internet these days. It's very odd and inward looking when you think about it. Man, I'm really on a 'middle-aged man depressed with the state of the world' roll today!
Regards, Rob Philpott.
Don't worry about it, I make 2 of us !!! I hate the way things are today.
-
Hello Codepojectens, it's been a while! So here are two conflicting views on smoking: 1) If you want to smoke, that's your business and not for others to tell you whether you can or can't (as long as you do it such that if affects no-one else), and 2) Smoking should be banned, for the good of society and also for the good of the poor victims of an addictive drug. As I get older, I'm able to think back to freer times when people really were genuinely freer to do what they want, like the teachers who used to smoke in my classrooms. They were also free to use physical violence in the case of bad behaviour. Happy days! I suppose we have 'progressed' more from 1) above to 2) or are at least heading there. The problem is, to my mind, these mutually exclusive ideas about smoking are both valid and worth defending to the hilt, which also means I don't have a valid standpoint on the subject - the logic is broken. It's fairly rare for me to be not able to reach some conclusion, even if the conclusion is flawed or just wholly incorrect. Tricky, and for context I've dithered in and out of nicotine addiction (mostly in) for the last 25 years. Vape time.
Regards, Rob Philpott.
Personal responsibility, the "Why can't I do what I want if I don't harm anyone" argument was never a thing. The personal responsibility argument is all about doing something destructive, self-destructive or foolish. No one ever deployed the personal responsibility argument in favor of doing something positive. No one ever said "Why can't I cure cancer as long as I don't harm anyone. This asymmetry ought to be the first clue that the argument is fallacious. The personal responsibility argument is all about defining "harm" narrowly to avoid inconvenient costs. The smoker who says he isn't hurting anyone doesn't count the harm to himself, doesn't consider the negative health effects of his smoke-cloud, doesn't think of his dependents left alone when he dies. If you think human beings are lonely apex predators, like lions, then it's understandable why you'd want to leave the weakest lions to choke to death on their smoke. But many people regard genus homo as a social animal. We are, by this definition, our brothers' keepers. Society has an interest in helping a smoker to quit for the same reason they would stop a depressed person from killing themselves or stop a drug addict from shooting up. We're just better when we don't throw lives away. Plus there are those externalized costs of smoking (or suicide, or drug use) which is why we are better when lives are preserved.
-
Sorry to hear that man. That was pretty much Vegas... and it was everywhere. I'm in a "nice" part of Texas now and I just went to a "nice" grocery store this morning. Walked right by people camping in their car overnight in the parking lot blazing it up and caught a buzz. That just happened. Vegas was worse, but still... it's too much. I dunno about you, but it's making me lose my faith in humanity. Not that there are losers that live on that crap, but the fact nothing is being done about the losers caring little of others.
Jeremy Falcon
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
I dunno about you, but it's making me lose my faith in humanity.
I lost it a while ago :sigh:
M.D.V. ;) If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about? Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
-
Or Portugal, IIRC. And as for Amsterdam in The Netherlands...
My impression of Amsterdam was way cleaner than places I have seen in other countries. Yeah, you might buy in many places, but I didn't see /smell people smoking in public. When I was there as a young adult the hotel people told us to be careful on the street. That's the good thing of having it regulated, you are allowed what you are allowed, and the rest can be punished even harder.
M.D.V. ;) If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about? Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
-
Once you start taking photos of naked kids everywhere, it's a fine line between learning and child abuse. That's a parental matter anyway and doesn't belong in schoolbooks. Personally, I'm proud of my country for saying no to that. As far as other books, it's legal to buy the communist manifesto here, so you may wish to double-check where you learned that. You are correct... we are not fond of commies here. But, it's not illegal to think like one.
Jeremy Falcon
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
Once you start taking photos of naked kids everywhere, it's a fine line between learning and child abuse. That's a parental matter anyway and doesn't belong in schoolbooks.
You tell me that I must not bring the photo albums from my childhood to the US of A. In my childhood, kids went naked on the beach, or played in the garden naked, until they started school. In my days, that was after you had turned seven. Within the family, kids different sex might go in the shower together until their bodies started showing clear signs of puberty (which was a lot later then than it is today). Noone worried about "child abuse" just because you could see naked kids lots of places. Immature kids were not considered objects for sexual gratification. Cute, of course, so you might want to take their photo, but not in any erotic sense. The "child abuse" industry has grown as a result of the body panic we see today. It is not an issue in nudist resorts. It is not an issue in cultures where kids run around naked everywhere, not just on the beach. Except that with the current body panic, we have made it "child abuse" just to take a picture of a cute, naked kid on the beach. Or anywhere else. It wasn't in my childhood. As there are lots of photos of me naked as a kid, by modern standards I was repeatedly abused in my preschool years. Noone knew until forty or fifty years later. You could of course claim that I, without doubt, was a victim, so taking my photo on the beach as a preschooler was not a victimless crime. Therefore, the old photo albums should be burned and any of my relatives, friends or neighbors who ever photographed me, or any other kid, in the nude fifty years ago, should be reported to the police. That is what I do not want. In some schoolbooks, photos of naked humans do belong, e.g. in sex ed and in geography where you learn about cultures where kids (and even adults) do go naked. Censoring their bodies is censoring of their culture. I suspect that your reference to "schoolbooks" cover a wider range than syllabus books: You don't want "such books" to be available to school kids at all, e.g. in a school library (where kids who don't want to check out such books have their full freedom not to). You probably won't believe me (and certainly you wouldn't take steps to verify it :-)): Kids and adults who regularly see naked human bodies of all ages and both sexes, as something everyday, natur
-
My impression of Amsterdam was way cleaner than places I have seen in other countries. Yeah, you might buy in many places, but I didn't see /smell people smoking in public. When I was there as a young adult the hotel people told us to be careful on the street. That's the good thing of having it regulated, you are allowed what you are allowed, and the rest can be punished even harder.
M.D.V. ;) If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about? Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
Yes, my impression too on the occasions I've been.
-
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
Once you start taking photos of naked kids everywhere, it's a fine line between learning and child abuse. That's a parental matter anyway and doesn't belong in schoolbooks.
You tell me that I must not bring the photo albums from my childhood to the US of A. In my childhood, kids went naked on the beach, or played in the garden naked, until they started school. In my days, that was after you had turned seven. Within the family, kids different sex might go in the shower together until their bodies started showing clear signs of puberty (which was a lot later then than it is today). Noone worried about "child abuse" just because you could see naked kids lots of places. Immature kids were not considered objects for sexual gratification. Cute, of course, so you might want to take their photo, but not in any erotic sense. The "child abuse" industry has grown as a result of the body panic we see today. It is not an issue in nudist resorts. It is not an issue in cultures where kids run around naked everywhere, not just on the beach. Except that with the current body panic, we have made it "child abuse" just to take a picture of a cute, naked kid on the beach. Or anywhere else. It wasn't in my childhood. As there are lots of photos of me naked as a kid, by modern standards I was repeatedly abused in my preschool years. Noone knew until forty or fifty years later. You could of course claim that I, without doubt, was a victim, so taking my photo on the beach as a preschooler was not a victimless crime. Therefore, the old photo albums should be burned and any of my relatives, friends or neighbors who ever photographed me, or any other kid, in the nude fifty years ago, should be reported to the police. That is what I do not want. In some schoolbooks, photos of naked humans do belong, e.g. in sex ed and in geography where you learn about cultures where kids (and even adults) do go naked. Censoring their bodies is censoring of their culture. I suspect that your reference to "schoolbooks" cover a wider range than syllabus books: You don't want "such books" to be available to school kids at all, e.g. in a school library (where kids who don't want to check out such books have their full freedom not to). You probably won't believe me (and certainly you wouldn't take steps to verify it :-)): Kids and adults who regularly see naked human bodies of all ages and both sexes, as something everyday, natur
trønderen wrote:
In my childhood, kids went naked on the beach, or played in the garden naked
Not just in my childhood, my kids did that as well
Wrong is evil and must be defeated. - Jeff Ello
-
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
Once you start taking photos of naked kids everywhere, it's a fine line between learning and child abuse. That's a parental matter anyway and doesn't belong in schoolbooks.
You tell me that I must not bring the photo albums from my childhood to the US of A. In my childhood, kids went naked on the beach, or played in the garden naked, until they started school. In my days, that was after you had turned seven. Within the family, kids different sex might go in the shower together until their bodies started showing clear signs of puberty (which was a lot later then than it is today). Noone worried about "child abuse" just because you could see naked kids lots of places. Immature kids were not considered objects for sexual gratification. Cute, of course, so you might want to take their photo, but not in any erotic sense. The "child abuse" industry has grown as a result of the body panic we see today. It is not an issue in nudist resorts. It is not an issue in cultures where kids run around naked everywhere, not just on the beach. Except that with the current body panic, we have made it "child abuse" just to take a picture of a cute, naked kid on the beach. Or anywhere else. It wasn't in my childhood. As there are lots of photos of me naked as a kid, by modern standards I was repeatedly abused in my preschool years. Noone knew until forty or fifty years later. You could of course claim that I, without doubt, was a victim, so taking my photo on the beach as a preschooler was not a victimless crime. Therefore, the old photo albums should be burned and any of my relatives, friends or neighbors who ever photographed me, or any other kid, in the nude fifty years ago, should be reported to the police. That is what I do not want. In some schoolbooks, photos of naked humans do belong, e.g. in sex ed and in geography where you learn about cultures where kids (and even adults) do go naked. Censoring their bodies is censoring of their culture. I suspect that your reference to "schoolbooks" cover a wider range than syllabus books: You don't want "such books" to be available to school kids at all, e.g. in a school library (where kids who don't want to check out such books have their full freedom not to). You probably won't believe me (and certainly you wouldn't take steps to verify it :-)): Kids and adults who regularly see naked human bodies of all ages and both sexes, as something everyday, natur
trønderen wrote:
You tell me that I must not bring the photo albums from my childhood to the US of A.
There are always going to be people that defend pictures of naked kids and those who are against it. I'm against it. I think it's vile and disgusting and opens the door for predators. Nothing you say will change my mind. What I find odd is why do people _want_ to see this so much? Why defend it so vehemently? You know what else is natural? Poisonous plants and murder. Humans are supposed to be smarter.
Jeremy Falcon
-
trønderen wrote:
In my childhood, kids went naked on the beach, or played in the garden naked
Not just in my childhood, my kids did that as well
Wrong is evil and must be defeated. - Jeff Ello
There's a difference between your kid disrobing and playing in the backyard while you chase after them to put undies on and making it a thing to publish pictures of naked kids in books en masse. I don't know why this is lost on some people. People want to pretend natural this and natural that, but nobody eats natural food or pays attention to natural instincts (like polygamy). We don't live in the garden of Eden anymore. Yet, naked kids is a "natural" thing we fight for? Why? And yes, that's rhetorical. I know the answer.
Jeremy Falcon
-
There's a difference between your kid disrobing and playing in the backyard while you chase after them to put undies on and making it a thing to publish pictures of naked kids in books en masse. I don't know why this is lost on some people. People want to pretend natural this and natural that, but nobody eats natural food or pays attention to natural instincts (like polygamy). We don't live in the garden of Eden anymore. Yet, naked kids is a "natural" thing we fight for? Why? And yes, that's rhetorical. I know the answer.
Jeremy Falcon
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
while you chase after them to put undies on
You do not understand this at all. I never chased after my naked dog to put his undies on. In cultures where naked kids are accepted as something normal, they "chase their kids to put undies on" no more than I chase my dog. I am not afraid of publishing pictures of my naked dog. There are movements in the US of A working for making it unlawful for pets to display their 'private parts', mandating clothing for dogs in public. If we have the same change in attitude to clothing of dogs as we have seen the last 30-40 years in clothing of kids on the beach, we will end up with people pointing to my old photos of naked dogs, asking me in a stern voice why "it is lost on me" that this sort of pictures stimulate zoophilia. I don't know of many people who let their kids run around naked when the kid wants to (and that is quit a lot) who are "fighting for it" - they are relaxed and ask "Why not?" The fighters are those fighting to ban, to condemn, to create victims, guilt and shame. Not those who thinks it is OK.
-
trønderen wrote:
You tell me that I must not bring the photo albums from my childhood to the US of A.
There are always going to be people that defend pictures of naked kids and those who are against it. I'm against it. I think it's vile and disgusting and opens the door for predators. Nothing you say will change my mind. What I find odd is why do people _want_ to see this so much? Why defend it so vehemently? You know what else is natural? Poisonous plants and murder. Humans are supposed to be smarter.
Jeremy Falcon
I think it might be advisable to stay at home, in the familiar culture of condemnation, shaming, guilting and creating victims of imaginary crimes. You seem to, in your mind, create implications of simple nakedness, with regard to what it makes expected, permitted and accepted, in ways that are in serious conflict with the moral and legal values in societies where nudity is not met with panic, but a relaxed attitude. Actually, you are at risk of being view as one with dubious fantasies and desires. Just stating that there are lots of photos of me naked as a kid, and that is OK, is far from "defending it vehemently". It is nothing even close to that of putting those family photos in the same slot as "poisonous plants and murder". And when you (in your answer to Jörgen Andersson, above) write: "Yet, naked kids is a "natural" thing we fight for? Why? And yes, that's rhetorical. I know the answer", that "answer" that you "know", even if you only imply it without stating it, reflects something about your mental world. I wouldn't be surprised if you in a few years declare that you "know the answer" why I let my dog run around with uncovered genitals, and even "make it a thing" It seems as if you have found the right place to live. Stick to that.
-
jochance wrote:
Ignoring the impact on those around you? Go elsewhere then. It's not any different than any number of things people may be doing to annoy/offend. Painting it otherwise was always bullshit sham.
A very ignorant and selfish point of view.
Graeme
"I fear not the man who has practiced ten thousand kicks one time, but I fear the man that has practiced one kick ten thousand times!" - Bruce Lee
Yeah it's not at all myopic stupidity to conflate desire with fact and claim numbers making your case. There's no subjective valuation of numbers and might making right to be considered. That's just ignorant. What can go wrong twisting science and populism into a brand of political rule? I wonder if there are any historical examples? I might know, but it's already horribly selfish to be insisting that people should be able to do what they want and if others do not like it they can go be around other people. It's not like entire countries basically operate on such a premise of different strokes for different folks, that'd be 50 shades of dumb.
-
trønderen wrote:
You tell me that I must not bring the photo albums from my childhood to the US of A.
There are always going to be people that defend pictures of naked kids and those who are against it. I'm against it. I think it's vile and disgusting and opens the door for predators. Nothing you say will change my mind. What I find odd is why do people _want_ to see this so much? Why defend it so vehemently? You know what else is natural? Poisonous plants and murder. Humans are supposed to be smarter.
Jeremy Falcon
I think it might be advisable to stay at home, in the familiar culture of condemnation, shaming, guilting and creating victims of imaginary crimes. You seem to, in your mind, create implications of simple nakedness, with regard to what it makes expected, permitted and accepted, in ways that are in serious conflict with the moral and legal values in societies where nudity is not met with panic, but a relaxed attitude. Actually, you are at risk of being view as one with dubious fantasies and desires. Just stating that there are lots of photos of me naked as a kid, and that is OK, is far from "defending it vehemently". It is nothing even close to that of putting those family photos in the same slot as "poisonous plants and murder", claiming that a 50+ year old family photo album "opens the door for predators". And when you (in your answer to Jörgen Andersson, above) write: "Yet, naked kids is a "natural" thing we fight for? Why? And yes, that's rhetorical. I know the answer", that "answer" that you "know", even if you only imply it without stating it, reflects something about your mental world. Actually, it is a rather grave accusation against me, my parents and lots of relatives, and numerous other people living in a culture/moral that differs from your own. I wouldn't be surprised if you in a few years declare that you "know the answer" why I let my dog run around with uncovered genitals, and even "make it a thing to publish pictures of naked dogs in books en masse". It seems as if you have found the right place and moral society to live in. Stick to that place. Please.
-
I re-read your comment about being the "devils advocate" and it's ignorant of addressing the medically proven negative impact that second hand smoke has on bystanders. Going back to the mid-nineties, when smoking inside the workplace was prohibited, it was after hours and I could smell cigarette some. It turned out it was a guy over 100 metres away on the other side of the building. It turned out he felt it was his right to smoke at his desk because it was after hours, so the rules did not apply. The issue was his desk was directly under the air conditioning intake and it was sucking up the smoke and distributing it to both floors of the building. I approached him and explained what was happening. He told me it was his right. I saw his briefcase on the floor. I said to him, if he feels it is okay to flagrantly smoke indoors against policy, then I am free to whip it out and fill his briefcase. He put it out and HR was informed the next day. They had to spend money professionally cleaning the air conditioning system. Do smokers really think that they have rights beyond those of others who choose not to? We have public toilets. I think that we should have public smoke boxes where all the smokers can go and puff to their heart's desire, sharing second hand smoke with each other. The building should prevent smoke from leaking into the public space. They get what they want, and we're free to breathe fresh air. Governments suckle on the tax revenue that cigarette sales generate, so they have plenty of money to invest in this type of scheme.
Graeme
"I fear not the man who has practiced ten thousand kicks one time, but I fear the man that has practiced one kick ten thousand times!" - Bruce Lee
I saw a smoker's window box in an airport once. I think it was Dallas-Fort Worth. It was really weird looking at the smokers through the glass in their haze.
