30 years after Intel lost its smoking tradition

Yup. A guy I worked with back in the late 1980s was a regular smoker. He came back from a business trip one day, fit to be tied... the company travel agent had ticketed him on Northwest Airlines, which was the first airline to adopt a "no smoking on board" policy in all seats. He hadn't known that. By the time he got all the way across the country, without the opportunity to light up, he was in pretty bad shape.

"Never again!" was his conclusion.

I have no idea how he manages to travel these days - last I heard he and his wife were still chain-smokers (a real pity - my wife and I enjoyed their company a lot for other reasons, but couldn't stand to be around the billowing smoke).

On the work front - I was working for an "ex-Xerox, bought by Honeywell" organization back in the early 1980s in Los Angeles. During my later years there I pushed Human Resources to designate one-half of one of the two floors of our building as a non-smoking area. There were only two people on that whole half-floor who smoked, and I suggested that they could be politely asked to move down to the other end of the floor to clear the way (and the air).

HR absolutely refused to even ask. They wouldn't even try. They were afraid of "insulting" a senior engineer.

A year or so after I left the division, got married, and moved to Silicon Valley, I read the news that the City of Los Angeles had implemented a "no smoking in the workplace" regulation which covered the whole office in question. HR no longer had to take responsibility for acting (or not-acting) as they had no choice in the matter.

I smoked a pipe (and an occasional cigar) from 1959-1994. I used to get urges, but now the smell of tobacco smoke almost makes me wretch :-( ...Jim Thompson

Nicotine in isolation at least is probably not intrinsically terribly carcinogenic, thought to have some beneficial medical properties and has been studied as a treatment for various illnesses.

Nowadays e-cigarettes just heat some kind of emulsion of nicotine and vegetable juice or propylene glycol and flavoring; I've tried it and it's a reasonable approximation to the real thing (smoked for about 9 years.)

I tried an "Impossible Burger" at a sports bar the other day and it's really a remarkable resemblance to a real hamburger containing meat, like if you were a little tipsy and not paying attention someone might be able to slip it by you as a real burger. The flavor is almost bang-on but what gives it away is the low fat content. Tastes kind of like the leanest meat-burger you've ever had but not in at all a bad way.

I lost two people that I cared about to lung cancer. Both were smokers.

Selling tobacco products should be a felony. They kill people.

I'll go with you 70% of the way there. But hands off my egg!

I took my truck in to the dealer for an oil change this weekend. The tech who drove it around to me was obviously a smoker and my truck smelled like I smoked, after. Wasn't a happy camper. OTOH, I used to frequent a bar full of smokers and would take that stench home to SWMBO.

My point was, though, that we have a high percentage of people from Japan, India, and the Mid-East. I high proportion of all of these groups smoke, so they're accommodated.

ort time in the same time frame--mid to late 1980's. It went from smoking freely - to dedicated rooms - to no more smoking in about 5 years time. Al l in the same time frame , around 1985 through 1990. Not just Intel, but e verywhere.

up just outside the cafeteria and any student could smoke there without co nsequence.

d painful process. The place I worked went through stages of limiting wher e you could smoke (starting with the not very useful "only at YOUR desk" to "only in the break room" (still not very good for anyone else since the br eak room became a smokey den) to finally making them go outside. It was so me 10 years or more later that even the hospital banned smoking outside bec ause anyone not a smoker would stand right by the doorway and blow smoke in your face as you went by.

other than "not here". I suppose they don't want to be seen as approving s moking or potentially being liable for the outcome.

Adults smoking in public places sets a bad example for kids, who don't real ise that addiction can lead to self-harm.

A taste for charred meat isn't actually an addiction - the withdrawal sympt oms don't go further than nostalgia - though it isn't all that good for you either.

e:

hort time in the same time frame--mid to late 1980's. It went from smoking freely - to dedicated rooms - to no more smoking in about 5 years time. A ll in the same time frame , around 1985 through 1990. Not just Intel, but everywhere.

t up just outside the cafeteria and any student could smoke there without c onsequence.

nd painful process. The place I worked went through stages of limiting whe re you could smoke (starting with the not very useful "only at YOUR desk" t o "only in the break room" (still not very good for anyone else since the b reak room became a smokey den) to finally making them go outside. It was s ome 10 years or more later that even the hospital banned smoking outside be cause anyone not a smoker would stand right by the doorway and blow smoke i n your face as you went by.

other than "not here". I suppose they don't want to be seen as approving smoking or potentially being liable for the outcome.

I'm sorry, A friend of the family died from lung cancer... big smoker.

Hmm, weren't you saying upstream or on a different thread, that people should be able to choose their own 'poisons'. Greasy burgers, sugar loaded beverages, too much alcohol, ... and all those other 'life style' chooses we make.

George H.

e:

hort time in the same time frame--mid to late 1980's. It went from smoking freely - to dedicated rooms - to no more smoking in about 5 years time. A ll in the same time frame , around 1985 through 1990. Not just Intel, but everywhere.

t up just outside the cafeteria and any student could smoke there without c onsequence.

nd painful process. The place I worked went through stages of limiting whe re you could smoke (starting with the not very useful "only at YOUR desk" t o "only in the break room" (still not very good for anyone else since the b reak room became a smokey den) to finally making them go outside. It was s ome 10 years or more later that even the hospital banned smoking outside be cause anyone not a smoker would stand right by the doorway and blow smoke i n your face as you went by.

other than "not here". I suppose they don't want to be seen as approving smoking or potentially being liable for the outcome.

Oh, I'm very happy about not having smoking in bars and restaurants. Back in the day, I'd come home from a bar with smoke filled clothes, and my wife would tell me to take off my clothes before I came into the house. "Sure hon, what now?" :^)

George H.

Did I say that?

But, sure, let people buy and use whatever they like. But imprison the sellers of deadly products, and prosecute them for murder when appropriate.

Why not treat the cigarette sellers the same as the people who sold asbestos, lead paint, and talcum powder?

Did they tell their workers that they were safe, knowing full well that they weren't? That's how they got billion$ out of tobacco companies for that reason, too. The reality is that everyone knew (and has for a hundred years, probably much more) that tobacco use kills.

Did the prosecute people who sold asbestos, lead paint, and talc for murder? I didn't hear about that one.

So you're for interfering with contracts between consenting adults, too.

So you're for taking all their property to make sure they die a miserable death, too. Nice.

"You're too drunk for that! ...and in the morning *you'll* have the headache." ;-)

rote:

e:

y short time in the same time frame--mid to late 1980's. It went from smok ing freely - to dedicated rooms - to no more smoking in about 5 years time. All in the same time frame , around 1985 through 1990. Not just Intel, b ut everywhere.

set up just outside the cafeteria and any student could smoke there withou t consequence.

w and painful process. The place I worked went through stages of limiting where you could smoke (starting with the not very useful "only at YOUR desk " to "only in the break room" (still not very good for anyone else since th e break room became a smokey den) to finally making them go outside. It wa s some 10 years or more later that even the hospital banned smoking outside because anyone not a smoker would stand right by the doorway and blow smok e in your face as you went by.

ake other than "not here". I suppose they don't want to be seen as approvi ng smoking or potentially being liable for the outcome.

the

Maybe not, Sorry I don't mean to put words in people's mouths.

OK, I'm mostly libertarian in that regard. If you want to engage in risky behavior it's your life. Should we ban those wing suit things that people fly around cliffs with?

George H.

George Herold wrote in news:5f297b27-68f1-49c8- snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:

I want to release a set of "Kervorkian Class" products for those who want to find their release.

They would ALL have "Novelty Item" disclaimers on them.

Like the one I have designed... I call it "The Cordless Bungie Jump".

There is also the "Shoestrings tied together, trip out in front of the bus" device.

Or maybe we should build "Just jump here" tall structures with catch cans at the bottom in every city.

We need population control, folks. If they want to end it... LET THEM.

If someone is afflicted and wants to end it... LET THEM.

John Larkin wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

There is a difference between a dangerous material and substances in the class of foodstuffs or drug infusion media (tobacco).

In the former, they can be manufactured. They can be used in highly regulated and controlled ways. It is in these ways where any criminallity would lie. Asbestos has uses. Creating and releasing a cloud of it and then ignoring the alarms and warning of everyone around, like Donlad J. Trump did, is what puts the criminality in such substances.

In the latter, they are already controlled and the Tobacco industry is an exception as we were unaware that they were modifying the product to induce addiction. We are now declaring those acts to have been criminal. There are recent findings.

We can certainly hold the sellers liable for damage and death that they cause. Knowingly selling a deadly product isn't a lot different from intentionally shooting someone.

Cigarettes are still legal because the feds and the states are making so much money on the taxes. That was the devil's bargain.

Most teenagers are complete morons. And nicotine is powerfully addictive to a lot of people. So they reach the Age of Reason but can't stop.

Vaping is the next big thing, and nobody is doing anything about it.

Like a gun, for example?

The issue is whether the product might be expected to, or is readily known to kill (like a gun or a wing suit) or whether that fact is obscured by deliberate falsity.

That's because it doesn't kill people, and it allows smokers to avoid the difficulty of getting clean.