District Manager (Level I) Social Security Administration Mon Jun 22, 2009 8:37 AM
Smoking should be prohibited everywhere and smoking areas provided and paid for by the cigarrette manufacturing companies. I work at SSA and to enter the public reception area sometimes a person has to go through a smoke cloud because there are unwanted guests smoking right outside the entrance door. I hope the President gives his approval. Santos Mercado, Mayaguez PR (SSA)
Re: Smoke Free America
Nick Naylor Tobacco Lobbyist Mon Jun 22, 2009 2:53 PM
Smoking will balance the budget and save social security. What we should do is to encourage our young people to smoke, smoke often, and smoke the cigarettes with the most tar and nicotine. By smoking, they will be adding to the profits of the stores they are buying the cigarettes from and they will be paying federal and state taxes on each pack purchased. They will also greatly increase their odds of getting a highly aggressive from of lung cancer which will kill them quickly reducing medical costs. The kicker is, they will die before they can collect their Social Security or pension reducing outlays to the program.
We can also make war on our enemies by selling them cut rate cigarettes in pretty packages to kill off their young men and women. It is hard to hide from a preditor drone while smoking and our soldier can find them by following the trail of cigarette butts. It is hard to burn a US flag with emphysema.
America, thank you for smoking
Re: Smoke Free America
Engineer FAA Tue Jun 23, 2009 6:20 AM
Nick,
Finally, a rational thinker among the bunch. Your comment is spot on, although I think you stopped short of brilliance (probably because of the 1000 character limit).
We need to reform health care to remove all treatment of people who failed to care for themselves when they were able (you know, those with lung cancer due to smoking, diabetes due to poor diet and no exercise, heart problems for the same reason, etc.). We could easily balance the budget by removing $600 billion the govt pays (in some form or another) into the health care system each year to take care of these "unfittest" (as Darwin would call them).
Re: Smoke Free America
Nick Naylor Tobacco Lobbyist Tue Jun 23, 2009 12:44 PM
Why Thank You FAA Engineer.
The Council for Tobacco Research has proposed several ways to effectively engage the enemies of America using Tobacco as one part of a diabolical trinity. The other two parts are pornography and alcohol. Imagine what the Islamic world would look like if we continuous beamed pornography via satellite into their countries and paid the drug cartels to smuggle American cigarettes and liquor into their country. This is a WIN-WIN for all but our enemies. Within one generation, our enemies would be like wiped out like the Indians of the plains without the loss of a single US Soldier and at minimum expense. Those that don’t die from lung cancer, then the emphysema and cirrhosis will get then. The ones that are left will be consumed by porn to the point that they won’t want to fight.
Smoke-free
DoD worker DoD Mon Jun 22, 2009 9:06 AM
Just curious if the majority would equate an outside smoke are, far away from the general population and building entrances, to be intrusive? As I see it, people who don't smoke, just don't like it when others choose to smoke, because they see it as a nasty habit with avoidable consequences. I do not totally disagree with that; however, this is just one of the several life "choices" that has a negative impact, i.e., nasty and avoidable consequences. If smoking is to be deterred to the greatest extent possible, then why not dictate for everyone what they can/cannot choose that may be unhealthy, such as eating habits, drinking habits, exercising, etc. If the smoke break area is away from areas where non-smokers are, why should anyone be permitted to dictate your use of tobacco? I don't allow people to smoke in my house, but they are certainly free to go outside and puff away.... What say you??
Re: Smoke-free
Records Management Assistant DFAS Indianapolis Mon Jun 22, 2009 10:18 AM
I would say that an outside smoke area far away would not be intrusive. However, unlike food and drink, cigarettes are the only product that when used exactly as directed by the manufacture will still harm you. The idea is to discourage people from an unhealthy habit, not to discriminate, just as the cafeteria offers fruit and vegetables beside the “Chocolate Chip” muffins (my downfall), it is up to the individual to make the right choice. Nevertheless, because people choose to make the bad choice the federal government should not be seen as enabling these personal choices by providing a $40,000 shelter while treadmills in the gym are in need of repair. Smoking is a personal choice and is a person’s right, provided it does not affect the health or wellbeing of another person. One of our offsite facilities had two employees who both smoked in their office, when I had need to visit this site, I would leave smelling like an ashtray and would always have a sore throat the next morning. Three months ago, one of those workers was diagnosed with cancer, he died two months ago. Ban All smoking in public and private workplaces.
Re: Smoke-free
DoD worker DoD Mon Jun 22, 2009 11:30 AM
Totally agree about the shelter expenses, etc.; however, there is a clear distinction between "discouraging" and banning. Assuming all other provisions continue,i.e., protect the air and passageways for non-smokers, the rest should not be prohibitive or dictated, regardless of the potential outcome for the chooser.
smoke exposure
Fed employee DOD Mon Jun 22, 2009 9:14 AM
We haven't been able to smoke within 50 feet of a federal building in years and years. That's why I don't understand this article; I assumed this rule was in effect for ALL federal buildings.
Re: smoke exposure
Clerk DOI Mon Jun 22, 2009 11:28 AM
Apparently not everyone is aware of that rule. The cigarette butt cans are right outside our doors, & thus, so are the smokers.
Re: smoke exposure
IT Specialist FBI Mon Jun 22, 2009 2:29 PM
Certainly in the area that I work, smokers are NOT allowed to smoke right outside the doors. They are not allowed to smoke in their cars in the parking but do have several small shelters which are several hundred feet away from the entrances.
GSA Secondhand Smoke Exposure
Mr USACE Mon Jun 22, 2009 9:49 AM
GSA and other agencies may wish to consider that smoking is an addiction and at some point no longer becomes an elective activity. The lost productivity could affect the smoker's efficiency reports at some point and possibly lead to either an EO complaint or even litigation. At the GSA building where I work, there is a designated smoking area that is set aside far enough that, in almost all cases, the non-smoker has no need to enter and is near enough that there is little lost time in transit to the location. If the President cannot lick his own habit, he should understand that he cannot legislate it out of existence.
Smoke Free
DOD Tech Army Mon Jun 22, 2009 9:54 AM
Article way too vague. I thought no smoking inside
any Fed bldgs. in effect for several years !? We smoke
outside away from entrance. Besides, you
would have to compete with exhaust fumes downtown here to really have an effect.
At our bldg. the issue has been resolved (many times). Once you get away from the outside bldg. entrance, it is really just a matter of controlling people and not the smoke.
Re: Smoke Free
editor FedSmith.com Mon Jun 22, 2009 10:08 AM
We included a link under the headline to this article as well to make it more understandable. We also included a link to the GSA notice.
I spent nearly a year to get the IRS to ban smoking in the workplace, including contacting Senator's office and State Attorney General's office. I was ridiculed, harrassed and put down by smokers and management.
Finally, the Attorney General's office made the IRS close the illegal smoking room with little or no ventilation located next to a propane furnace.
I was told that my actions made the IRS look bad, to which I replied IRS made themselves look bad for allowing IRS employees to break the law.
What's next???
Specialist Federal Agency Mon Jun 22, 2009 11:46 AM
So, if this takes place and no more smoking, what will the next big charge to take on? People chewing gum in the workplace? People bathing in perfume in the workplace? As one with allergies, the perfume issue needs to be addressed. I think some government funding should be put into a study to see the effects of smelling bottles of perfume in the office has on my health.
Pretty soon it will probably be against the law to eat what we want.
Outside our bldg there are designated smoke areas. Why do non-smokers insist on walking through them??? There are multiple ways for them to get around without walking through the crowd. I think they do it just to say it affects their health, rather than using their brains and staying away from it.
Re: What's next???
IT Specialist SSA Fri Jul 17, 2009 9:49 AM
I have quit smoking for about 13 yrs now. When you are outside you have options to walk away from smoke. But when you are inside and can't move your cubicle, that option is not available to you. Something really needs to be done about the perfume/cologne bathing. It needs to stop. Why can't these people take baths and showers like normal people? Perfume/cologne bathing makes alot of people sick and gives them severe headaches. When is something going to be done about this.
Whoop-ti-do
Civil Engineer VHA Mon Jun 22, 2009 1:21 PM
Big deal. I feel so much more protected now...not. Much ado about nothing.
second-hand smoke
Attorney U.S. State Department, Retired Mon Jun 22, 2009 1:42 PM
To be honest tobacco smoke makes the workplace smell better.
SecondHand Smoke
Secretary DOJ Mon Jun 22, 2009 2:47 PM
We moved into a new federal building about 3 years ago and they still have the cigarette butt cans outside the main doors (Not 50 feet away). You have to walk through the smoke to get into the building. I don't care if someone wants to smoke and harm their health, but we non-smokers should not have to be exposed to it.
freedom of choice
Union President Dept of Veterans Affairs Mon Jun 22, 2009 6:55 PM
I am a smoker, I do not apoligize to anyone for that. I realize the reported affects and make my own conscious choice. I am positive this is not the best choice, but it is still my freedom of choice. I thank a veteran for that. They gave up lives, blood, loved ones, body parts, quality of life activities and many human life elements, etc. all so I could excercise my freedom of choice. I do not believe that my choices should be forced upon others. I do not have the right to expose to potential harm, jeopardize the helath and happiness of, or dictate my beliefs upon any other individual. This also means that another individual does not have the right to dictate to me what is best for me.
I believe in the rights of non-smokers. They choose not to expose themselves to smoke. Designated smoking areas are the best bet, as they will allow each individual to excercise their freedom of choice.
Re: freedom of choice
Administration Worshiper DOT Wed Aug 5, 2009 12:11 PM
Union President at DVA: I did not know that the military service members that are in harms way, are there to defend our freedom to choose to use tobacco. All this time, I thought it was mostly about preserving the military-industrial complex. Or, maybe you choose to smoke because you are addicted to nicotine, and can't or won't admit it.
Better control
Specialist Federal Tue Jun 23, 2009 7:34 AM
I applaud those who are trying to do the right thing for those who choose not to smoke other people's exhaust. I think that the government, if they are going to get bigger anyway should make tobacco products a controlled substance and make everyone get a prescription for them and require they enroll in secession programs. This is the scourge of society and there's no reason for people to be sick and die because they choose to take up such a filthy habit. When their decision to voluntarily take up such habit that makes others sick then whose rights are being violated? I am a former smoker so the "rights" argument doesn't hold water. Others have a right to their health and should not endanger it to ensure others have their "rights" to destroy their health. Sad to consider the deaths of veterans were given so that smokers might sicken innocent others as well as themselves for a recreational habit that is deadly.
Re: Better control
federal employee VHA Tue Jun 23, 2009 3:40 PM
To Specialist: Federal I can applaude your abaility to quit- you have made a personal life choice for your self. Again, thank a vet for that abiliy or the governement will make all your life choices for you.
Smoking
Clerical Homeland Security Tue Jun 23, 2009 8:31 AM
To Specialist - Federal: The Union President of the VA's article was lost on you. As a vet, we fought for freedom and choices, as a smoker, I am not thrilled and have quit several times, but it should not be anyone's business. I stay away from non-smokers and I do not smoke in their house, car etc and I realize it is a bad nasty habit, but vets fought for freedom of choice and this is my choice, your choice is not to smoke. You speak of recreational habits - how about drinking? Drinking and driving are a killer too, but we do not have prohibition and so many think they can drink and drive I am not a drinker and I cannot stand the smell of last nights beer on someone who comes to work, it is gross, maybe it is not affecting my health other than making me throw up, but it is in it's own right disgusting and killing the drinker with liver problems. Should we bring back prohibition?
zealots abound
employee FED GOVT Tue Jun 23, 2009 10:29 AM
If only the non-smokers would display such fervency against the drug dealers in their neighbor hoods...
smoking
Ms DOD Tue Jun 23, 2009 12:40 PM
I work in at AF base and they have all the smoking areas right outside the doors---they need to make these employees go away from the building...they have already spent lots of money for gazebo's for smokers--non smokers have NOTHING--what part of that scenerio is wrong??
Stop all smoking
Supervisor MEDCOM Wed Jun 24, 2009 2:14 PM
Great and yaaaaay. Time is now to stop all smokers from smoking during work hours. When a smoker returns from one of his/her numerous breaks the smell of smoke is still with them and reeks my office space. I have requested coworkers not to come to me for at least 20 minutes after a smoke break. Sad for prouctivity, better for my health. Sad
Re: Stop all smoking
Manager MEDCOM Thu Jun 25, 2009 9:58 AM
Time is now to stop all medcom workers from responding to these articles during work hours. When a worker returns from one of his/her numerous breaks on the internet the smell is still with them and reeks my office space. I have requested workers not to come to me for at least 20 minutes after an internet break. Sad for productivity, better for my health.
Smoking and Second Hand Smoking Kills
Sick of the Bull Retired Wed Jun 24, 2009 2:55 PM
This is one that I support Obama on. Enough said.
second hand smoke and other myths
Manager OPA Thu Jul 2, 2009 8:32 AM
...employees are dropping like flies from second hand smoke...
...global warming is destroying the world...
...no new taxes...
...spend to get out of debt...
...the surge in Iraq will not work
etc.
Federal workers now protected from secondhand smok
Program Specialist USDA Tue Jul 21, 2009 8:06 AM
The federal building I work in has now put into place a policy where workers can no longer smoke in the building. Before this plan went into affect there was a first floor area for smokers to congregate. Smokers are no longer allowed to smoke in that area. But...they can still smoke outside the doors of the building (at least 25 feet from the door). But everyone coming in and out of the building still have to walk past the smokers when leaving the building and heading for whatever destination they are going to. So....we are still inhaling that secondhand smoke. So what's the difference? Actually it was better before, because the smokers were confined to one area. Which gave everyone else the choice of walking past that area to get where they were going or go another route to avoid the smokers. We can't do that now!
Smoke Free America
Social Security Administration
Mon Jun 22, 2009 8:37 AM
Smoking should be prohibited everywhere and smoking areas provided and paid for by the cigarrette manufacturing companies. I work at SSA and to enter the public reception area sometimes a person has to go through a smoke cloud because there are unwanted guests smoking right outside the entrance door. I hope the President gives his approval. Santos Mercado, Mayaguez PR (SSA)
Re: Smoke Free America
Tobacco Lobbyist
Mon Jun 22, 2009 2:53 PM
We can also make war on our enemies by selling them cut rate cigarettes in pretty packages to kill off their young men and women. It is hard to hide from a preditor drone while smoking and our soldier can find them by following the trail of cigarette butts. It is hard to burn a US flag with emphysema.
America, thank you for smoking
Re: Smoke Free America
FAA
Tue Jun 23, 2009 6:20 AM
Finally, a rational thinker among the bunch. Your comment is spot on, although I think you stopped short of brilliance (probably because of the 1000 character limit).
We need to reform health care to remove all treatment of people who failed to care for themselves when they were able (you know, those with lung cancer due to smoking, diabetes due to poor diet and no exercise, heart problems for the same reason, etc.). We could easily balance the budget by removing $600 billion the govt pays (in some form or another) into the health care system each year to take care of these "unfittest" (as Darwin would call them).
Re: Smoke Free America
Tobacco Lobbyist
Tue Jun 23, 2009 12:44 PM
The Council for Tobacco Research has proposed several ways to effectively engage the enemies of America using Tobacco as one part of a diabolical trinity. The other two parts are pornography and alcohol. Imagine what the Islamic world would look like if we continuous beamed pornography via satellite into their countries and paid the drug cartels to smuggle American cigarettes and liquor into their country. This is a WIN-WIN for all but our enemies. Within one generation, our enemies would be like wiped out like the Indians of the plains without the loss of a single US Soldier and at minimum expense. Those that don’t die from lung cancer, then the emphysema and cirrhosis will get then. The ones that are left will be consumed by porn to the point that they won’t want to fight.
Smoke-free
DoD
Mon Jun 22, 2009 9:06 AM
Just curious if the majority would equate an outside smoke are, far away from the general population and building entrances, to be intrusive? As I see it, people who don't smoke, just don't like it when others choose to smoke, because they see it as a nasty habit with avoidable consequences. I do not totally disagree with that; however, this is just one of the several life "choices" that has a negative impact, i.e., nasty and avoidable consequences. If smoking is to be deterred to the greatest extent possible, then why not dictate for everyone what they can/cannot choose that may be unhealthy, such as eating habits, drinking habits, exercising, etc. If the smoke break area is away from areas where non-smokers are, why should anyone be permitted to dictate your use of tobacco? I don't allow people to smoke in my house, but they are certainly free to go outside and puff away.... What say you??
Re: Smoke-free
DFAS Indianapolis
Mon Jun 22, 2009 10:18 AM
Re: Smoke-free
DoD
Mon Jun 22, 2009 11:30 AM
smoke exposure
DOD
Mon Jun 22, 2009 9:14 AM
We haven't been able to smoke within 50 feet of a federal building in years and years. That's why I don't understand this article; I assumed this rule was in effect for ALL federal buildings.
Re: smoke exposure
DOI
Mon Jun 22, 2009 11:28 AM
Re: smoke exposure
FBI
Mon Jun 22, 2009 2:29 PM
GSA Secondhand Smoke Exposure
USACE
Mon Jun 22, 2009 9:49 AM
GSA and other agencies may wish to consider that smoking is an addiction and at some point no longer becomes an elective activity. The lost productivity could affect the smoker's efficiency reports at some point and possibly lead to either an EO complaint or even litigation. At the GSA building where I work, there is a designated smoking area that is set aside far enough that, in almost all cases, the non-smoker has no need to enter and is near enough that there is little lost time in transit to the location. If the President cannot lick his own habit, he should understand that he cannot legislate it out of existence.
Smoke Free
Army
Mon Jun 22, 2009 9:54 AM
Article way too vague. I thought no smoking inside
any Fed bldgs. in effect for several years !? We smoke
outside away from entrance. Besides, you
would have to compete with exhaust fumes downtown here to really have an effect.
At our bldg. the issue has been resolved (many times). Once you get away from the outside bldg. entrance, it is really just a matter of controlling people and not the smoke.
Re: Smoke Free
FedSmith.com
Mon Jun 22, 2009 10:08 AM
http://www.fedsmith.com/article/1803/uncle-sam-smoking-employees-quit-leave-take.html
Smoke-Free Environment
IRS
Mon Jun 22, 2009 11:33 AM
I spent nearly a year to get the IRS to ban smoking in the workplace, including contacting Senator's office and State Attorney General's office. I was ridiculed, harrassed and put down by smokers and management.
Finally, the Attorney General's office made the IRS close the illegal smoking room with little or no ventilation located next to a propane furnace.
I was told that my actions made the IRS look bad, to which I replied IRS made themselves look bad for allowing IRS employees to break the law.
What's next???
Federal Agency
Mon Jun 22, 2009 11:46 AM
So, if this takes place and no more smoking, what will the next big charge to take on? People chewing gum in the workplace? People bathing in perfume in the workplace? As one with allergies, the perfume issue needs to be addressed. I think some government funding should be put into a study to see the effects of smelling bottles of perfume in the office has on my health.
Pretty soon it will probably be against the law to eat what we want.
Outside our bldg there are designated smoke areas. Why do non-smokers insist on walking through them??? There are multiple ways for them to get around without walking through the crowd. I think they do it just to say it affects their health, rather than using their brains and staying away from it.
Re: What's next???
SSA
Fri Jul 17, 2009 9:49 AM
Whoop-ti-do
VHA
Mon Jun 22, 2009 1:21 PM
Big deal. I feel so much more protected now...not. Much ado about nothing.
second-hand smoke
U.S. State Department, Retired
Mon Jun 22, 2009 1:42 PM
To be honest tobacco smoke makes the workplace smell better.
SecondHand Smoke
DOJ
Mon Jun 22, 2009 2:47 PM
We moved into a new federal building about 3 years ago and they still have the cigarette butt cans outside the main doors (Not 50 feet away). You have to walk through the smoke to get into the building. I don't care if someone wants to smoke and harm their health, but we non-smokers should not have to be exposed to it.
freedom of choice
Dept of Veterans Affairs
Mon Jun 22, 2009 6:55 PM
I am a smoker, I do not apoligize to anyone for that. I realize the reported affects and make my own conscious choice. I am positive this is not the best choice, but it is still my freedom of choice. I thank a veteran for that. They gave up lives, blood, loved ones, body parts, quality of life activities and many human life elements, etc. all so I could excercise my freedom of choice. I do not believe that my choices should be forced upon others. I do not have the right to expose to potential harm, jeopardize the helath and happiness of, or dictate my beliefs upon any other individual. This also means that another individual does not have the right to dictate to me what is best for me.
I believe in the rights of non-smokers. They choose not to expose themselves to smoke. Designated smoking areas are the best bet, as they will allow each individual to excercise their freedom of choice.
Re: freedom of choice
DOT
Wed Aug 5, 2009 12:11 PM
Better control
Federal
Tue Jun 23, 2009 7:34 AM
I applaud those who are trying to do the right thing for those who choose not to smoke other people's exhaust. I think that the government, if they are going to get bigger anyway should make tobacco products a controlled substance and make everyone get a prescription for them and require they enroll in secession programs. This is the scourge of society and there's no reason for people to be sick and die because they choose to take up such a filthy habit. When their decision to voluntarily take up such habit that makes others sick then whose rights are being violated? I am a former smoker so the "rights" argument doesn't hold water. Others have a right to their health and should not endanger it to ensure others have their "rights" to destroy their health. Sad to consider the deaths of veterans were given so that smokers might sicken innocent others as well as themselves for a recreational habit that is deadly.
Re: Better control
VHA
Tue Jun 23, 2009 3:40 PM
Smoking
Homeland Security
Tue Jun 23, 2009 8:31 AM
To Specialist - Federal: The Union President of the VA's article was lost on you. As a vet, we fought for freedom and choices, as a smoker, I am not thrilled and have quit several times, but it should not be anyone's business. I stay away from non-smokers and I do not smoke in their house, car etc and I realize it is a bad nasty habit, but vets fought for freedom of choice and this is my choice, your choice is not to smoke. You speak of recreational habits - how about drinking? Drinking and driving are a killer too, but we do not have prohibition and so many think they can drink and drive I am not a drinker and I cannot stand the smell of last nights beer on someone who comes to work, it is gross, maybe it is not affecting my health other than making me throw up, but it is in it's own right disgusting and killing the drinker with liver problems. Should we bring back prohibition?
zealots abound
FED GOVT
Tue Jun 23, 2009 10:29 AM
If only the non-smokers would display such fervency against the drug dealers in their neighbor hoods...
smoking
DOD
Tue Jun 23, 2009 12:40 PM
I work in at AF base and they have all the smoking areas right outside the doors---they need to make these employees go away from the building...they have already spent lots of money for gazebo's for smokers--non smokers have NOTHING--what part of that scenerio is wrong??
Stop all smoking
MEDCOM
Wed Jun 24, 2009 2:14 PM
Great and yaaaaay. Time is now to stop all smokers from smoking during work hours. When a smoker returns from one of his/her numerous breaks the smell of smoke is still with them and reeks my office space. I have requested coworkers not to come to me for at least 20 minutes after a smoke break. Sad for prouctivity, better for my health. Sad
Re: Stop all smoking
MEDCOM
Thu Jun 25, 2009 9:58 AM
Smoking and Second Hand Smoking Kills
Retired
Wed Jun 24, 2009 2:55 PM
This is one that I support Obama on. Enough said.
second hand smoke and other myths
OPA
Thu Jul 2, 2009 8:32 AM
...employees are dropping like flies from second hand smoke...
...global warming is destroying the world...
...no new taxes...
...spend to get out of debt...
...the surge in Iraq will not work
etc.
Federal workers now protected from secondhand smok
USDA
Tue Jul 21, 2009 8:06 AM
The federal building I work in has now put into place a policy where workers can no longer smoke in the building. Before this plan went into affect there was a first floor area for smokers to congregate. Smokers are no longer allowed to smoke in that area. But...they can still smoke outside the doors of the building (at least 25 feet from the door). But everyone coming in and out of the building still have to walk past the smokers when leaving the building and heading for whatever destination they are going to. So....we are still inhaling that secondhand smoke. So what's the difference? Actually it was better before, because the smokers were confined to one area. Which gave everyone else the choice of walking past that area to get where they were going or go another route to avoid the smokers. We can't do that now!