It is not only that. Smoking cuts across cultural lines - you can smoke with someone who have great difficulty to speak English (which would otherwise be a stupid situation). You can also have a conversation with very poor (manual labourers) without it being akward.
What is also nice is that you can meet people - by just asking for a light. Most smokers are extremely friendly to other smokers and if two people stands outside a building smoking, it is natural for them to talk. It is the new Freemasons.
I've sometimes wonder why tobacco companies doesn't embrace this with a slogan such as: "Smoking turns strangers into friends".
Asking for a light also provides a natural excuse to start a conversation with someone who there's no real reason to approach otherwise.
(I don't smoke myself, but I've ended up in more than one conversation I wouldn't have otherwise had, because I was with a friend who smoked, who approached a stranger in that manner.)
The article makes it look like office smoking is a wild party. It's not. If you're a social person, you'll be a social smoker. But if you're not very social, you'll be smoking alone.
I've smoked all over the world, freezing in Montreal's -30 C blowing winds and baking in Dubai's 45 C humid summers. Most of that time, I was smoking alone.
What I miss is the hourly break from what I'm doing. That thinking time is where I seemed to solve the toughest problems.
If the hourly break makes you more productive, I say take one anyway. Being a smoker shouldn't entitle you to extra privileges, nor should quitting deprive you of any.
I've recently quit smoking and I am feeling a little out in the cold (figuratively speaking) because my network that I've developed over the last 4 years has suddenly been reduced to a simple wave when I pass them rather than meaningful conversations.
The smoking shelter is much like the golf course in my opinion, smokers share an out of work interest and that creates a bond. I know that the interest is a horrifically addictive drug, but it's the (decreasingly) acceptable face of drug taking.
For the bosses that think a smoke break is bad for productivity... You're wrong, things get done on smoke breaks, being away from your desk in a different context gives your unconscious time to work.
Instead of grumbling about smokers taking time out, I'd recommend that non-smokers take up the habit. By which of course I mean the habit of social breaks.
In some settings, I've actually gotten some of the benefits of the smoke-breaks without smoking by simply accompanying smokers who I knew. I suppose it might be awkward if it were 8 smokers plus me as the only non-smoker, but I've mostly worked in offices with very few smokers, who might otherwise be standing outside smoking by themselves, so I ask if I can join them, if it's someone I at least sort of know already.
It does add slightly more social awkwardness, since I sort of have to explain why I would want to join them on a smoke break if I don't smoke, but I actually do genuinely enjoy getting out of my chair and going outside for a few minutes, and maybe swinging by the coffee cart on the way back, and it seems to have worked out well with at least a few coworkers I've had.
Several offices I've worked in now I've intentionally invited non-smokers out to join me - "fancy getting some fresh air while I pollute mine?" is often a good way to phrase it - and with a little care one can arrange for the non-smokers to stand upwind of the smokers to ensure they're not breathing stale smoke.
The reason for this was multifold - it got them a break, it got us a few minutes to chat, and while there was often some socialisation, in a group of programmers there was also almost always useful discussion of the stuff we were working on and brainstorming.
Here at Shadowcat, my development team is geographically distributed but our business guy (co-founder, non-smoker) and sysadmin (fellow smoker) are on site, and all three of us often go out for breaks together and use that time to update each other on where we're up to with stuff (or what we're stuck on) - the end result is as much as anything else an ad-hoc miniature stand-up meeting except with strictly optional carcinogens available at the same time :)
Ah yeah, I've seen that too. I feel smokers, and some non-smokers, are often worried/nervous about that "upwind" aspect, though. If everyone's a smoker or nonsmoker you don't get that, but if it's mixed, people can feel self-conscious about it one way or another. I think it partly works out okay for me because I don't care much about it, because due to a particular history I actually sort of like second-hand smoke, at least in modest amounts, and have a decent story to convince people of why. (More or less: Although I was born/raised in the U.S., half my family's Greek, and I spent a lot of my childhood summers there... and almost nobody I knew in the U.S. while young smoked, while almost everyone I knew in Greece smoked, so I've developed positive associations with cigarette smoke, where it seems totally natural for an outdoor, lounging-and-discussing setting, and reminds me of long dinners by the waterfront and other such pleasant things.)
Smoking is a morbid fascination and an affirmation of our mortality. But it's hard to grasp that significance until you've witnessed an eighteen month battle with lung cancer. It's a slow and painful death.
To be clear, if you smoke there is a very strong possibility you will die tethered to an oxygen machine, wearing a diaper, and unable to swallow.
Not that I'm suggesting that you smoke - because I most certainly am not - but I'm wondering what sort of illusions one might hold about how painless their death might be if they did not smoke?
If you look at the top 20 types of deaths in the United States, nearly all of them are painful. The only certainty is that by smoking you are almost insured of it - supposing a stroke or aneurysm doesn't take you out.
I'm honestly not trolling, I've always felt it curious when people tell me that smoking results in a painful death, leaving me wondering how they think they are going to be going out of this world. Natural causes? Not likely.
Heart disease: 631,636. From what I have read, heart attacks are painful but usually over with quickly. Living with a pacemaker or heart surgery can suck but I'd definitely take that over lung cancer.
Cancer: 559,888. Notably, includes other smoking-related cancers (esophageal, pancreatic, etc) besides just lung.
Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 137,119. Again, over with quickly if it kills you. It's when it doesn't kill you and leaves you half-paralyzed that it sucks.
Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 124,583. "80% to. 90% of all patients with chronic lower respiratory disease have a history of smoking."
Accidents (unintentional injuries): 121,599. No idea how this generalizes. Probably "not as bad as cancer," overall.
Diabetes: 72,449. Unusually non-painful, for something that kills you, although some of the side effects are a bitch (e.g., going blind). Insulin shots or IVs to try to control blood sugar levels are also fairly non-painful as medical intervention goes.
Alzheimer's disease: 72,432. I'd take lung cancer, if I had to pick.
No, serioulsy. It's bad enough if smoking increases your chances of having a lung cancer by 10% or something, but I can't believe 95% percent of the smokers will have a painful death.
So, no need to makes bad things worse than they are.
Death - painful or not - is far off. Most smokers that I know suffer everyday with some sort of problem with the lungs or throat and which they don't admit to non-smokers.
Smokers know the risks (come on, everybody knows the risks), and generally don't care. As the following article states, the mentally ill smoke a lot. It's likely a combination of self-medication and deliberately self-destructive behavior. If tomorrow seems overwhelming, then some hypothetical future illness is just not on the radar. Then there are others who get a kick out of flouting social convention. It's antisocial social behavior...
On the other hand, it significantly reduces costs for public pension systems--- the decrease in smoking leading to higher male life expectancy (slowly approaching traditionally higher female life expectancy) is one of the major factors in the insolvency of various pension schemes. (There are other factors, of course, like declining birth rates and improving health care, but pension funds would be in better shape overall if more people were heavy smokers.)
Yeah, that seems reasonable to me too. It's mostly a counterargument to the "smokers are a burden on society" argument. I think if you added up the various effects, a smoker is close to neutral as a burden on the public purse, compared to a nonsmoker.
An office can get nearly the same effect by installing an automatic espresso machine someplace not too close to close to the desks. Unlike the default American coffee, it's not quite enough liquid to be worth taking back to your desk; you don't waste time preparing it manually; you still need to wait a minute for the sugar to dissolve and the drink to cool off a bit, and then sip on it for another minute or so; and the caffeine content is moderate enough to justify several trips a day.
It also pairs well with cigs, so a smoker and a non-smoker can take a break together without it being awkward.
This. We have a regular espresso machine at work and it's the place talk casually because it takes at least 3-4 minutes to make a latte or a cappuccino. And who will complain about the free coffee? It's a very good way to boost morale at a very low price. Even at 20$/lb :-)
Smoking leads to enhanced conversation and sociability because all the parties involved are satisfying their cravings and enjoying the rush of brain chemicals. Dopamine causes other types of social bonding too, like office workers who go to the gym together, or have a drink after work.
The sad part about smoking however is the control dopamine begins to take over the smoker, so that smoking becomes the high point of their day.
Smoking while coding sucks, there is no good way to do it without drying out your eyeballs. I'm so glad I stopped smoking regularly.
But I still smoke for social reasons. Gives me something to do with my hands, allows me to punctuate points with drags of the cigarette, gives me an excuse to carry an awesome lighter, and introduces me to people.
I can attest to some of this. I've worked with two specific individuals whose careers I believe were directly helped by being smokers. Not to say that they didn't deserve it, but it definitely helped.
I know some people who started smoking because of that. They only smoke at work. I contemplated starting too, but I know I won't do it because I really hate that smell.
I was a work only smoker for a year when my boss smoked and no one else in the dept did. It helped a lot. It was never a kiss-ass thing and there wasn't any direct benefit, no raises over non-smokers or anything.
But when we were working long hours and she went for a smoke I went with her and we shot the shit. It just made us closer and it was more fun to work together overall. (I had quit a pack a day habit years before and when I left that job I stopped the work smoking.)
No. Smoking's hard to stop because it's a crutch OR a boost (besides the physically addictive properties of nicotine). You make a great sale: I'll go have a smoke. You get your ass chewed because you screwed: I'll go have a smoke. So no matter what you're smoking.
The hardest part about quitting for me, was the fact that I'd gotten used to a 5 minute break from MY LIFE every hour or so no matter what I was doing. It was terrifying the first day I stopped habitually smoking all the time, because I had nothing to look forward to. It was like I just had to get through the next tiny chunk of whatever I was doing, but without that smoke break coming up, I had the rest of my life to get through. This was all on a fairly subconscious level and I can articulate it looking back, but at the time I was just really pissy.
I'm sure it's different for everyone. (The psychological part, anyway. I think the physical addiction is just chemistry and takes time to get over.)
Smoking is hard to stop because it's a drug addiction. Like most drug addictions there is a physical component (addiction to nicotine) and a social/psychological component. The physical addiction to nicotine is easy to overcome compared to other physically addictive drugs. The social and psychological aspects are often much harder to deal with.
Well, I quit. But not only I can confirm that what the article says is true, but also that I miss those conversations with strangers during my trips in USA (they were very fun, and bridged the gap I had with my very bad English).
And, yes, lung cancer is a reality... but the alternative of "office drink afternoons" is not way more healthy... ;)
The coolest guy in the world is Jack Nicholson. Obama doesn't even crack the top billion. The question about whether he can smoke inside the White House, though, being a government building, is an interesting one.
Because smoking is a habit cuts across hierarchies, you can meet a broader spectrum of people than just randomly talk to people at a networking event.
Also smoking time is discreet, so your convo have a natural end without awkwardness.