Vertical Clouds

[Kellemora]

I've never worked anywhere where we couldn't smoke, except for in the NASA labs because they were like clean rooms. They didn't like us smoking in the vault at the places I did drafting, nor in the blue ray room since the chemicals there were flamable. But at our desks, it was OK. The only place we couldn't smoke was in the hallways, and no one in the steno pool was allowed to smoke while working in there, but then too, that area was open to the hallways also.
Heck, all the years Ruth worked as a transcriptionist in the hospitals she worked in, they were all allowed to smoke there too. Even after they didn't want patients smoking in their rooms anymore They did keep like 4 or 6 patient rooms at the end of the hall for smokers who would smoke anyhow, hi hi.

I quit smoking for 18 straight months, and in my case, every single day of that 18 months was like the very first day. I became a growly old bear that nobody could stand to be around me. It never did get easier like they said it would. I even went to a hypnotist who normally had excellent results, didn't work for me at all. And after a traumatic event I just went back to smoking.

[yogi]

When I first hired into Motorola the situation with smoking was much as you described above. We could not smoke in the factory, but anywhere else was fine. Then the restrictions came about. A special smoking room was established in each plant, and that was the only place allowed for smoking. It was an amazing sight passing by that room. It looked like a heavy dense fog and I often wondered why people didn't suffocate in there. It was vented too with fans. The greater problem with those smoking rooms was that the smokers were allowed to go there virtually any time of the day to satisfy their needs. Non-smokers quickly became pissed because they had no such options. It didn't take too long for Motorola to ban smoking indoors, but that didn't solve the problem. People just went outside the front door and did their thing with the smokes. That might have worked out but they got messy. A lot of cigarette butts accumulated and it didn't look too cool for any visitors arriving at the front door. Thus a total ban of smoking on campus was implemented. You could not go out to your car and smoke either. There was a lot of grumbling about that ban as you might expect. It did seem unfair that a company could have the power to control your vices that way, but the courts of law said they could. As far as I know nobody died on the job from lack of smoking cigarettes.

They say cigarettes (and alcohol) are addictive chemically and psychologically. The chemical addiction has multiple solutions, chewing gum for example. The psychological reaction is not as simple as detox. I suppose it would take a lot of effort to find out what is behind the psychological needs which is why people end up doing exactly what you did. Quit but found out that was too difficult to maintain.

[Kellemora]

I know when the smoking bans everywhere came into play. My brother, who is a non-smoker by the way, divided up his warehouses into smoking and non-smoking warehouses, and did the same thing with his offices and clerks areas.
This worked out great because smokers could work in their warehouse, and non-smokers in their warehouse.
But then the government decided smoking bans in workplaces and public buildings was universal.
So my brother downsized considerably, sold his offices and warehouses and moved to a new smaller warehouse.
So did a lot of other businesses who chose not to be dictated to by government. But most of those didn't actually shut down per se, they just sold their businesses to someone else and started doing their work from home.

I figure something has got to kill us. I've never heard of anyone on their death bed dying from NOTHING, hi hi.
But in the case of smokers, it doesn't matter what you die from, they will say the smoking did it.
Smokers had some relief during Covid when everybody died from Covid, even those with a fatal injury from something else.

Tobacco and Coffee are the two main addictions in the U.S. of A. One is now scorned, the other still pushed as acceptable.

[yogi]

Yes, the government had a lot to do with the way smoking was regulated in public places. Their intervention nearly always is the result of a lawsuit between parties of opposing viewpoints. Since most people feel they have a right to believe whatever it is they want to believe a referee is often the only solution. That's what happened at Motorola, and I'm sure it was the case elsewhere too. The non smokers were wary about second hand smoke and the smokers said it didn't bother them. Motorola did have their own rules, but they were a very large company with a presence in many states. Thus the only way to settle the issue was through litigation.

So, now, the Surgeon General warns people about the dangers of smoking, but the organization he works for, the Federal Government, says marijuana is ok as long as you tax it properly. There is an interesting story about that from the distant past where the tobacco industry lobbied for legislation to ban marijuana. That gave tobacco total control of distributing that particular addictive substance. Seems like we have come full circle and weed is going to end up being the winner after all.

[Kellemora]

Technically, not all that many folks who smoke have died from smoking.
The reason it may seem so is because of all the biased hype being promoted, aka propaganda.

The two oldest living people in our county, a husband and wife, and who were able to climb up on the King and Queen Float for the Bicentennial Celebration, were both very heavy smokers their entire lives. My Uncle John and Aunt Hilda!

The average lifespan has steadily increased over the years, so illnesses associated with old age, such as Emphysema, if you are over 70 you probably have it, in some cases very mild, but you still have it. If you mowed grass in the midwestern states, you will also have a speculated mass on your lungs.
They attribute the Emphysema to the fact EVERYONE smoked and/or was around smoke most of their lives, ignoring the aging factor as the cause.
They also blame the deaths of never smokers and those never around smoke as being because everyone was around smoke.
Doesn't matter if they lived in the path of smoke from a coal power plant, they blame it on smoking anyhow.
Just like everybody who died these past couple of years died from Covid, hi hi.
If you tested positive for Covid, regardless of how you died, you got listed as a Covid death.
The government wants to keep fueling the pharmaceutical industry, ya think!

[yogi]

The government wants to keep fueling the pharmaceutical industry, ya think!

mmm, no. I don't think that's a function of government.

I do know there has been a lot of what you call propaganda regarding smoking and most of it came from the tobacco industry. It's kind of like that Covid causing the death of everybody when it certainly didn't. A majority of that Covid propaganda originates in the anti vaxxer camp. I am very aware of where you stand and where you are coming from. You did a lot of research on your own which the vast majority of people don't bother doing. You have a good understanding of the situation and that is all to your credit. Your sources of information, however, seem questionable.

I grew up in a house where both parents smoked. For some reason I didn't die as a kid from suffocation and here at the age of 78 my lungs seem to be operating a full capacity. You are not quite my age but have more problems with your lungs than you deserve. Plus, you seem to know exactly how that happened. I'm a bit puzzled by the fact that you still defend smoking given the facts in the matter. I also feel that at your stage in life you should be doing things that make you feel comfortable. So, my friend, carry on. You are doing what is right for you.

[Kellemora]

Smoking is an addiction that is nearly impossible to break once you are hooked.
It's like Fat Cells, no matter how much you diet, those fat cells that built up in your body, never go away, and they keep screaming feed me, feed me, which is why you see very few people succeed at losing weight, and why our country has more obese people than nearly any other country.
There are laws to protect the fat people from being discriminated against, but none to protect the smokers from discrimination, in fact the government promotes the discrimination of smokers and keeps enacting more laws against them, and also taxing them to death.
While they do little to nothing about all the illegal and deadly drugs like Fentenyl pouring into this country.
Smokers are fairly docile people, which is why cigarettes are not completely banned. They remember what happened when they tried Prohibition. You can't stop the people from getting what they want, but they can sure tax it to hell and back.

Sure, we now know smoking is bad for us, but once you are addicted to smoking, as I said, it is nearly impossible to quit.
Best thing is to never start in the first place, and that endeavor is what is helping more than anything else.
Taxing cigarettes as high as they do is not helping the situation one iota, the rich folks don't care, and the poor folks who are addicted can't quit, nor can they afford the expense it takes to try and quit.

What bugs me more than anything is WHY hasn't the government stomped down on Coffee and Tea like they have cigarettes. Over 85% of our adult population is heavily addicted to the Speed Drug Coffee.
You hear them talk about the caffeine in other things, but it is not the same, Tea and Coffee have Tannin, and that Caffeine Tannin Blend is like Caffeine on Steroids, makes it a 100 times more powerful as an addiction.
Many folks who are addicted to Coffee can't even function properly until they have their daily dose of fixes.

Try banning coffee from public buildings, and especially hospitals, and see how that goes over. Coffee drinkers are not as docile as smokers, and the government knows this, and the main reason they decided not to make the ATCF, and dropped the C, creating only the ATF. And coffee is not even considered by the DEA, they thrive on it too!

[yogi]

Drug addictions of any kind are not a good thing. We agree on that point. Tobacco smoke can kill you. Coffee can't be taken in enough quantity to be lethal. You would drown first. The drug addicts of the world protest loudly that they should have a right to choose how they abuse their own bodies. That ranks right up there with the abortion people protesting. In the final analysis we as Americans embrace the idea of personal freedom to an extreme. Some of us Americans are too dumb to know where their freedom ends and mine begins. Thus there are laws that try to define such things. Currently the laws are designed to discourage smoking, but not coffee or tea drinking. You may not agree with the reasoning for said laws, but you and I live in a place where we are not above the laws of the land. So we must comply.

The tax on tobacco isn't specifically designed to cure the addicts of their bad habit. There are clinics and therapies easily available for addiction cures, and paid for by those taxes. The tax is designed to discourage people from taking up smoking in the first place. As far as the fight against fentanyl goes, I'll just end with this quote:

As 2022 comes to an end, the Drug Enforcement Administration is announcing the seizure of over 50.6 million fentanyl-laced, fake prescription pills and more than 10,000 pounds of fentanyl powder this calendar year.

[Kellemora]

It is good if they can convince people to never start smoking. But because it is so addicting, once addicted it is nearly impossible to quit. Albeit, I know quite a few folks who managed to quit, and more than half of them ended up in a divorce over it, and a few lost their jobs. Other simply quit their jobs and went somewhere where they could still work and smoke.


You might be interested in some paragraphs I put together concerning coffee. I included the sources of the data at the end.
I might add, I don't know anyone who drinks coffee who drinks less than the amount considered safe, 200 mg a day.

Here's the articles.

In North America, 83% of adults consume coffee daily, with over one-half of U.S. residents consuming over 300 milligrams per day, making it North America's most popular drug.

Coffee is the world's most widely consumed psychoactive substance, but unlike many others, it is unfortunately legal and unregulated in nearly all jurisdictions. It affects you in a similar way that amphetamines, cocaine, and heroin stimulate your brain, although it has a much milder affect, it does have the same addictive qualities as these other drugs.

Scientists have classified caffeine as a psychoactive mind-altering drug that can alter moods and behavior, it affects how we think and feel. It is a stimulant of the central nervous system that speeds up our breathing, heart rate, thoughts and actions.
Known medically as trimethylxanthine, caffeine in its pure form is a white, bitter tasting powder.
While high amounts are naturally found in chocolate, coffee and tea, greatly enhanced by natural tannins, very small amounts without tannins are also added to many soft drinks and medications. Tannins can bind to many medications and decrease how much medicine the body absorbs.

When coffee is consumed in moderation, usually defined as less than 200 milligrams per day, conservatively the amount in one to two cups of coffee per day, most researchers concluded there is little risk to people's health.
However, somewhere along the way, the speed drug coffee and caffeine substitutes have become an obsession for many Americans. Consuming more than 300 milligrams per day poses serious health risks, and over 600 milligrams per day can cause death.

Sources: Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research, Food and Drug Administration, National Institutes of Health, American Academy of Family Physicians, Harvard School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine.

[yogi]

I have high regard for Mayo Clinic and those other quoted sources are considered expert as well. The information you present is valid and good, but it is also somewhat biased. For example you write "It affects you in a similar way that amphetamines, cocaine, and heroin stimulate your brain, although it has a much milder affect, it does have the same addictive qualities as these other drugs." Similar affectations as dangerous drugs is not the same as the "much milder" effects to which you refer. It can't be both dangerous and mild.

I've read a few articles over the years regarding caffeine and found a lack of consensus. The dosages of safe intake seem to be questionable as well as the observable effects. I don't have any articles at hand to counter your above arguments, but I did find an interesting resource. It's an artificial intelligence search engine that queries all the databases it can find to come up with a conversational mode of replies. I inquired about caffeine and this is the chat log:

• Is the caffeine in coffee psychoactive?
  
  Yes, caffeine is a psychoactive substance and it is found naturally in coffee. Caffeine acts on the central nervous system and can have a range of effects, including increased alertness, improved concentration, and increased energy. Regular consumption of caffeine can lead to dependence, so it is important to consume it in moderation.
  
  Are the overall effects of drinking coffee good or bad?
  
  The overall effects of drinking coffee vary depending on the individual and the amount consumed. Generally, moderate coffee consumption (up to 400 mg/day or 4 cups of coffee) has been linked to various health benefits, including improved mental alertness, reduced risk of some chronic diseases, and improved physical performance. However, high doses of caffeine can cause restlessness, anxiety, headaches, and insomnia. Therefore, it is important to be mindful of your caffeine intake and consume it in moderation.

Perhaps I asked biased questions, but the AI machine emphasized the positive effects over the negative ones. And, as extreme as the word "psychoactive" might sound, it merely means that the mind is affected.

Here's the link if you want to chat with an AI search engine some time: https://you.com/search

[Kellemora]

Did you ever notice when they are talking about coffee, they NEVER mention the compounded affect due to the Tannin?

This is why when you see folks comparing coffee to caffeinated soda, looking only at the caffeine content, they don't understand why soda is not really addictive. Even if you are hooked on soda like I am, 6 to 8 cans a day for over 60 years.
When I switched to non-caffeinated soda, I had zero withdrawal symptoms.
You can't say that about folks who are addicted to coffee!
For the simple reason, it's not just the caffeine, it is the caffeine/tannin blend that is highly addictive.

[yogi]

The emphasis on addiction is overstated in my opinion. What is so bad about addictions? You admit to being addicted to soda so that I find it hard to understand why being addicted to coffee is worse. Detox is always a traumatic experience no matter what substance you are eliminating. I need not remind you of the detoxification effects you experienced when you quit smoking. You overcame that and didn't kill anybody in the process. You might have lost a friend or two, but that's their loss. Addiction to coffee may in fact be hastened by the tannin, but does it matter what causes the addiction? More to the point, does it matter if you are addicted at all? As a coffee drinker I'd say, no. I've not tried to stop drinking it, but my wife has. She has experienced no negative effects, albeit the substitute drink (ginger tea) is beneficial to her. I'd say she can become addicted to that ginger tea in that she relies on it to feel better. That would be a case of an addiction being a good thing.

I'm with you 100% about messing with one's brain. Altering the function of the brain should be avoided. Coffee, like smoking, can be both addictive and create a dependency. It might be splitting hairs to point out the difference between the two, but the coffee drinkers you have described to me in the past are victims of dependency. Their bodies need the chemicals that coffee provides. Addictions are characterized by compulsion and an inability to control one's behavior. I know of folks who can't quite smoking, for example, and others who successfully quit drinking coffee. The out of control aspect of addictions can be dangerous, but, frankly, I've never seen a coffee drinker go out of control which is not saying the don't get irritable. But, I have heard of cigarette smokers who become violent when tobacco deprived. I'm not making any accusations here, but there is a distinction to be made between dependency and addiction.

I'll end this rant by pointing out that there are no known benefits to smoking tobacco, but there are benefits (for some people) from drinking coffee.

[Kellemora]

Only mild doses of coffee, which used to be under 200 mg of caffeine, but I see they've boosted that number up to 400 to appease whom?

[yogi]

Your skepticism is well taken. Nobody is being appeased, however. The increase in quantity for safe intake is the result of scientific studies.

[Kellemora]

Did that scientific study include lost manhours at their places of employment?

[yogi]

Scientific method isn't that complicated to understand. You can read about it any time you care to. The point of doing studies is to learn about how things work. Consequential damage or benefits from obtaining such knowledge isn't something researchers are concerned about.

[Kellemora]

I just saw some charts on death rates from Covid-19.
The US was showing over 3,000 deaths per million over the past year, with 81% vaccinated.
And another country had only 40 deaths per million with only 3% vaccinated. I wonder why.
I also wonder how accurate those charts are also.

[yogi]

You must admit that today in 2022 there is well more information and data available for our perusal than there ever was in our entire life. There is so much information that not even Google can store it all. LOL The germane point is that you need to look at all that information intelligently. There is a lot of misinformation and disinformation out there not to mention the outright lies. It's not easy sifting through all the garbage and filtering out the elements of truth. The scientific method is reliable and has proven itself over many years, but even the scientists doing the research will admit that only one investigation is not enough. So it is when searching for enlightenment from the available knowledge bases. You need to have many independent sources and be able to filter out the common points of agreement. More important is the quality of the source. A thousand bad sources will still yield a false conclusion.

As far as COVID goes there is no doubt that vaccinated people have less problems than people not vaccinated. Fewer deaths are recorded for people who have been fully vaccinated. Those are general conclusions to be sure, but I think the trend (and truth) is clear. The details and statistics will be discussed by our great grandchildren and still not be known entirely.

[Kellemora]

Oh I agree wholeheartedly with all the BOGUS information out there, including the Satire when you don't know it's satire.

But then the Internet does have places where you can check data that is verified by many folks putting in their two cents too.

What I do like is that you can weed through all the sources of those known reliable and see how much differently they each report their tests on something. I used to have a little bit of phun going into some of those sites and showing them just how wrong those who are supposed to know are, because they left out some of the most important data in their studies.
One example is the top Fire Marshal making companies make things a certain way to help prevent fires, or so they claim.
But the drawback of that was, they are now creating 80% more sparks because of it. But apparently sparks do not start things like cloth furniture or clothing on fire, hi hi. Yet my engine runs because of the sparks inside, hi hi.

I think any and all reporting about Covid is totally biased, as are the reports about the vaccines.
You can get killed by being hit by a train, and if you tested positive for Covid, they would classify it as a Covid death and not even mention the fact the train is what killed them.
And if the shots worked, why do you need more than one, two, three, or what are they up to now FIVE or more?
And what about all those with BAD reactions to the shots, and the few deaths from the shots themselves.
Politicians call that collateral damage, the military calls it friendly fire, drug companies are immune.

[yogi]

It truly amazes me the number of times I've seen hot debates in places such as Twitter cite The Onion or Andy Borowitz as credible sources of information. Those two actually are well informed, but anybody mistaking them for being a reliable source should not be messing with the Internet in the first place. To me the greatest problem of all is cognitive dissonance where people have proofs stacked a mile high, but nothing at all from a counter point of view. As you say, it can all be quite amusing when it comes to debate. Science isn't like that at all.

You have some excellent questions about Covid and the vaccines related to it. There is ample information from credible sources to answer all your questions. Even I have attempted to explain a few things here in these forums. And, you STILL have questions. Well, that's a good thing. It shows your mind is still active and curious.