Conference 7.286::digital

                      PERSONNEL                       Section 6.35       
                                                      Page  1 of 2       
               POLICIES AND PROCEDURES                Effective 03-JAN-89


                                   Smoking


                     SMOKING POLICY - U.S. ONLY


POLICY

| Digital strives to create and maintain a safe and healthy working
| environment for all employees.  Therefore, it is the policy of the
| Company to prohibit smoking in all Digital owned and leased
| buildings except in designated smoking areas.

| The intent of this policy is to enable all employees to work in an
| environment where smoke has been eliminated or reduced to a
| minimum.  However, since some employees wish to smoke at work, the
| Company will provide a designated area(s) where these employees can
| smoke.

PRACTICE

| DESIGNATED SMOKING AREA(S)

| A designated smoking area is enclosed by floor to ceiling walls and
| has a separate exhaust system which is vented outside of the
| building.  There should be chairs and tables only in this area as
| this is not intended to be used as a working or meeting area.
| Where practical, one area should be constructed in or adjacent to
| the cafeteria.  The amount of space allocated for designated
| smoking areas should vary depending upon the employee population at
| a facility. Additional space can be allocated for customers/
| visitors if felt appropriate.

| Where it is not possible to ventilate the designated smoking area
| to the outside because of lease restrictions, the facility will
| provide a designated smoking area(s) which is not separately
| ventilated.

RESPONSIBILITIES

| Employees - Employees are expected to limit smoking to designated
| smoking areas and to use these areas appropriately during lunch
| and or breaks.

| Managers - Managers must ensure that this policy is implemented and
| enforced in their respective facility/organization and take prompt
| action should any individual be smoking outside of a designated
| smoking area.

| Facility Managers - Facility managers have responsibilities to
| ensure that space for designated smoking areas is properly located,
| properly constructed and ventilated to the outside.  They also have
| responsibility for ensuring that signs which describe this policy
| are prominently placed at all entrances.

| Personnel - The Personnel Organization has the responsibility of
| informing applicants and new employees of this policy.

        The policy spells out the "RESPONSIBILITIES" pretty clearly:

| Employees - Employees are expected to limit smoking to designated
| smoking areas and to use these areas appropriately during lunch
| and or breaks.

| Managers - Managers must ensure that this policy is implemented and
| enforced in their respective facility/organization and take prompt
| action should any individual be smoking outside of a designated
| smoking area.

        As you've remarked, some employees are unwilling to accept
        their responsibility.  That happens with many policies, not
        just this one.
        
        I'd suggest you start by discussing it with your immediate
        manager.  (In your case, Sherry, things are somewhat unusual
        because you happen to be a contractor, not a regular Digital
        employee, but the PP&P makes it pretty clear that it's the right
        thing for you to do, as well, and that policies like this and the
        "Open Door Policy" apply to contractors just as they apply to
        regular Digital employees.)  Express your concern, and ask what
        your manager will do to help.  If you're not satisfied with the
        reply, tell your manager you want to escalate the issue, and ask
        him who you should talk to next. 
        
        Eventually, you'll work your way up to the person who owns the
        problem, and get a definitive answer.  Some managers are trying to
        "do the right thing" by making sure that suitable "designated
        smoking areas" are in place, and that all the managers in the
        organization understand their responsibilities and will be working
        to make sure that those employees who smoke do so only in the
        "DSAs".  Other managers will only implement this when they are
        forced to do so.  (In some facilities, for instance, the first
        communications about the policy only occurred this week, while
        many employees are out on vacation, yet employees are expected
        to not smoke starting next week when they come to work.)
        
        I believe that Bill Heffner and the other senior managers in the
        ZKO facility will do what is needed to make this policy work in
        their facility.  If there are infractions of the policy, it is
        their responsibility to determine what needs to be done to fix the
        problem, but first the problem may need to be brought to their
        attention.  That's what the "Open Door Policy" is all about. (The
        "Open Door Policy" is number 6.02.) 
        
        Tom

Re .0:

A certain other (non-conforming) ZK smoking lounge is not closing until 3-Jan-89
(the first work day after the mandatory policy date of 1-Jan-89).  I conclude
that the new smoking policy might not be formally operative until next week. The
presence of the no-smoking signs posted at the building entrances may just mean
that the Facilities folks got them glued up a week early.

Even if the policy is already operative, the coming weeks will be a stressful
transition period for many of our colleagues.  This is definitely a time for
extra tact in any hazy encounters until folks have had a chance to learn how to
live with the policy.
				/AHM

    Here in San diego we went to a no smoking policy with a designated
    smoking room last summer when the entire facility was revamped and
    additional space procured.  
    
    There have been some violations of the policy but most people have
    complied.  My boss usually takes his smoke breaks outside.
    My group is quite militant on the subject because of allergies (real
    and presummed) and only the boss smokes.  (we get some satisfaction
    being able to MAKE the boss toe the line.)       
    
    Resolution of the violations, SCP (salary continuation plan).

    Other discussions of this and related smoking issues can be found in
    News::No_Smoking. 
    
    FWIW, in MRO1, we've been compliant with the policy since July. So far,
    so good. One of the tricky areas has to do with construction work in
    our building. Many of the workers are on the site for a short time and
    appear not to get the message. The facility manager responsible for the
    construction is quite eager to see the policy enforced.

    Here in Minneapolis we got the delivery wing of our building converted
    to "No Smoking" over a year ago.  Our unit manager (with I believe the
    concurrence of the DM) implemented the wishes of the VAST majority of
    delivery people.  This was made easier because we only had a few
    people who smoked in our unit, but with the exception of one employee
    we had very few problems.  
    
    Now, as far as I know our whole facility is No Smoking.  As far as I
    know, compliance if not a problem.  It DEFINITELY isn't a problem in
    delivery!  There is a large common area where people can go to smoke
    and socialize, which beats going outside in the Minnesota winter!
    Unfortunately, the common area is an area through which most people
    must pass to get to the stairs or elevators, and thus to the businesses
    in the building.
    
    D

re: .0

I work in ZKO but received no official notice that the policy would
be put in effect prior to today (Jan 1, 1989).

Consequently either a) you are mistaken, no infraction could have
occured prior to midnight or b) the change of implementation date
was inadequately distributed.

Heffner is no longer ZKO facility manager; Friedrich is.

I fail to see how a plus or minus a week could be of significance
anyway.  Regardless, I wouldn't jump at the first sign of smoke
as an indication of the seriousness of the company's intent.  I'm
confident it will be enforced better than, for example, traffic law.
I'm equally confident that the policy will both be "tested" and
occassionaly innocently forgotten.

These are evidence of mankind's nature and fraility, not statements
about Digital's concern for the health of its employees.

- greg

    Our secretaries in ZKO have been forwarding memos from personnel,
    health services, and facilities for about a year now covering this
    subject.  I assumed those were "official notices".  I am amazed
    that some groups like ours appear to get all of them,while in other
    groups they don't make it to the end users at all.  People do have
    a right to have fair advance warning of a potentially major change.
    
    If someone decided we could no longer take coffee to our desks,
    I'd need at least 3 months to perform a major morning schedule
    adjustment!
    
    I'm amazed that even some of the most considerate smokers feel that
    the halls "don't count".  We also got a memo suggesting that visitors
    to the facility might not be aware of the policy, and asking us
    to handle all interactions on this subject with tact!

    You talk of three months notice for coffee when we did not at CXO
    get the courtesy of a week on smoking?  I must admit that our short
    notice was due to handling it through personnel which organization
    has an upper level policy that we are all children.
    
    Anyway, we smokers must enjoy while we can.  The corporate message
    so strongly states that we can keep smoking as long as we do it
    in dark corners that I am convinced that bomb, equivalent to firing,
    is in the works for us old time smokers.
    
    Chuck (It's one gol' dern heck of a mile for this Camel!)
           To quote Kipling - Humph, humph, humph!

    Re -.6

>            	At the site where I work (CXO3 in Colorado Springs,) we've
>    	had problems getting some people to comply with the No Smoking
>    	policy since it started 18 months ago.  In our case, the policy
>    	was set by the City (when an ordinance was passed that restricted
>    	the areas where people could smoke in businesses.)
>    
>    	Granted, the policy came down quickly and there were many who
>    	felt that they needed time to adjust to it, so much time was
>    	given.  For the first entire YEAR, in fact, there were people
>    	smoking in cubicles in my area on an on-going basis (with some
>    	making no effort whatsoever after the first few weeks to comply
>    	with the policy.)


        No official time was given to 'adjust' to this policy.  If you
        allowed the smoking to occur, then it is your fault that it
        continued.  You should have first gone to your manager, stated
        local company policy and city ordinance.  If your manager didn't do
        anything, then you should have gone to personnel.  If they didn't
        do anything, you should have gone to the Colorado Springs Health
        Department. 

	I too lived in CXO3 and I didn't put up with it for a second.  If
	I saw someone smoking and that included the center manager, I was
	in personnel.  I spoke several times to the personnel manager and
	followed up on my complaints.

	I never heard of a rumor where one would be walked out the door
	for smoking and until just 2 months ago, I've was in CXO3 and
	Chestnut St for 7 years (Presently in KDT).
	

	Now for the policy coming down quickly.  This issue was debated
	heavily in the city elections.  It was an issue that was talked
	about by just about everyone around town.  Once the ordinance was
	passed, company's were given time to begin enforcing it.  CXO3
	already had a local smoking policy (to some extent) so the policy
	and its enforcement didn't just happen overnight.
        

I didn't say we didn't get official notice, I said we got no notice
that the timetable was advanced by a week.

I doubt that it was ... I imagine the signs were simply posted in
advance of the effective date (and given it was the holiday season
that was understandable and prudent).

Obviously the policy is/will be enforced somewhat unevenly at first,
but I've no question as to the company seriousness on the issue, the
need for the policy, nor that human nature will lead to mixtures of
tact and abrasiveness.

But before you yell at anyone PLEASE first determine if they are
a CUSTOMER.  You might also understand that this is a US policy
and that when employees from other countries visit it will be easy
for them to innocently forget ...

There will of course be US employees whose behavior is less than
tactful (on both sides).  Value differences I guess.

- greg

> Now, as far as I know our whole facility is No Smoking.  

> There is a large common area where people can go to smoke
>    and socialize, which beats going outside in the Minnesota winter!
>    Unfortunately, the common area is an area through which most people
>    must pass to get to the stairs or elevators, and thus to the businesses
>    in the building.

	If non-smokers have to pass through this area, then your facility
	is NOT in compliance with the policy.

Frank

    re last few...
    
    I'm not personally worried about visitors (customers, international
    employees, significant others...) violating the no-smoking policy.
    I'm interested in site residents (DEC employees, contractors,  credit
    union employees, cafeteria workers, etc.) who are at my site every
    day, who I know by face if not by name, and who are annoyed by the
    policy and refuse to abide by it.  I've had to put up with their
    smoke everywhere but my own home for years and years.  I have hated
    it since since childhood.  But social convention has asserted that
    *I* was rude if I said anything to them.  Now, however, it's Policy.
    Before the policy was put into effect, I complained about smoker
    who regularly used a single person non-smoking ladies room for her
    cigrette break.  The site still allowed smoking, but that room was
    designated off-limits.  Nobody cared or did anything, and I talked
    to everyone from my supervisor to health services to security. 
    (I did not talk to the culprit herself because I have no proof that
    she was the only one doing that, and I suspect there are at least
    two women involved -- one sprays Ambush [or something like it] to
    cover the smell, one doesn't!)  It's still going on.
    
    I empathasize with smokers to the degree that I know it's an addiction
    and they "can't help it".  But it was always a particularly stupid
    addiction (in my humble opinion) and one easy to avoid starting.
    It has nasty effects on the smoker's body and nasty effects on mine,
    which I resent!  It stinks!  I think the part I hate the most is
    the smell!  So, what WILL be done to make non-compliant smokers
    STOP?  I see a chain of complaints, but I still don't see what
    enforcement is available.
    
    I understand that if somebody is caught with alcohol on DEC property,
    they can be fired on the spot.  Is there any REAL punishment for
    smokers who violate that policy?  (I wouldn't expect firing, but
    I wouldn't be upset with one written warning leading to an increasingly
    long suspension, for example.)  Or is it just the pressure of guilt,
    possible restriction of promotions, and other "discretionary" things
    like that?
    
    (By the way, I was told by Facilities that the smoking policy at
    ZKO was effective when the smoking room in the cafeteria opened,
    the signs were posted at the entrances, and the other no-smoking
    signs removed from throughout the building -- which happened in
    the last week of December.  If that was not "official", I apologize
    for the inaccuracy, but my questions still stand -- it's definitely
    in effect NOW!!!)
    
    Sherry

re .14 (and previous):

>> There is a large common area where people can go to smoke
>>    and socialize, ... the common area is an area through which most people
>>    must pass to get to the stairs or elevators, and thus to the businesses
>>    in the building.
>
>	If non-smokers have to pass through this area, then your facility
>	is NOT in compliance with the policy.

There may be a tiny loophole in the policy that permits this in buildings not
owned by Dec where the landlord doesn't permit full compliance.  It is
not within the *spirit* of the policy, however.

Martin.

Ps: NEWS::NO_SMOKING and HSSWS1::SMOKERS both discuss smoking.  The latter
is from the perspective of Smokers (and non-smokers are especially discouraged
from telling smokers they're "pond scum").

DEC can't do anything about common areas which are not leased to DEC.

But the policy doesn't permit smoking within any common area in DEC's part of
even leased buildings.  DEC facilities must have DSAs which are for smoking
only.

The "loophole" (I think that's really too loaded a word) allows the DSA to not
be separately ventilated in *leased* facilities where the lease arrangements
don't permit DEC to muck around with the HVAC or to get the landlord to do it
for us.

/john

        I think that Sherry's point about rest rooms is particularly
        relevant.  Here in MKO2, there are still ash trays in the mens
        rooms (I can't speak for the other gender rooms, I'm not about
        to look), and I suspect that that carries a subtle message
        that "smoking in the boy's room" is OK.  I'm contacting the
        facility manager to see what will be done about removing the
        ash trays from all areas in the building that are not the real
        DSAs.
        
        Tom

    .18 points to an interesting problem - if I see an ash tray NOT
    near a door, I assume I can smoke.  An ash tray near a door and
    no other in a room I assume is placed there for me to use to get
    rid of the one I may have been smoking when I came in the room.
    
    Because there may be many like me who look for "subtle messages,"
    it really is important to yank the ash trays where they should
    not be.
    
    Chuck
    

    re: -last few
    
    Indeed we are in a building we don't own.  We have the first and second
    floors.  The common area is in the basement, but the ceiling extends to
    the second floor so essentially the entire lobby is part of the open
    area.  One of the main building entrances is on a walkway that extends
    through the area (one floor up) into the lobby.  Often the odor
    extends into the lobby.
    
    I believe our facilities people are talking to the building management
    about some modifications.
    
    D

re: .15

Sherry I think it was unfair to all of us (smokers and non smokers and
you in particular) for facilities to tell you that but not tell the
smokers.  So you had every right to believe it was official, but if the
last thing a smoker was told was "effective Jan 1, 1989" they certainly
couldn't know what facilities had told you personally.

Anyway, you may end up less frustrated if you expect smoking to
taper off --- not gradually, but rapidly --- rather than suddenly
going from ALL to NONE.  People being people you'll see this for,
I would guess, two months:

	First week --- lots of forgetting, and lots of testing
	Second week --- occassional forgetting, still some testing
	Third week --- mostly only the hardcore trying to beat the system
	Fourth week --- multiple complaints adding up, beginnings of warnings
	Second month --- tracking down specific offenders and puting them
			 on official notice

Note that I'm guessing about ZK specifically, not all sites.  I imagine
some smaller ones will "go gestpo" from day one, and others will fail
to conform with official policy for some time.

Mind you, you _shouldn't_ have to be patient ... all smoking _should_
have simply ended on day 1.  But it's a big site, with lots of people,
and that means some hard core resistors/abusers/cheaters are bound to
be found.  But expecting that might, repeat might, help you reduce
the anger you'll feel when you see a violation.

You might find this effective:

	Write a note to personnel complaining about the rest room.
	Keep the note.
	Wait a week.
	Write another, appending the first, and this time copying
	   security
	Wait a week
	Write a third, append the first two, and this time copy
	   the site manager (Brad Glass, skye::glass)
	Wait a week
	Write the final one, appending again, and copy Kurt Friedrich
	   who has official responsibility for the site, as well as
	   the heads of security and personnel for the site.

I think you might see the problem go away, since it will be obvious to
everyone that you'll just keep escalating, in complete accordance with
company policy, and I doubt people will want to see you take it outside
the building, which would be the next step.

If the tone of the notes is polite and reasonable, you will not be
perceived as a trouble maker for doing this, and you'll get the
results you want.

I know, you "shouldn't" have to do this, especially after years of
being put upon, but it'll fix your problem.

- greg

        I spoke to the person in MKO's facility management who has the
        site responsibility for implementing the policy.  I was told
        that
        
        (a) the ashtrays in the restrooms would be removed (this has
        happened in my area already)
        
        (b) more "reminder" signs would be posted in areas where there
        seem to be problems
        
        (c) many facility managers (ours in particular, but he said
        there were two dozen others that he knew of) would have rather
        had a simple smoking ban, instead of "designated smoking areas"
        (I suspect that this is based on the historical experience
        of cleaning up after those smokers who don't use ashtrays,
        drop cigarettes on the carpets, and so on).
        
        (d) that Health Services has received some complaints from
        some smokers that the DSAs "stink"
        
        (e) that the policy was phased in early in some parts of MKO
        as people moved into renovated areas of the buildings in the
        past several months (e.g., when CSS moved into MKO1) through
        the initiative of the groups' management
        
        As Greg suggests in .21, some patience is appropriate.  Even where
        all the local management organizations are behind the policy, it
        will take some time for people to accept and adapt to change.
        
        Keep management informed of problems that you are observing, but
        make every effort to do it in a non-confrontational way. 
        
        Tom

>        (d) that Health Services has received some complaints from
>        some smokers that the DSAs "stink"

NOOOOOO!!!   You don't say!

    
    When I was a kid I watched 4 11-12 year olds play 'smokehouse'.
    It went somthing like this...  they  plugged  up all the cracks
    in their little clubhouse and each took in a pack of cigarettes
    and shut the door tight.  They all smoked  them  like mad.  The
    first  guy  to chicken out and come out the door  got  beat  up
    without mercy by the other 3.  When the door did open it looked
    like a  destroyer  laying  down  a  smokescreen  for the entire
    pacific fleet!

    I lost any curiosity  about  what  it  would  be  like to smoke
    real quick.
    
    Maybe  if  the  DSA's do 'stink'  then  that  will  hasten  the
    smoker's desire to quit.

re: >DSA's "stink"

heh, heh, heh ...  What's the difference between a closed "smoking only"
room, and a closed smokers car in the winter?   They both stink.  At 
least in the DSA they won't be able to chuck the butt out the window!

    
    Here in Chicago, we put DSAs into effect on every floor (4) in this
    building. One the 1st floor, we have a very large open area in the
    atrium. Part of it, which is on one corner was designated. This
    area has no chairs, had no ash trays either for a while. Next on
    either side of this area is our Ed Services and our ACT. Even the
    customers had to go smoke there. In front of this area is the security
    receiptonist station for this building. We've had no problems with
    smokers in this building as far as I can tell. I did hear that the
    customers grumbled about it. The DSAs are closets with no windows,
    maybe a fan that trap the smoke in. A majority of people have complied.
    I did see a manager smoke in his enclosed office in the late afternoon
    several times. The problem here is non-smokers who will not be
    satisfied till the last spec of tobacco on this earth has been removed.
    They complain about the smoke, everytime someone opens the door
    of the DSAs. They complain when smokers take memos etc to read in
    the DSA and bring it back and give to a non-smoker. They also complain
    about people smoking on the terrace (outside open-air) of the
    cafeteria. The facilities people felt having a corner of the lobby of
    this building a DSA did not look professional and have remedied the
    situation since. But I felt that Health Services or Facilities (We
    don't have health services here) or Personnel should have offered a few
    "HOW TO STOP SMOKING SEMINARS" to help these people deal with their
    urge to light up frequently. We have seminars on dealing with stress,
    nutrition, etc. why not one on "the hazards of smoking" also.

	Here in NIO there were all kinds of things posted about seminars
	and stuff to help people quit smoking. I thought that that was
	either in the policy or strongly worded in the implimentation
	plan.

				Alfred

This conference says it is about "the Digital way of working".

Is that way to seek revenge, to chuckle over the plight of others?

Did smokers laugh when people said that their smoke made them sick?
Object, get defensive, yes, but laugh and think it was funny?

I don't think Sherry's plight is funny, now or then.

So, hey, let's hope that all the people in all the DSA's get
cancer and die.  Boy, wouldn't THAT serve them right.

- greg

    Re: .28 
    
>>	Did smokers laugh when people said that their smoke made them sick?
>>	Object, get defensive, yes, but laugh and think it was funny?
    
    Yes, even at DEC!  Not most of them, but there are always some nasties
    in any group. 

    The smoking situation has GREATLY improved (for me, at least, not for
    everybody, and not for many of the smokers) at DEC since the
    non-smoking polices began.
    
    In spite of my great relief at the institution of the non-smoking
    rules, I agree with several previous notes that the non-smokers
    (including me) should tread lightly at first since the smokers really
    do have a very difficult time adjusting.  It is incredibly habit
    forming.

    
    The policy is also a tremendous aid to those smokers trying to quit.
    Many non-smokers do not fully understand how addicting smoking is.
    When you're trying to stop the habit, there is nothing worse than the
    person in the cube next to you lighting up, or when your in the
    cafeteria, and someone at your table lights up and offers you a
    butt. As a waning smoker, I am very glad to see this policy come about.
    
    I have found that all the smokers I know are abiding by the policy.
    
    Time to sell that stock in the butt companies...
    
    
    Peter D.
    

    I thought DSA's were supposed to have separate ventilation systems to
    the outside.  If the DSA's stink so much that smokers can't stand it,
    it means they're not ventilated properly and that smoke is going to
    find its way to other parts of the facility.

    I realize that a separate ventilation system may not be practical for
    small leased facilities, but MKO?

    Re: .26:
    
    >> The problem here is non-smokers who will not be satisfied till
    >> the last spec of tobacco on this earth has been removed.  They
    >> complain about the smoke, everytime someone opens the door of
    >> the DSAs.  They complain when smokers take memos etc to read
    >> in the DSA and bring it back and give [it] to a non-smoker.
    
    You don't have to be a human bloodhound to smell the smoke clinging
    to an object that's been exposed to smoke.  My mother, who smokes,
    has given me presents I know are from her without even reading the
    tag.  She's given us candy that we couldn't eat.  The smell clings
    even to papers.
    
    Re: .30:
    
    >> Time to sell that stock in the butt companies...
    
    On the contrary, they're expending their markets to China, the largest
    untapped source of smokers on earth.  I will not comment on the
    ethics of such an action, but they'll make billions.

        RE: .31 -- Unless you are an HVAC (heating/ventilating/a.c.)
        specialist, you may not be aware of the cost of providing a
        high rate of exchange.  The DSAs in MKO have a separate set
        of ducts for exhausting the polluted air to the outside, but
        the rate at which the air is exchanged is limited by the cost
        of heating the air pulled in.  Even with high-technology heat
        exchangers, it's not cost-effective to exchange all the air
        every, say, 5 to 10 minutes.  So a fair amount of "smoked up"
        air remains in the room, certainly long enough to allow the
        smoke particles to adhere to the walls, furniture, and so on.
        
        RE: .32 -- Yes, we have the same problem with gifts from my
        mother.  Anything washable goes immediately into the washer.
        Anything that can't be cleaned is either banished to the garage
        or other outdoor location until it discharges the foul odor,
        or is simply discarded.
        
        Tom

    Thanks, everybody, for the input and support.  I AM trying to be
    patient, but it's hard to know whether things are likely to get
    better or worse if you don't say something early on.  I do try to
    be nonconfrontational (I know for sure one woman who was in there
    again today smoking -- I've tried to make all notes, signs, etc.
    generic so as not to point fingers at her.  Until today, anyhow!
    I recently posted the policy, since this culprit works for the DCU
    and may not have any electronic way of "hearing" about the details.
    But she's getting a personal comment this week -- as friendly as
    I'm able to make it!)
    
    For you folks at sites without health services groups, I strongly
    suggest that you ask your site facilities manager (or whomever) to
    contact the nearest appropriate site that IS sponsoring smoking
    cessation programs (ZKO is, for example) so your people have access
    to programs if they want them.  I believe that even at sites with
    programs, the fees for participation are paid by the employee --
    but the programs are convenient, and I think they are trying for
    a variety of kinds to suit everybody.
    
    Here's to a smoke-free 21st century!
    
    Health to you all!
    
    Sherry

    Has anyone else heard a rumor to the effect that on Jan 1, 1994 
    Digital will close all Designated Smoking Areas (in the US)?

    
    	I haven't heard that one, but sometime in January the HLO
    site will change to a non-smoking facility due to the contamination
    issues with the new semiconductor fab.
    
    		DanF

I also heard the rumor but the date was Jul 1st of 94.

joe

G'Day,

	We converted all of our sites to non-smoking 3 or 4 years ago.  I was
quite surprised when I was in the US and Canada a couple of months ago to see
that there were designated smoking areas.  These were never allocated here.  The
no smoking rule came into effect and the only place left for people to smoke was
outside.  I do have to say that it does annoy me to see so many poeple standing
around outside the building at all times of the day smoking.  Maybe all of us
non-smokers should go out there with them and we could have 700 people standing
around doing nothing.

David.

At ASO the plant manager forbids us to smoke outside in front of the building,
we used to go outside on the patio but they closed that too.

cheers

dave

    I think the closing of "designated smoking areas" has to do with the
    enormous cost of re-circulating the air inside the room with outside
    air. Just something I heard. I guess people were complaining that even
    with a separate room for smoking,they could *still* smell the smoke.
    
    Ken

    Re: several
    
    Are you sure about the effective date being July?
    
    1 April sounds more likely

    	Here in Hudson MA I believe the date is January 10, 1994.

    i heard that chewing on gums can be a substitute for smoking ?

    \nasser

    \nasser!!! Is it REALLY you? Haven't seen any notes affecting
    wisdom since yous been gone outa notesland.
    
    Good to see you're contributary again.
    
    As for gum chewing - its one of those oxmorons aint it? Like
    how can you chew on gums wit no teeths!!!  Bwaahahahaha  ;-)
    
    Good note,
    \nasser  good note...
    
    
    /Bob

    
    Now, if they would stop serving eggs and bacon in the cafeterias
    for breakfast, we will be even more healthy.  Maybe we could switch
    over the smoking rooms to places where people could eat their
    Egg McMuffins(tm) in piece.  Of course, the bloody thought 
    police will eventually interfere everywhere.
    
    Glenn (who enjoys a bowl of Borkum Riff a couple of times a day -- 
    and is somewhat grumpy this morning.)
    
    

    I know what you mean, I had to quit smoking entirely, just so it
    wouldn't bother me at work.
    
    /Bob

    
    Well, I smoked on/off for 15 years (nobody worse than a reformed, 'eh?)
    and I can bloody well tell you...these stupid "I can't smoke so I chew
    Wrigley's" ads are about as realistic as Keith Richards saying "When I
    can't shoot up onstage, I have a Coke!".
    
    I'm all for banning smoking in the work environment entirely, but not
    without due consideration for the addict.  There's teas, herbal
    cigarettes (the legal kind), vitamins, patches, chew (ugh, but does
    contain nicotine), nicotine gum, and more.  The company should also pay
    for any stop-smoking program (some caveats, maybe) since they hired
    smokers and are now telling them they're not welcome.
    
    Ray Charles, when asked if he had ever done anything more difficult
    than kicking the heroin habit replied "Yeah, I stopped smoking". 
    Recent research proves him right...it's just as hard.

    .47 I doubt you're going to get the company to pay for non-
    	smoking courses, etc. - they had several such avenues available
    	a few years back when the policy was first introduced; from what
    	I understand there were some takers, but not many.
    
    	I do have empathy for my smoking co-workers.  I work in a CSC,
    	we're on a short leash as far as leaving our phones is concerned.
    	Getting up for a puff when the urge hits isn't much of an option
    	if you're worried about your next P.A.  Some folks can barely
    	wait an hour between smokes; usually I check the aisle outside
    	my cube before leaving so I don't get trampled by the stampede :-(
    
    	The air in the hallways outside the smoking room can get pretty foul
    	(especially if someone stands with the door open finishing a
    	conversation with someone still in the room); I just try to walk
    	by faster.  Heck, some folks' cubes reek just from the smoke
    	clinging to their hair/clothing; can't say it's caused any adverse
    	problems for me.....and I do have upper respiratory problems.
    
    	If there is a considerable cost savings if the rooms are elimi-
    	nated, I suppose the decision to ban the rooms has *some* merit.
    	Personally though, I hope the rooms aren't eliminated; people
    	are cranky enough these days.  The idea of working around people
    	going through nicotine withdrawal doesn't appeal AT ALL!
    
    	Karen
      

Well the next "No Smoking" issue coming 'down the pike' is the complete
ban. This means you can't even smoke at home. There are a few Corporations
that do this already, most notable is CNN. 

I have *not* heard of any plans to do this in Digital, but it is "in fashion"
right now. 
M 

    If you've never smoked, and I'm not talking about "socially", as in
    having a cigarette with a cocktail, than YOU HAVE NO IDEA HOW DIFFICULT
    IT IS TO QUIT!!!   
    
    If you are offended by people standing outside your facility having a 
    cigarette than PROVIDE THEM WITH A PLACE TO SMOKE!!!  If you have time
    to Note and whine about how people who are outside smoking are wasting
    time (after you've effectively given them no alternative) than YOU ARE
    EQUALLY GUILTY OF WASTING TIME!!!!!
    
    There are MORE THAN TWICE as many reformed/non-smokers abusing the 
    "system" as there are smokers stealing a few minutes for a cigarette.  
    I see people coming and going from the health center here at MKO at
    ALL HOURS.  I'd like to see the workout you get in the time it takes 
    to have a cigarette... or even 3 cigarettes, so who's wasting company
    time?  
       
    Agreed, the nicotine smell that "heavy" smokers carry is bad, but
    hardly as offensive as the wo/men who DOWSE themselves with perfume
    and cologne after thier workout.  Nauseating, simply nauseating. 
    
    You're damn right I'm pissed.
    
    Tim 

    
    This entire issue is becoming very tiresome.  Some people are just
    not happy unless they are legislating your behavior in one
    way or another.  A reasonable person would conclude that the
    smoking rooms are an adequate, measured response that takes
    everyone's concerns into account. 
    
    It seems to me that you need to look at what the real issue
    is.  If people are concerned about secondhand smoke, then, at
    work, the smoking rooms vented outside fix the problem.  Or
    perphaps it is insurance costs?  Fine, then let's start regulating
    what people eat, whether they wear their seatbelts (now there's
    a rathole), whether they can go rock climbing, hangliding,
    bungee jumping, etc.  Better watch out for those unsafe sexual
    practices as well.  Funny how valuing differences goes out the
    window for *certain* subjects, hmmm?  
    
    Perhaps, though, there are some people who just are not content 
    unless they're IN YOUR FACE.  Lucky we don't have any of those
    people at Digital.
    
    Glenn
    
    

Well, the rule in HLO is not being implemented as a health rule but as a
reduction of air contaminants for the FAB6 manufacturing facility rule.  No
smoking will be allowed within 100 feet of the buildings.  It's definitely going
to be rough on the smokers.  Although there will be shelters built outside the
100' buffer zone, they'll still have to put on coats and boots in the winter to
go out there.

I guess it's a price we have to pay for world class manufacturing.

Elaine

   I think they should ban smoking completely -- my reasoning is this:

   	- "No Canobie Lake" ticked off the people living in the GMA;
   	- "No Holiday Turkeys" ticked off the GMA folks again;
   	- The "Vacation accrual" snafu ticked *everybody* off!
   	- The "Tuition reimbursment" plan ticked off all students;

   A total smoking ban will only tick off the smokers -- that's not a very
   large number of people when compared to the total employee population...

   What?

   Oh, you're not supposed to base your policy decisions on the number of
   people you tick off?

   Never mind!
   					andrew
    

    I find it quite ironic that "they" first hound the smokers
    outdoors, and then complain about the people smoking
    outside the building.
    
    If we're going to start listing habits which are offensive
    to co-workers, let me know.  I can name a few, and smoking isn't
    one of them.
    
    dave (lifelong non-smoker, more or less)
    

            .55

    > If we're going to start listing habits which are offensive
    >    to co-workers, let me know.  I can name a few, and smoking isn't
    >    one of them.

    but \Dave, smoking is bad for you to breath it, and other DECeees bad
    habits you allude to, like DECeees making noises and funny sounds
    in their cubes and may be not washing their hands after lunch and
    walking funny and stuff like that (which is what i assume you mean)
    all of this is not bad for you, and it dose not affect you if they
    did it, but smoking well.

    the health officer general of the United States government has shown that
    secondary smoking can lead to bad things just like primary smoking.

    like just the other nite i was in the gyro place here in nashua eating my 
    sandwich and sitting minding my own business when these people sat on 
    the table next to me and started to smoke one after the other, i waited
    for them to finish one, but the minute they did, they blew another one
    on, and the smoke bothered me and i did not enjoy my gyro sandwich any
    more. i dont think this is fair. i think smoking should be panned for
    life except in the privacy of your own home.

    > dave (lifelong non-smoker, more or less)

    good \Dave, i am proud of you, please stay like this so you'll live
    long and happy and all.

    \bye
    \nasser
    who_supports_the_clean_air_act_and_is_a_lifelong_non-smoker_too.

    I maintain the Hudson no-smoking implementation rationale is a smoke
    screen.  The real motive is to discourage Digital employees from
    smoking.  Making employees walk outside 100 feet from the building to
    smoke is a form of social pressure, if not ostracization.
    
    from note .52:
    >Well, the rule in HLO is not being implemented as a health rule but as
    >a reduction of air contaminants for the FAB6 manufacturing facility
    >rule.  No smoking will be allowed within 100 feet of the buildings. 
    >It's definitely going to be rough on the smokers.  Although there will
    >be shelters built outside the 100' buffer zone, they'll still have to
    >put on coats and boots in the winter to go out there.
    >I guess it's a price we have to pay for world class manufacturing.
    
    Here's the facts:
    
    1. Hudson now has 3 buildings.  There's NO technical reason to not
    allow smoking in HLO2, or even HLO1, as the air conditioning systems
    are not connected to the new fab's clean room air systems.
    2. Even if they were, people are NOT the main source of contamination
    in today's integrated circuit manufacturing.  The machines themselves
    introduce most of the killer defects, and that's where engineering
    puts a lot of effort.  
    3. Micron size particles are exhaled for up to an hour after smoking. 
    Just requiring people to go outside doesn't solve the particle problem.
    4. My office in HLO2 has a thick coat of dust on undisturbed surfaces 
    - surely just as much a factor as smoke particles.  Why isn't this
    issue being addressed as well?
    
    All of us in HLO are committed to world class manufacturing - but
    ostracizing smokers won't help us.
    
    John Wilson
    

    "I don't mind what people do, as long as they don't do it in the
    streets and frighten the horses."
    					Mrs Patrick Campbell

    Someone in here suggested other "bad habits" should be banned at
    Digital. One even mentioned overweight employees (though that word
    wasn't used... I believe the word used was FAT)...
    
    Well, I'm here to tell you from personal experience... there are
    managers in this company that already restrict overweight employees
    from certain jobs.. Not a broad practice in this company, but it
    happens.
    
    BUT, a FAT person poses no threat to fellow workers' health, whereas a
    smokers' "second hand smoke" can, has and will cause health problems
    for fellow workers...
    
    So the analogy used holds no baring to this discussion.
    
    YES, being overweight is a health issue for the individual... AND I
    suppose Digital could claim overweight employees would "possibly"
    develop more adverse health related problems, thus causing that
    employee to be out of the office more... BUT these arguments
    are suspect and really can not be said for *all* overweight employees.
    
    Second hand smoke, on the other hand, can and will cause harm to *all*
    employees in the area around the smoker.
    
    I do agree that there should be a program available for smokers who'd
    like to kick the habit... There should also be better programs
    available for other employees to kick other health impairing habits.
    
    Just my opinion!
    
    

    
    	Actually there is a technical reason for the ban in HLO. 
    Semiconductor industry studies have shown that a smoker will
    continue to generate significantly higher particle levels than a 
    non-smoker for up to (can't remember the number, but I know it 
    is longer than 20 minutes) after having a cigarette. 
    
    	The ban is being implemented at this time to compliment various
    other contamination control investments for the new facility.
    
    				DanF
    
    PS: Our SQF semiconductor plant is already a no smoking facility.
    	

    reply to -.1:  Exactly - smokers exhale particles at a higher rate for
    an interval after smoking.  So what does it accomplish to have all
    smokers go outside, then let them in the fab area?  Answer: nothing. 
    As I said, it's a smoke screen.
    
    There is no technical reason to ban smoking in HLO's existing
    buildings.  There may be technical reasons to allow only non-smokers to
    work in fabrication areas.  However, those familiar with semiconductor
    manufacturing know that the wafers-in-process have minimal contact with
    people, and that the processing machines themselves are responsible for
    most of the particulates seen.
    
    John Wilson

    
        Another comment from a dedicated non-smoker who also finds 
        second-hand smoke unpleasant, but .....
    
        There may be valid technical reasons for restricting smoking 
        at or near semiconductor fab like HLO, even to the extent of 
        eliminating smoking rooms.  Fine.  But that doesn't mean 
        smoking rooms have to be eliminated in other facilities.  
        So long as we eliminate second-hand smoke exposure by having 
        smoking rooms for those who need them, I don't see the need 
        for further social re-engineering in the workplace.  Even 
        from the business point of view, it probably makes more sense 
        to support smoking rooms than to have smokers take the time to 
        wander a few hundred yards every hour to an outside location.
    
        But then, on  the social engineering front, I also believe in 
        the freedom of people to harm themselves, so long as there's 
        no impact on others.  So people should have the right not to wear 
        seatbelts, just so long as they themselves pay for the cost of 
        scraping them off windshields and pavement or reassembling them 
        in emergency wards, rather than the rest of us through higher 
        insurance rates.

    
    >    But then, on  the social engineering front, I also believe in 
    >    the freedom of people to harm themselves, so long as there's 
    >    no impact on others. 
    
    A tough distinction to make.  One could make the argument that part of
    the cost of health care bourne by non-smokers is because of the higher
    demand made on services by smokers.  As this affects Digitals
    profitability and our individual pocketbooks, it's hardly "social
    engineering" when a sub-population has a strong fiscal interest in the
    debate.
    
    Colin
    

    
>    A tough distinction to make.  One could make the argument that part of
>    the cost of health care bourne by non-smokers is because of the higher
>    demand made on services by smokers.  As this affects Digitals
>    profitability and our individual pocketbooks, it's hardly "social
>    engineering" when a sub-population has a strong fiscal interest in the
>    debate.

However, there is that same fiscal distiction for many activities that are
not part of the social engineering going on around smoking.  Obesitiy, driving
motocycles, boating, mountain climbing, for that matter, private ownership
and operation of automobiles, all effect the fiscal interest of those who
don't participate.  The drive to correct the behavior of smokers has taken 
on a perversity all its own.

Al 
(non-smoker)
    

    
    re: .59
    
    The smoking rooms take care of this.  It is a stupid argument, and
    I am tired of hearing it.  Just my opinion, of course.
    
    re: .63
    
    People who go rock climbing sometimes break legs.  Why should I
    have to pay for it?  People who go hang gliding sometimes break
    their necks.  Why should I pay for it?  People who engage in 
    virtually anonymous, unsafe sex sometimes get AIDS.  Why should 
    I pay for it?  The simple fact is that if you agree with allowing
    the government (or peer pressure, or exigent public opinion, or what-
    ever) affect personal liberty, we will have a world that truly sucks.  
    Once you've separated people who are concerned about secondhand smoke 
    from the smokers in a rational, reasonable way, anything else is 
    simple McCarthyist nonsense.
    
    I can see a question on job applications: "are you now, or have
    you ever been a smoker....".
    
    Glenn

Assume they got rid of the Designated Smoking Areas and converted them into
conference rooms.  Would you as a non-smoker ever want to hold a meeting in
there?

Not me!  No matter how much they have cleaned it.

    
    
    PLEASE DON'T BREATH WHILE I SMOKE!!!!
    
    
    

    
    
    
    		It is estimated that an average of 1.5 hours of the
    		work day is used up by a smoking employee.
    		Thats 7 1/2 hour a week.
    
    		That includes getting to and from smoking rooms. 

    aw c'mon, that makes it look like the non-smokers are more productive. 
    Who cares if they are in the smoking room or the cafeteria having a
    candy bar?
    
    Mark (snickers are my favorite)

    Imagine if your boss smoked as well. They'd have a captive audience
    in the smoking room.
    
    Is smoking time considered 'personal' - non-work time? Or, is it
    in addition to 'break time'?
    
    

    
    Re.68  Whose estimate?
    
    Re.70  >>Imagine if your boss smoked as well
    
    She does.  
    
    >>non-work time? Or, is it in addition to 'break time'?
    
    It's "break" time.  Period.
    
    Tim 

>    She does.  
    
Lucky, that is. In my group, the boss (non smoker) couldn't understand
why the smokers had to have a cig every few hours...
        
        
>    It's "break" time.  Period.
    
Not fair either. Coffee drinkers I see take coffee trips *plus* breaks.
    
    /Bob
 
       Tim 

    
    
    
    		Who cares "who's estimate?"!
    
    		Figure it out for your self. It's not difficult math..
    
    		This was only average... Everytime I go by a smokingroom,
    	        there seem to be alot of lenthy socializing going on.
    
    		I was under the impression a break was surposed to be
    		10 mins every 4 hrs.       *******

     ref break time in relations to DECeees habits.

    this is all really dont make sense to me if i may say so too.

    i mean your brain can be on break all day long and no one will know,
    so what difference does it make where your _body_ is ?

    may be the ones in the smoking room are sitting thinking about a
    design or technical problem, how do you know or not know? how do you
    that the DECeee who is going for her or his  coffee breaks is not
    thinking while pouring down their coffees?

    the new revolution in the next century and beyond will be in brain
    power utilization, not body power. body power will be left to robots and 
    machinery processes while humans will do the hard things, like
    thinking.

    it is organizations which think is the ones who will prosperous and
    grow and make profits, not the ones who just count bodies in motion.

    remember, thinking is where the power is, we need to think more, the
    more we think the better off we are! we need to give our customer
    thinking solutions, not just body based solutions, i believe strongly 
    in this.

    \bye
    \nasser 

>    		This was only average... Everytime I go by a smokingroom,
>    	        there seem to be alot of lenthy socializing going on.
    

	this is DIGITAL.....you see that in the hallways, at the snack 
	machines, in peoples offices etc etc etc all the time....

	so what if people are socializing in the smoking rooms....thats
	where *YOU* put them....leave them alone for a while and go about 
	*YOUR* business and do *YOUR* job....btw....not that it matters
	much, but i've seen many *NON*-smokers in the smoking rooms 
	socializing as well....obviously you wouldn't be one of them...

	Denny

        >Sorry to disagree but they *don't*! Unless a "smoking room" is
    >    "air-tight",some smoke will get out.

    i agree with \Ken on this.

    i think the smoking room should be isolated from the main facilities
    of the main building. i think it should be located like out in the
    woods away and to get to it you have to get out and walk like 3 miles
    to get to it.

    this way we'll help discourage DECeees from smoking because no DECeee
    will want to walk 6 miles round trip just for a buff, (especially in
    cold snowy days like we have here in mamshsusststes and new hamshire,
    which is i assume most of the smoking DECeees are located), and if they did
    the exercise will be good for them, so this is like hitting 2 birds 
    with one stone.

    \nasser

    
    BTW, what are they planning to do with these former smoking rooms?
    
    

re: .78
    
>    BTW, what are they planning to do with these former smoking rooms?
    
garage space for limousines (have one close by when you need a quick getaway)
?


;^)

>>    BTW, what are they planning to do with these former smoking rooms?
>    
>garage space for limousines (have one close by when you need a quick 
>getaway)?

Actually, they'd make dandy paint booths for the limos so we can make sure 
they are all black. :-)

Dave

    
    
    RE:  .74
    
    Nasser that was the most intelligent thing I have ever seen you write,
    
    Then you blew it with ".77", get a life.  There are more dangers
    from plastic outgassing from computer cabinets and fumes from new 
    carpeting and common building materials found in an office environment 
    than from a few puffs of smoke escaping from the smoke rooms.
    
    gb
    
    
      

        .81

    >Nasser that was the most intelligent thing I have ever seen you write,

    thanks !!! if you read more of my thoughts that i put in writings, you'll 
    find out that sometimes i do write very intelligent things indeed !
    
    >Then you blew it with ".77", get a life.  

    well, i have to make sure i average things out else people might
    get the wrong idea .
    
    >from plastic outgassing from computer cabinets and fumes from new 
    >carpeting and common building materials found in an office environment 

    i agree, this is a good point. thanks for pointing it out. we should
    also try to pan computers peripherals and office fumes that are bad
    for us. but it is easier i guess to control smoking than fumes from new
    carpets , but i think every thing that makes bad smoke come out of it
    should be controlled. 

    \bye and thanks again for the compliements.
    \nasser
    ps. by the way, i have been told many times to go get a life, ok, fair 
    enough, but no one has said yet where do people go to get them from? this 
    is really weird if you ask me.

    RE: .72
    
>Lucky, that is. In my group, the boss (non smoker) couldn't understand
>why the smokers had to have a cig every few hours...
    
    Could you explain it to me because I don't either. Frankly the more I
    think about this notion the more it scares me. What happens to you if
    you don't have the cig every few hours?
    
    			Alfred

<<< Note 685.83 by CVG::THOMPSON "Who will rid me of this meddlesome priest?" >>>

    
>    Could you explain it to me because I don't either. Frankly the more I
>    think about this notion the more it scares me. What happens to you if
>    you don't have the cig every few hours?
 
	For a truly addicted smoker, the symptoms are much like any other
	drug witdrawal. Depending on the level of addiction they can be
	quite severe. This is why the most successful method of quitting
	is the transdermal patch. This is actually a detox process that
	takes two months to complete. And then the success rate is only 
	80% (unfortunately, at the moment I'm in the 20% group).

Jim

     > Could you explain it to me because I don't either. Frankly the more
     > I think about this notion the more it scares me. What happens to you
     > if you don't have the cig every few hours?
    
    I drink coffee every morning. If I suddenly stop, I have a whopper of a
    headache for the next two or three days. This is a common symptom when
    someone suddenly stops drinking coffee, and is pretty minor as
    withdrawal symptoms go.
    
    My sister runs every day. If she has to stop, she experiences severe
    withdrawal symptoms. She gets nervous and irritable, and very depressed.
    Exercise, especially heavy excerise, is highly addictive. Something to
    do with the endorphins (?) that the body releases when you stress it
    past a certain point. After a couple of days, she is practically
    climbing walls with her desire to run. 
    
    Cessation of lots of things cause either physical or emotional
    withdrawal symptoms. Cigarettes are only one. For many people, the
    withdrawal symptoms are truly severe. For a few, they're not bad at
    all.
    
    Marleen

    does DEC have a program to help DECeeees kick the habit of smoking?
    
    it seems like a good idea to have one like this ? plus i think a 
    support group meeting for smoking anonymous where people talk to each
    others about their withdrawals experiences can also help. 

    i think a program like this would be very good idea to have.

    \nasser

    Off on a tangent, but exercise DEFINITELY gives a high and an equal 
    amount  of withdrawal symtoms.  I live with a runner who gets UMS 
    (Ugly Mood Swings) when she hasn't run for a couple of days (fortunately 
    that's rare).
    
    Re Jim
    
    I didn't think the patch was that successful... 80%?
    
    Re Alfred
    
    The aforementioned runner I live with _bought_ me cigarettes to curb
    my UMSs when I tried to quit cold turkey.  Nicotine has got a good
    grip, now if I just could. 8)|(   <--mixed emotions
    
    Tim

    RE: Running

    Any life style that requires running isn't worth living. :-)

    But both coffee drinkers and runners can go a few hours without
    indulging. And in fact you can go a whole day or two. My wife had
    to give up caffeine for medical reasons. It took a couple of days
    but it wasn't really a big deal. Frankly I think I'd give up on
    general principle any activity that caused me distress to do without
    for a couple of days or less.

    			Alfred

    re .88 - 
    
    That's exactly why I quit smoking. (3 packs/day * 25 years) I did it
    on my terms. 
    
    On quiting:
    1st time was in basic training. cold turkey lasted 6 weeks. The first
    privledge we were given was "smoke 'em if you got 'em". We passed
    around a stale Pall Mall - almost puked.
    
    2nd time was 5 years ago. cold turkey. This time it stuck because
    I *wanted* to quit. 
    
    Its usually easier to modify behavior voluntarily, than it is to have it
    forced.
    
    /Bob

    	> Frankly I think I'd give up on general principle any 
    	> activity that caused me distress to do without for a 
    	> couple of days or less.

    That's why I finally quit smoking. The idea of being dependent on
    cigarettes finally became worse, for me, than what I had to go through
    to stop smoking. 
    
    Doesn't mean I don't miss them, though -- I do. A lot.
    
    Marleen 

    .90
    
    I'd be distressed if, for a couple of days...
    
    I had no employment and no income -- should I give up work?
    
    I had no air -- should I give up breathing?
    
    I had no food or drink -- should I give up eating and drinking?
    
    I had to work with such weak-willed people as myself -- should _you_
    give up...?

    re: .91

    You're right. I wouldn't give up EVERYTHING that caused me distress to
    do without for a couple of days. 

    Just because it would cause me distress to do without air, or water, 
    or food, I haven't tried to give them up (although I've been trying 
    real hard to do with a little less food these days :-]  )

    But that *is* why I finally stopped smoking. 

    Understand that this doesn't mean that I disagree with smoking. I stand
    up for smokers more often than some smokers I know stand up for
    themselves. I think that smokers are getting a pretty rotten deal these
    days. I think that . . . well,  I shouldn't get  started - I could go
    on forever. 

    I just don't smoke anymore, that's all. And not wanting to always
    *have* to have cigarettes with me, no matter where I went or what I
    did, was the main reason why I stopped. 

    Marleen

    Marleen
    
    Nice to know you meant what you did and that it was just my
    (deliberate) inability to understand which caused my confusion.
    
    What surprises me about the strength of feeling coming from the various
    view points is the inherent suppression of the current other hot topic,
    Valuing Differences.
    
    How does the 'Valuing Differences' philosophy relate to the 'don't
    smoke within 100 yards of where I work' philosophy?

    
    >How does the 'Valuing Differences' philosophy relate to the 'don't
    >smoke within 100 yards of where I work' philosophy?
    
    It doesn't. Valuing Differences only applies to things that are
    protected by law.
    
    			Alfred

    One note asked what might happen if someone does not get a dose every
    few hours. One interesting psych finding is a phenomena called "drug
    labeled learning".  Smokers who are used to performing tasks while
    under the influence of nicotine are inclined to make more errors when
    nicotine is denied.  

    The theory behind this is that learning, which occurs as a biochemical
    process in the brain,  is somehow tagged by the presence of nicotine.  
    Smokers tend to "forget" in the absence of nicotine.  This is not
    peculiar to smoking, but works for alcohol and other drugs too.  Even
    relatively simple repetitive tasks were influenced by the absence of
    nicotine, such as rote learning and repetition of lists of words.
    
    Studies of students who smoke indicate that they make more errors
    during 3-hour examinations when cigarettes are denied, yet many of them
    reported smoking even more heavily while studying for exams - as do
    many smokers during times of stress.

    So, it could be counter-productive for corporations to ban cigarettes
    in the workplace without allowing an alternative such as liquid snuff.
    
    Colin

    
>>    So, it could be counter-productive for corporations to ban cigarettes
>>    in the workplace without allowing an alternative such as liquid snuff.
    
    On the contrary, ban cigarette smoking now so that what they're
    learning *now* won't be forgotten when smoking is eventually banned!
    
    (couldn't resist)
    
    P.S. Should those of us who spent college days is a drunken stupor be
    allowed to drink on the job?

All of you anti-smokers out there should be ashamed of yourselves.   You should
thank each and every smoker you see, everytime they fire up.  You should 
encourage them to smoke as often as they'd like... 4 or 5 packs a day would be
wonderful!

After all, one of the primary sources of funding for YOUR national health
care program is from taxes on THEIR cigarettes.  The more they smoke, the 
less you pay.

Big 8^)

Bob

    re: .89
    
    Almost fits my experience to a "T".  Funny thing about basic training
    was that first cigarette gave everyone a real cheap "high" (and made a
    few folks sick).  That should have given warning enough, but no, most
    of us smokers kept on smoking.
    
    I quit after 25 years of 3+ packs a day (and I was righteously
    indignant every time someone implied that my smoking bothered them!). 
    I basically tapered off over a period of two weeks and then went cold
    turkey.  The last one was September 17, 1986; a Marlboro Extra-Light
    100, but I digress.
    
    Previous to Digital I was a realtime systems programmer and I had a
    'cig' burning constantly while I coded.  Sometimes I would have two or
    three going (automatic you know) and then realize what had happened
    and quickly look around to see if anyone had noticed.  The extras got
    stubbed out and laid aside for later.  My hand would automatically
    reach into my shirt pocket for a smoke when I was in front of a
    terminal.
    
    Years later I found myself at Digital as a Sales Support Consultant. 
    Late one night while toiling over an RFP I was madly typing away on my
    workstation when I noticed my hand dive into my shirt pocket for a
    cigarette.  With a cold chill I realized just how strong the HABIT was. 
    Ingrained, patterned, HABIT.  It had been 5 years since I even inhaled
    cigarette smoke but the same pattern of being deeply entranced in front
    of a keyboard brought back the pattern.  I went back to the RFP and not
    10 seconds later my hand went back into my shirt pocket!  WOW!
    
    Now get this; I did no longer had a nicotine habit, I didn't have
    a smoking habit any longer, I could drink beer (sometimes heavily),
    shoot pool, stay up all night in bars and never have the slightlest
    craving for a smoke BUT I still had the mental paths that wanted to
    smoke when I was in front of a terminal.
    
    I took this to invalidate ALL of the junk I told myself and the crap I
    gave others back when I smoked regarding my quitting.  "I can quit
    anytime I want, I just don't really want to", "Hey, I'm coming off a
    cold, that's why my cough sounds so wet.", etc. etc. etc....
    
    The nicotine part of smoking is relatively easy to beat and you CAN do
    it with mind power.  Its the other stuff (the learned responses) that
    gets associated with quitting that are NOT easy to unlearn.  These 
    things are NOT covered by nicotine patches or the like but I think
    contribute greatly to undermining the wills of those that try to cold
    turkey it to see if they can get off the habit.  You know how many
    times you've said "I'll try to cut down".  This failing, you convince
    yourself that you can't get off the habit and the habit then becomes
    self-fulfilling.
    
    I'm not saying its a cake-walk.  After all, you'll be quitting fo rthe
    rest of your life.  I know that if I smoke just one I'll have to start
    over again and its just not worth it.  I guess thats my message having
    been on both sides of the issue; its just not WORTH it!
    
    Anyway, I did it and I'm no mental giant or one with great resolve. 
    Since I quit smoking I have begun every day by immediately taking a
    HUGE breath of air and enjoying how a) my chest expands, b) I don't
    rattle, and c) I don't cough!  I can't tell you how good it feels
    physically after smoking for so long.  As a final test of my recovery
    in Cozumel I was able to snorkle down underneath the plane wreck and
    retrieve a piece of coral (about 35 feet deep) on a single breath.
    
    Good luck,
    
    Chuck

    .93>     How does the 'Valuing Differences' philosophy relate to the
    .93>     'don't smoke within 100 yards of where I work' philosophy?
    
    Seems simple to me -- Though I don't know about the "100 yards" part, I
    don't have a hard time valuing, respecting, etc., lifestyle choices of
    others that are not physically detrimental to my health.
    
    Or have I missed another point you were trying to make?
    

    
    Last few:
    
    Valuing Differences in America means valuing MY differences, not yours.
    (it's become a very centrist, almost tribal, thing).  So, relating to
    smoking, valuing a smoker's difference is less important than valuing
    someone's "lifestyle" difference.  I personally don't see any
    difference in the differences being valued, but our collective 
    American mores do.  And, I don't think anyone should have to walk a 100
    yards (or feet) to have a smoke, that is unreasonable and discriminary.
    
    Al_life_long_non-smoker_and_runner
    

    
> After all, one of the primary sources of funding for YOUR national health
> care program is from taxes on THEIR cigarettes.  The more they smoke, the 
> less you pay.
    
    True, but don't forget that a good chunk of this money will be used in
    abstinence education and promoting a variation of the Advanced Clinton
    Smoking Methodology, in which you can smoke as much as you like,
    wherever you like, providing you don't *exhale*.
    
    C

    That comment by Ray Charles is quite accurate.  Niccotine is at least
    as addicting as heroin.  Absolute fact.  Refer to the book "Licit
    and Illicit Drugs," by the staff of Consumer's Union, for some good
    information about the addicting nature of niccotine. 
    
    I've never smoked, but I have great sympathy for all those who are
    addicted to the drug and want to stop smoking but can't.  A friend
    of mine quit smoking, and after a couple of weeks he asked his father,
    who had quit some 15 years before, when the urge to smoke finally went
    away.  His father replied, "I'll let you know when it does."
    
    I detest second-hand smoke and was very pleased when Digital
    established smoking areas, but I think it's unreasonable to
    decree "no smoking at all" and expect smokers to be able to 
    cope.  It's not a habit - it's a physical addiction.  I think
    Digital as a company ought to continue to promote smoking cessation
    clinics, but at the same time I think we've got to accommodate the
    niccotine addicts among us in a reasonable way.

         <<< Note 685.87 by CUPMK::T_THEO "Look Twice, Save a Life" >>>

>    I didn't think the patch was that successful... 80%?
 
	Well I certainly can't testify for it, but I will be making another
	go of it after the fisrt of the year.

	The 80% number is from my doctor and only relates experience that he
	has had with his patients. THe basic message that he gave me was that
	30% of smokers can quit using various means, cold turkey, hypnosis,
	acupuncture, all the programs and gadgets you see on cable tv.

	This is because 30% of the smokers can quit cold turkey, the other
	methods are generally useless. The truly addicted (and I am one)
	need the patch system to detoxify their system of nicotine at a 
	more gradual rate.

Jim

    My understanding is that Digital decreed smoking rooms in order to keep
    second-hand smoke away from non-smoking employees. This was a health
    issue, due to current beliefs in harm from second-hand smoke. (I don't
    believe in all of the current beliefs, but that's a different story.)

    If Digital decrees no smoking in any building *where the second-hand 
    smoke issue has been resolved*, that becomes a life-style issue 
    instead of health issue. That moves into a whole different realm.

    Marleen 

 <<< Note 685.103 by LEZAH::WELLCOME "Steve Wellcome MRO1-1/KL31 Pole HJ33" >>>

>and after a couple of weeks he asked his father,
>    who had quit some 15 years before, when the urge to smoke finally went
>    away.  His father replied, "I'll let you know when it does."
 

	One anecdotal note from my experience. You can not EVER smoke another
	ciggarette once you have quit. One leads to another, then another
	and then you are back to where you started.

	I am convinced that the second time will be the charm because I
	now have a better understanding of the process AND the pitfalls
	that can make you fail.

Jim

    
    Smoke is bad for you if a) it contains toxic gases or particulants or
    b) it displaces sufficient breathable air that it deprives you of
    oxygen. Case 'b' is not the problem. Case 'a' is the problem.
    
    There is basic confusion about what is said by 'tobacco smoke'. I
    believe that statistically 1 in around 50,000 people have a toxic
    reaction to 'tobacco' smoke. Pure tobacco smoke. The problem is that
    other than a *very* few people who smoke pure unadulterated tobacco
    in a pipe (and Borkum Riff ain't it :-)), the rest are putting out
    lots and lots of toxic smoke. But it isn't the tobaccco. It's all the
    chemical additives in the 'tobacco' and especially in the paper. As
    of more than 10 years ago, there were over 100 different chemicals
    added to typical (like Marlboro) cigs, and lots and lots of people
    have a toxic reaction to these chemicals when they burn. See, it is
    very difficult and very expensive (and something of an art) to blend
    tobacco such that the taste and aroma is consistent. So the cig
    companies just blast their crappy tobacco and paper with chemicals so
    their product is consistent. It's those chemicals that are the problem.
    
    Of course functionally it's irrelevent because it's crappy cigs that
    everybody smokes and it's parts per billion of those chemicals that
    cause reaction in folks that are sensitive to them and with all those
    chemicals well the chances are good that you're going to be sensitive
    to at least one of them!
    
    I learned all this at a firefighting seminar at Ohio State University
    about a dozen years ago. The lecturer used it as the reason why we
    should all wear Scott airpacks in burning buildings. And if you think
    that burning cigs put out some nasty stuff, get shower curtains up to
    temp! But if we (and I don't smoke anymore so it's 'we') are going to
    go around telling people what they can and can't do because 'it makes
    us sick' -- then we ought to be pretty rigorous about it. It does make
    you sick. But it's not the tobacco (unless you're a really rare person)
    it's the chemicals that are added to it. So if somebody is standing
    next to you at the bus stop happily puffing away on McCLelland's #22
    pure Viginia pipe tobacco, don't give 'em the business because they're
    not hurting you.
    
    /An ex-McClelland #22 pure Virgina pipe smoker
    

    
    re: .105
    
    Well put, Marleen.  Many of these replies miss the point entirely;
    as do the suggestions that this is not a valuing differences
    issue. (Note I did not capitalize the foregoing -- my point being
    that valuing differences is not really about a "program", or
    about a law.  It's about a philosophy or a way of looking at 
    the world and your meager part in it; and it's about accepting
    that other people are different.)  This acceptance includes, IMHO,
    accepting lifestyle choices that are utterly repugant to you 
    personally, as long as those lifestyle choices do not affect your
    enjoyment of *your* life. And they shouldn't -- because other
    people are different than you.  Simple, really.
    
    Yet, when it comes to certain subjects -- smoking being a recent and
    notable example, the philosophy seems to fall apart.  Why?  Well,
    I suppose if people were honest and even remotely consistent in
    their world view, our society wouldn't be in the mess it's in.
    
    Glenn                 

    re:.107
    
    Good commercial for McClelland tobacco, I'm sure.  But almost certainly
    no more scientifically true than the old Chesterfield ad with a man in
    a doctor suit saying how Chesterfield fags were good for you.
    
    All by their lonesome, btw, tobacco leaves attract lots of radon. 
    Besides all of the noxious, stinky products that they create by
    burning.  I'm from New Jersey so I'm used to stink but any and all
    tobacco smoke makes Secaucus smell good, in comparison.

    	I am a little sceptical of anything attracting radon, because it is
    chemically inert. It *is* exuded from granite, and living in granite
    buildings has been shown to be a statistically detectable health risk 
    from this factor. Apart from the fact that the radioactivity level from
    radon is measurably higher in granite houses there is also statistical
    evidence of higher cancer levels.
    
    	Living in an area with granite rock - I think Devon and New
    Hampshire are examples - will probably give you more risk from radon
    than using tobacco.

    .107:
    
    One reason for adding chemicals to cigarette tobacco is so the
    cigarette will continue to burn, whether or not the smoker is dragging
    on it.  This probably helps sales (in several ways).
    
    Dick

To add to this rathole, smoking drastically increases the risk of getting cancer
from radon (or is that the other way around). In fact, smoking is a risk
multiplier for most, if not all, other things that cause lung cancer.

Having said that, I don't want to take smoking away from anyone. I don't smoke,
but I think that smoking rooms are the best solution.

  Only a small fraction of the people who work at HLO work in the fabs. If the
problem is that people enter the fabs with smoke on their breath and this causes
contamination, it is unfair to, in effect, prohibit ALL HLO employees from
smoking. I think a better solution would be to keep the smoking rooms and
require smokers who work in the fabs to perform some kind of decontamination
between smoking and entering the fabs. 
  Also note that HLO only has 4 or 5 non-emergency entrances and some people
are a LONG distance from the nearest entrance. You could be talking a 1000-foot
round trip for some people. Good exercise, maybe, but not conducive to pro-
ductivity. 
  Will the smoking shacks at HLO be heated? Where I live, we have an unheated
shack for receiving mail. I can attest to the fact that unheated shacks can get
REAL cold in the winter.

    
    Let me throw an interesting cost-savings spin to this. Each facility
    has several designated smoking rooms, so many per person. Someone in an
    earlier note asked what would they do with this space? Easy answer:
    fill it with payin customers. 
    
    From a Facilities' standpoint Smoking rooms are *very* expensive wasted
    space. The ventilation requirements are such that air must be recycled
    constantly. Thus, the air must be heated/cooled almost constantly.
    Also, these are "blank space" so to speak. They can't be claimed by any
    cost center. Thus a Facilities Mgr must write this off as "extra
    space". 
    
    Normal office space incurs a charge to your cost center. The denser the
    building the better. With downsizing everywhere, believe me, these
    areas are already being looked at as useable space. So, there actually
    is a cost-savings to the company (HLO or not).
    
    Where do those smokers go? I don't know, other than outside the
    building. Brace yourselves, the cost-savings is very real, forget about
    all the social-engineering stuff.
    
    jeff
    

    As I understand it, smokers aren't the only ones carrying extra "smoke 
    particles" into the wafer fabs.  Ever take a good whiff of your clothes 
    after being in a room with smokers?  Those are *particles* you're
    smelling.  Small particles?  You betcha!  But when you consider a
    sub-micron particle can kill your device... 
    
    All entering HLO3 (the new Fab building) will be required to wear clean 
    room garments--not as agressive as what they'll wear in the new Fab,
    but you get the idea.
    
    I do know that when the designated smoking rooms went into effect many
    devoted smokers quit because it was such a hassle to run to the "little
    room" :-) every 15 minutes for a smoke.   Some realized how much they
    were hooked on it, and others saw how much work-time they were wasting
    running back & forth to the smoking room.  Many quit.
    
    While I don't smoke myself, I have friends who do, and I try not to bug
    them about it.  Too much.  While I believe everyone has the right to go
    to Hell in thier own way, I don't think anyone has the right to try to
    take me with them.  :-)
    
    Try this on for size.  About 8 or 10 years ago I saw a videotape made
    by an Arizona Testing facility (for a major semiconductor house) on
    particles.  The IC maker wanted a comparison between nylon and paper
    (disposable Tyvek) Fab suits.  They did tests on the suit seams (leaked
    particles like a sieve), and there was some shedding of material.  They
    also did tests comparing pre- & post-break particle generation through
    the masks.  While the nylon won over the paper, they found lots more:
    
    -Post-break particle generation was higher.  Food particles remaining
     in the mouth.  The dryer the food (like crackers), the higher the
     particle counts.
    -Smokers generated (expectorated) more particles.  They found that the
     smoke kills mouth skin cells, which were spit out during talking.
     (They set up a UV lamp in front of the talker, and filmed while he
     talked.  You wouldn't believe it!  Spit-spit-spit.  And we all do it!
     I believe this was the first "viewer discretion" video--a few of us
     viewers were pretty grossed out.)
    -Particle generation decreased when liquid was drunk as the last break
     "act" prior to returning to the Fab.  Food particles and the dead skin
     cells were washed out of the mouth.
    
    Here's the kicker.  It's a given the incidence of lung cancer is higher
    in smokers than non-smokers.  But cancer researchers wondered why there
    was also more stomach cancer found in smokers than non-.  These Arizona
    researchers theorized the dead (smoked) skin cells being swallowed by
    smokers may be contributing to the stomach cancer.  While I haven't
    heard any followup to this, I think it sure is something to think
    about.  
                                                           
    							Don

    
>    Could you explain it to me because I don't either. Frankly the more I
>    think about this notion the more it scares me. What happens to you if
>    you don't have the cig every few hours?

	If you are an asthmatic and the smoking surpresses your asthma,
	you could die.

	Heather
 

    
>	If you are an asthmatic and the smoking surpresses your asthma,
>	you could die.

    I roomed with a guy with asthma in college. A little bit of smoke put
    him on a respirator for hours. The notion of the smoking helping
    an asthmatic seems quite amazing to me. (And more then a little hard
    to believe.)

    			Alfred

>>	If you are an asthmatic and the smoking surpresses your asthma,
>>	you could die.

>    I roomed with a guy with asthma in college. A little bit of smoke put
>    him on a respirator for hours. The notion of the smoking helping
>    an asthmatic seems quite amazing to me. (And more then a little hard
>    to believe.)

	Smoking can surpress asthma, by covering all the bits that react
	from whatever you are allergic to.....even if its smoke.

	Once your lungs start to clear out, you become super-sensative to 
	whatever you were allergic to.

	A specific indence I know of, the person started having attacks about
	2 weeks after they stopped. These came progressively worse until after 3
 	months the inhalers had no effect. 
	He managed to get to the local health centre who put him on wet oxygen.
 	The deprevation of oxygen and pain initially made them think his lung 
	had collapsed. It hadn't, however if he hadn't got the oxygen when he 
	did, he could have died.
	Starting smoking again has stopped the asthma attacks.

	I have since talked to many people who have stopped smoking, and since
	stopping, have found that they get asthma attacks, when they had
 	none when they smoked. 

	The risk from asthma is much greater than the risk from smoking.

	Heather - non-smoker

Nicotine is an anesthetic to the linings of the lungs and bronchial passages.

When and if you smoke enough you body tends to ignore outside allergens 
as well as internal congestion.

YUK!