Our workplace rules for smokers. Does your office have similar? Are they extreme?

I don't smoke, but for my friends that do, here are their workplace rules. Does your office have rules for smokers? Are they fair? Extreme?

Rules for Smokers (posted):
* No smoking within 100 feet of the office building, to include visiting family members.
* 3 smokes breaks are allowed at 5 minutes each.
* Smokers can only have a 15 minute lunch break.
* Packs of cigarretes in the workplace can't be in plain view.
* After smoking they must wash their hands and suck on a breath mint, or brush their teeth.
* Smokers who fail to follow above rules 3 times are given walking papers.
* If rules effects productivity 2 times, smoker is given walking papers
* Agitated smokers who tweak in the workplace, depending on how server, will be instantly sacked!
* Smoke detected from an open window by management will result in a greater distance from the building where smokers are allowed to smoke.


For Personnel Office (verbally told to me by friends in personnel):
* Job seekers must fully complete and sign questionaire. They must understand that by signing the questionaire, they agree that any untruthful info will result in a dismissal.
* Don't knowingly hire a smoker for any position. Failing to do so will result in your dismissal!


Thought it would be interesting to post.

Where I work is not that extreme. There is an outside designated smoking area. Non-exempt employees use their breaks. Exempt employees use their discretion.

I'm an ex-smoker, I try not to be a "reformed *****", but smokers really stink like ashtrays. I wouldn't mind if they "cleaned up" after smoking. I wouldn't say anything to them though...

Those rules do sound extreme. Where do you live?

In the UK you can't smoke in an enclosed area of the work place but that's about it as far as laws go. An employer has the right to restrict the number and lengths of breaks you can have, which is common sense really, but generally they're not unreasonable about it. I think not employing someone on the basis that they're a smoker would probably be illegal over here as it would be viewed as discrimination.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FunkyDexter

Those rules do sound extreme. Where do you live?

In the UK you can't smoke in an enclosed area of the work place but that's about it as far as laws go. An employer has the right to restrict the number and lengths of breaks you can have, which is common sense really, but generally they're not unreasonable about it. I think not employing someone on the basis that they're a smoker would probably be illegal over here as it would be viewed as discrimination.

---

That's not true anymore...they can even not hire you if you smoke at home:

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money...ing/52394782/1

That's in the US whereas I was talking about the UK. Generally we've got a lot more laws to protect employees rights than you guys, some of them good, some not so good. On the whole I think I rather have our level of protection than yours but then I'm a contractor so I waive them all anyway.

That said, There is talk about providing a level of protection for contractors which seems like a stupid idea to me. Us contractors generally choose to be so because it makes us more competitive. Adding a bunch of red tape employers need to follow before taking on a contractor is just going to undermine that competitiveness.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FunkyDexter

That's in the US whereas I was talking about the UK. Generally we've got a lot more laws to protect employees rights than you guys, some of them good, some not so good. On the whole I think I rather have our level of protection than yours but then I'm a contractor so I waive them all anyway.

That said, There is talk about providing a level of protection for contractors which seems like a stupid idea to me. Us contractors generally choose to be so because it makes us more competitive. Adding a bunch of red tape employers need to follow before taking on a contractor is just going to undermine that competitiveness.

---

In the USA, at least to me, workers rights began to erode right around the coronation of Saint Reagan. I agree with your viewpoint on contractors. I also see it, not providing a level of protection for contractors, as an edge.

Quote:

---

workers rights began to erode right around the coronation of Saint Reagan

---

Yeah, that sounds about right. In the UK we saw a massive reduction in employees rights under Thatcher complete with an almost total destruction of the union movement. In fairness, the UK had got into an overly unionised state prior to her tenure so some swing to the right was warranted but I think most people would agree that it went too far. I was never a big fan of Blair but I will say that his administration did do a lot to redress that balance and things were about right by the time he stepped down.

The current big worry over here is zero hours contracts. I think they're actually a good thing for highly skilled folks like IT contractors etc. because the truth is that an employer probably needs me as much or more than I need them so I can negotiate from a fair position. The problem is that these get applied to folks like shop assistants, care assistants and warehouse workers who are in no position to negotiate. Given that these contracts can often contain clauses that preclude the employee from working for anyone else I can't help thinking we've reintroduced serfdom.

I'm glad I work for my self. I would not apply for those companies.

Thirty years ago I could smoke at my desk. And so I did.

Quote:

---

The current big worry over here is zero hours contracts.

---

There is nothing to worry about, they have just been branded wrong. If we call them Flexible contracts then people will stop worrying about the fact they have no employment rights, no guaranteed hours, no ability to pay the rent and rejoice.

Quote:

---

Given that these contracts can often contain clauses that preclude the employee from working for anyone else I can't help thinking we've reintroduced serfdom.

---

Can't a man (exclusively) hire another person to prune there roses with the rest of the neighborhood hiring them as well? how am i supposed to have the best roses otherwise???

Also if i don't have exclusivity what happens if i have some emergency roses that need pruning at the same time they are doing Dave's down the road!!!

Also hows poor old Mike Ashley supposed to make a few quid without them???, come on FD think of those other less fortunate then yourself the Mike Ashley's of this world need looking after !!!

Your withering sarcasm does you credit, Sir.:D

I did hear a rather nice quote about "flexible contracts". It was in response to the usual argument about them allowing business to remain competitive in uncertain markets etc. and the guy said "so your response to an uncertain market is to take all the risk and put it in the hands of the party least able to mitigate against it". I though that summed things up pretty well. An employee is always going to share some of the risk with their employer - if the company sinks the employee loses his job - but to put all of it on the employee does seem unfair.

Three smokers were fired today. One for not swiping out for numerous his smoke breaks last week, and the other two for taking more smokes breaks than allowed, 6 to 7 a day, not counting their lunch break.

We're not gonna miss them, not that I have anything against smokers. They were just the laziest bunch you could ever work with.

Oh, FunkyDexter. I live in Germany. These rules have been put in place by the company. Right now from what I've heard, a new rule might be added. A schedule for 2 smokers a day to clean their smoke area everyday. Hopefully it goes into effect, because it's a Pigsty! Instead of using their ash can, their nasty cigarettes are all over the place.

Quote:

---

I live in Germany

---

Really?! I would have though there would be some EU legislation against some of the policies you quoted.

It does sound like the ones they let go actually did deserve it. Not clocking out's a pretty clear breach and 6 to 7 breaks a day would represent some pretty serious lost productivity so it sounds like the company is at least applying the rules sensibly ... so far at least.

Yes, this bunch deserved it, but I don't think our company would follow through with firing smokers if their packs are in plain view or their breath stinks. The rules have been in place for about a week and a day.

And if you don't use a deodorant and sweat much? Or did eat alot lot of beans the day before? Or Facebooking in company time?
As Homer said before. Years ago as moker you was a normal human, now......

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by namrekka

And if you don't use a deodorant and sweat much? Or did eat alot lot of beans the day before? Or Facebooking in company time?
As Homer said before. Years ago as moker you was a normal human, now......

---

That was before there was proof second hand smoke was a health hazard. The tobacco industry was also still able to get away with the phony science they funded. People got fed up with funding dying smokers, etc. etc.

Quote:

---

That was before there was proof second hand smoke was a health hazard.

---

I'm all for smoking being banned from the workplace. I have no desire to have someone's cancerous fumes inflicted on me. But when I see rules like this:-

Quote:

---

After smoking they must wash their hands and suck on a breath mint, or brush their teeth

---

...I do wonder if things have gone too far. As Namrekka implied, that's equivalent to sacking someone because they've got BO. Now don't get me wrong, I think maintaining personal hygiene is a common courtesy to ones colleagues but I'm not sure failing to do so should be a disciplinary offense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FunkyDexter

I'm all for smoking being banned from the workplace. I have no desire to have someone's cancerous fumes inflicted on me. But when I see rules like this:-
...I do wonder if things have gone too far. As Namrekka implied, that's equivalent to sacking someone because they've got BO. Now don't get me wrong, I think maintaining personal hygiene is a common courtesy to ones colleagues but I'm not sure failing to do so should be a disciplinary offense.

---

Agreed it is harsh but at least they are letting them smoke. Along those lines there are men and women I work with that wear colognes and perfumes that make me want to gag. Is that next?

I'm sure smokers make some contribution to society.

Can we fuel our power plants with coughing and littering?

Ok... The rule they been kicking around above is official. Starting tomorrow a schedule wil be posted for two smokers a day to clean up their break area. Maybe some here will think it's extreme, but if you could see where they gather to puff, you wouldn't think so.

Maybe with all this in place, some of our smokers will try to kick their habit. If not, well at least they're getting a good workout, walking 1 minute and 25 seconds of their 5 minute break to their smoke area, and cleaning it up! Woo-hoo! :thumb:

In Denmark there are laws set in place that prohibit smoking in public areas like workplaces, school places, and other government and public facilities. You're not even allowed to smoke at train station platforms. Basically, workplaces here are forced to have some kind of smoking policy, that prevents workers to smoke inside or on the workplace property. During school breaks, you will see a lot of students smoking outside the school property, by public roads and so on, because they will be fined if they are found smoking on the school property...

I'm totally fine with smoking bans that prevent non-smokers being forced to inhale the cancerous fumes, as FunkyDexter put it... I'm not a smoker myself, but I think people should choose if they smoke or not, as long as it doesn't cause harm to others. I think smokers have a positive effect on the economy, and I guess we could thank them for the tax payments they provide.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...g_bans#Denmark
http://www.visitcopenhagen.com/copenhagen/smoking (the last paragraph does not always apply)
http://www.no-smoke.org/goingsmokefree.php?id=635

Sounds very extreme to me, smoker in my company are not limited on breaks nor lunch but must smoke in one of two designated areas.

Quote:

---

smoker in my company are not limited on breaks nor lunch but must smoke in one of two designated areas.

---

That sounds about the right balance to me.

I picked up the smoking habit in basic training. The military would give smokers smoke breaks. Non-smokers didn't get breaks. I stood around with a lit cigarette to get a break. Started inhaling... Twenty five years later I quit and it wasn't easy.

Now I am that guy that hates to see others smoke. Especially those in poor health.

Still they keep at it.

When are they gonna ban fat people? taking up all the room and food. And that annoying breathing. Four point seven million people died from obesity, last year alone! It's time the government stepped in and took this seriously. Food should be doled out in inverse proportion to your weight. Maybe there will be some donuts left in the break room; by the time I'm back from my smoke break, they are all gone, or the 'plain' ones are the only ones left.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SJWhiteley

When are they gonna ban fat people? taking up all the room and food. And that annoying breathing. Four point seven million people died from obesity, last year alone! It's time the government stepped in and took this seriously. Food should be doled out in inverse proportion to your weight. Maybe there will be some donuts left in the break room; by the time I'm back from my smoke break, they are all gone, or the 'plain' ones are the only ones left.

---

Other than "taking up all the room, air, and food", unlike smokers, they are not hurting the people around them (unless you get yours fingers near them when they're eating). Smokers risk the lives and harm the health of the people they smoke around.

I can relate to smokers. I inhaled pipes, cigars, and up to three packs a day.
Those who don't smoke don't get the subtle hold it has on you.

As my doctor explained to me it's a vicious circle. Smoking fills your system with pollutants that cause
your lungs and bronchial tubes to constrict. Making you feel like you can't breathe.
This is especially pronounced when you are stressed. The first few hits from a cigarette contains chemicals that ease your breathing for a short while. Then the cycle starts all over again.

Like anyone hooked on something we tend to justify why we have to smoke.

The worst excuses are the self destructive ones.
"Everything will kill you so this is okay." or "I only smoke one pack a day not three so this is okay."

I am not militant about it, but I believe in giving a hand to those who want to quit.

There is a lot you can do on a personal level to help someone who wants to kick the habit starting with being supportive.

Quote:

---

they are not hurting the people around them

---

They do if they tread on your foot.

Quote:

---

It's time the government stepped in and took this seriously

---

You joke (I think) but in the UK our diet has never been healthier (at least in the last hundred years or so) than when it was Government controlled under rationing following WW2. If levels of obesity and the resultant burden on the health service continue to rise at the rate they are then some sort of government intervention might start to become a main stream idea. I doubt we'd see anything like rationing reintroduced but taxation targeted at unhealthy foods might well start to appear. It has already in some countries.

I helped a friend quit, but with my friends who continue, like you said, Gruff, they always back their addiction with destructive excuses.

Well, the cleaning up the break area rule didn't fly, and our firm got fined by the local authority last Thursday for these smoker's pigsty. Also sucks that our grounds keeper had to clean it up!

Where I work there is a no smoking indoors rule. The neighbor's property is ten feet away so most smokers stand there and smoke.

Cigarettes are not the only issue we deal with. There is a lot of chewing among our shop workers.
They also chew sunflower seeds. There was a ban on them for a while as some users spit shells on the shop floor. (Especially bad when customers visit.) It almost looks like they are marking their territory. :D

I want to know, as a non-smoker. Do I also get three 5 minute breaks a day and the opportunity to scoff my lunch in 15mins?

FD, yes, I was joking. :)

I'm totally against government regulation; with food, it just won't work. As you note, FD, the UK has some of the healthiest food. The US has some of the, technically (for a first-world country), worst but it tastes fan-bloody-tastic - can you say Outback's Bloomin' Onion?. Both sides of the pond are obese.

It isn't the 'healthiness' of food that's the problem. My wife is wanting to loose a bit of weight. She's been successful with moderate exercise and moderate reduction in calories, but the real key has been the proportion of fat, protein and carbohydrates (as well as a lowering of salt).

So, the reality will be is that you will never reduce the overall unhealthiness of a population unless:
* You change every available food to have the correct balance of nutrition;
* You prevent people from buying more than they need to consume;

Smoking is bad, and it does have a near-field effect on the health of others. I do find it ironic that we are decriminalizing The Wacky Tobaccy, yet so many want to criminalize tobacco...but thats a whole 'nother argument, i guess.

Quote:

---

some sort of government intervention might start to become a main stream idea.

---

Ye gods! I can see it now.

Rich naturally good looking thin people win again without even trying. :D

Quote:

---

the UK has some of the healthiest food

---

Not at the moment it's not. You guys have shipped all your bad habits over here (or we've imported them, depending on who you want to blame :)) and we've got an obesity epidemic on our hands. We're a few years behind you but accelerating rapidly.

The point was that our diet was healthy in the 50s because of government control. Since rationing stopped it's been all downhill (which is handy because we're too unfit to go uphill these days).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FunkyDexter

The point was that our diet was healthy in the 50s because of government control.

---

And before that it was healthy without any government control.

Purely anecdotal, but I'll just throw this out there:

Both my great-grandfather and grandfather ate basically the same diet: Bacon & eggs for breakfast, meat & potatoes for dinner. And usually something high in fat for lunch. My great-grandfather lived well into his 90s, while my grandfather died in his early 60s. The difference?

My grandfather worked most of his life in an office sitting at a desk and being overweight. His father was a farmer and actually worked for a living and was never overweight despite their nearly identical diet.

Diet is not the only cause of obesity. Modern life allows most of us the luxury of sitting on our collective asses in front of the TV and growing soft and rotund.

Very interesting podcast on the BBC about the obesity subject.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b05r3tcb

The food industry know that salt and sugar are addictive, which is why they load everything up with it. I wonder when they will finally realise that dead people don't eat, so killing them is not the most effective business strategy.

I cant understand that podcast. I don't speak British

Watch it with a stiff

upper lip

Are you back forever

visualAd has maxed out his post quota for this year, he may reply next year again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wossname

I'm sure smokers make some contribution to society.

Can we fuel our power plants with coughing and littering?

---

This is a very relevant point. Smokers are, in my experience, often an extremely inconsiderate group. They may be as considerate as the next person in other areas but, when it comes to smoking, they show little concern for how they are affecting other people and people who wouldn't ever consider throwing a a chocolate wrapper or a coffee cup on the ground will toss a cigarette butt absolutely anywhere without a second thought. It irks me most when I see people flick butts out of their car window. YOUR CAR HAS AN ASHTRAY DIPSTICK!

I shudder to think of the number of bushfires that have been started in Australia due to thoughtlessly discarded cigarette butts. Just a year or two ago, in a car park near the Olympic Stadium in Sydney, someone tossed a butt that ignited some dry grass and ended up burning out about 40 cars.

There's a campaign against butt littering at the moment but noone ever does anything to enforce it. If I was a police officer, I'd fine anyone who tossed a cigarette butt the maximum amount on the spot. There simply is no excuse for it. I'm dead against any littering but cigarette butts are the worst because smokers are serial offenders.

I'm a non-smoker. I've never been a smoker and I hate pretty much everything about smoking. I have a bit of an addictive personality myself so I understand the pull things can have on people, although I doubt I've experienced anything as strong as the desire to smoke people feel when they've been doing it for years. I have sympathy for people when they try to quit but I have no sympathy for people who don't try to quit such a revolting and ridiculous habit. The reason that I look at smoking differently to things like over-eating and narcotic addiction is that, unlike the others, you generally don't get anything positive out of smoking. The only positive you generally get is not feeling the withdrawal that you wouldn't have got if you never started. There's no high like there is with other drugs and there's no pleasure like with eating (which I do a bit too much of myself).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Porter

* No smoking within 100 feet of the office building, to include visiting family members.

---

That distance seems excessive. Keep the smoke out of the common space and don't litter where you smoke and I'm OK.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Porter

* 3 smokes breaks are allowed at 5 minutes each.
* Smokers can only have a 15 minute lunch break.

---

That sounds fine to me. I had a job about 25 years ago (smoking in the workplace was not allowed even back then here is Australia) where many people used to duck out several times a day for a smoke so a friend and I took to grabbing a Coke from the vending machine and just standing outside having a chat for 5-10 minutes. Soon after, non-smokers were given an extra 15 minutes for lunch breaks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Porter

* Packs of cigarretes in the workplace can't be in plain view.

---

That's quite ridiculous if you ask me. I'm not offended by a packet of cigarettes; only the smoking of their contents. Mind you, here is Australia we have pictures of gangrenous feet and throat cancer patients on our cigarette packets, so most people wouldn't leave them out in plain view anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Porter

* After smoking they must wash their hands and suck on a breath mint, or brush their teeth.

---

I have no issue with that. It makes me wither when I step on a bus or, even worse, enter an elevator with someone who has just smoked a cigarette. For the longest time, smokers generally even denied that smoking next to you should actually bother you, so it probably doesn't even cross their mind that their breathe smells like a full ashtray that's spent a week in someone's underwear during a heatwave after smoking. That said, I do agree that BO or excessive perfume (which makes me gag) are also issues that we should be able to address, but we can't because too many people are on a hair-trigger ready to be offended.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Porter

* Smokers who fail to follow above rules 3 times are given walking papers.

---

I have no issue with that. If you know what the rules are and you don't think they're fair then try to do something about them now; not once you've fallen afoul of them. If you break the rules repeatedly then there must be some consequence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Porter

* If rules effects productivity 2 times, smoker is given walking papers

---

It really depends on how that's measured. There are plenty of other reasons that productivity might fall. Will they be assessed in a similar way?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Porter

* Agitated smokers who tweak in the workplace, depending on how server, will be instantly sacked!

---

I'm not 100% sure what this means. Are we talking about smokers showing outward signs of withdrawal? I don't think that that should be an issue in and of itself but if someone is really so affected then they really need to seek medical help.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Porter

* Smoke detected from an open window by management will result in a greater distance from the building where smokers are allowed to smoke.

---

Are employees the only ones who could possibly be smoking in the vicinity? If not then this seems a bit hard to administer. Also seems a bit over the top.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Porter

* Job seekers must fully complete and sign questionaire. They must understand that by signing the questionaire, they agree that any untruthful info will result in a dismissal.

---

I agree with this in principal but I'm not sure that whether you're a smoker is information that should be required on your average job application. If this is in the US then you guys have that ridiculous system where many (most?) people get their health insurance from their employer, so I guess it's relevant in that case. Still, should the employer themselves even get to see your health information even then?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Porter

* Don't knowingly hire a smoker for any position. Failing to do so will result in your dismissal!

---

I agree with the second part if the first part is in place but I don't agree with the first part. That would be considered discrimination in Australia and, as much as I hate smoking, I agree with that. Like religion, I have no interest in smoking but what you do on your own time is up to you. When it starts affecting me or others, then we've got a problem.

Overall, I'd say that these rules are the product of a militant anti-smoker and are draconian. Whoever came up with them is not a good employer because they are more interested in fostering fear than a comfortable work environment. There are better ways to deal with smoking in the workplace.

jmcilhinney is bored. :afrog:

Quote:

---

too many people are on a hair-trigger ready to be offended.

---

I take offence at that!

Nobody has a problem with tweaking in the work place but when I started twerking in the work place everyone was suddenly all offended.:confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dee-u

jmcilhinney is bored. :afrog:

---

At least you didn't say "boring", so thanks for that. Finished a project early but can't go home just yet so one has to amuse oneself somehow. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FunkyDexter

...when I started twerking in the work place everyone was suddenly all offended.:confused:

---

That Guinea Pig butt bouncing tho'!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jmcilhinney

YOUR CAR HAS AN ASHTRAY DIPSTICK!

---

No, it doesn't. (2014 Mustang)

In fact, the vast majority of automobiles sold in the US no longer come with ashtrays. They are only available as an option at additional cost.

As an ex-smoker (25 years now) I actually enjoy the occasional whiff of tobacco smoke as long as it's not overwhelming.

Many cars don't come with cigarette lighters any more... it's now a 12v port...

We have one designated area for smoking. it's out back, past the picnic tables, at the gazebo. In fact, it's known as teh "Smoker's Gazebo"

-tg

What bugs the heck out of me is that they still put those huge cigarette lighter jacks in place instead of a much better number of standardized power jacks distributed around the vehicle.

I believe you can still buy third party electric cigarette lighters for cars and just plug them in.

Of course I could be wrong on that score for the latest models. I haven't be able to afford a new car for two decades.

My wife has a 2014 Dodge Journey ... up front it has 2 12v jacks and a USP port... inside center console is another 12v jack and usb and aux in... in back is yet another 12v and usb port.

my 2011 F150 has two 12v jacks up front, one driverside one passenger side.

-tg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jmcilhinney

There's a campaign against butt littering at the moment but noone ever does anything to enforce it. If I was a police officer, I'd fine anyone who tossed a cigarette butt the maximum amount on the spot. There simply is no excuse for it. I'm dead against any littering but cigarette butts are the worst because smokers are serial offenders.

---

In California, littering carries a $1000 Fine. I know an officer who will seek out people smoking in their car and follow them for a bit until they are finished with their cigarette. Most of the time they throw it out the window and get pulled over.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by techgnome

My wife has a 2014 Dodge Journey ... up front it has 2 12v jacks and a USP port... inside center console is another 12v jack and usb and aux in... in back is yet another 12v and usb port.

my 2011 F150 has two 12v jacks up front, one driverside one passenger side.

-tg

---

What does a 12v jack look like? A cigarette lighter jack?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gruff

What does a 12v jack look like? A cigarette lighter jack?

---

yes, same thing. The difference is whether it gets cig lighter icon or the 12v port label.


-tg

I guess that is my gripe. a 12 volt jack does not have to be that large of a diameter. The male jacks are huge and clumsy.

I imagine that car companies have millions of the old things stored away in warehouses and they are simply trying to put their existing stock to use.

Considering how many devices currently exist that work with that plug, i doubt they will change the standard. My truck also comes stock with a few USB ports. One charge only and one Charge/Audio that is connected to the radio.

European plugs seem more inconvenient than 12v plugs in cars.

Attachment 126273

With regards to ashtrays, things may be different in the US but, here in Australia, I'm yet to see car without an ashtray. Maybe some newer models don't have them but older ones certainly do. I know for a fact that lots of people who throw cigarette butts out their car windows do have ashtrays. Even if your car doesn't have an ashtray, that is still not an excuse to throw a butt out the window. If you're a smoker and you intend to smoke in your car then either don't buy a car that doesn't have an ashtray or else provide something in the car for the purpose. There simply is no excuse for throwing butts out the window.

Not to pick on drivers particularly though. I only did that because, here at least, they have an ashtray within arms reach. People simply dropping a cigarette butt on the footpath is just as bad as far as I'm concerned. If you're a smoker then carry something with you that you can put your butts in and then dispose of them later or else seek out a rubbish bin. Also, make sure that your butt is extinguished before disposing of it.

With regards to lighters in cars, the lighters themselves are slowly being phased out and I'm sure that, over time, we'll see the ports disappear too. Many devices require an extra cable to be purchased to charge via 12V port so we will see more an more cars come equipped with USB ports and that will eventually be the only option for charging. That may be inconvenient for some whose device(s) can only be charged one way but that's progress for you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dclamp

Are you back forever

---

Depends what you mean by forever?

- rest of my life?
- rest of your life?
- some of period of time you deem to be 'forever'?
- until the end of the universe (and it may not end)?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dclamp

Considering how many devices currently exist that work with that plug, i doubt they will change the standard. My truck also comes stock with a few USB ports. One charge only and one Charge/Audio that is connected to the radio.

European plugs seem more inconvenient than 12v plugs in cars.

---

Time for a iCar?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by namrekka

Time for a iCar?

---

They'd keep changing the shape of the fuel inlet every time they released a new one.