Hacker News Reader

Comment by leroy_masochist | Hacker News Reader

Given the amount of walking needed to get outside the building and the sedentary nature of their job, it's worth considering whether, on balance, the smokers at this company are actually healthier and more productive than they would be if they kicked the habit.

View on HN

This is the point I wanted to bring up. As a pack-a-day smoker for 10 years, I got up from my desk for 10 minutes every 1.5 hours to smoke a cigarette. Later, as a non-smoker, a health-conscious manager told me he wanted me to get up from my desk once an hour to take a five-minute walk around the building for my health. Regular breaks during the day are better for your health than vacation days; although, both are good for your health.

I walk to the water cooler or toilet every 2 hours, and take a longer break to watch the sunset in the evening if the weather's suitable. Perhaps I drink a lot of water compared to most, but the last I heard was that medical advice is to drink more water.

Regular breaks during the day may be better for your health than vacation days, but I'm guessing that gain is offset when you use the break to smoke.

Definitely not. Relatively minor health benefits from standing vs. drastic health consequences from smoking.

I thought sitting was the new smoking.

Positive?

Sitting is chairs has not been shown to cause cancer.

Colon cancer?

> the smokers at this company are actually healthier and more productive

More productive perhaps, but healthier? I don't think so.

EDIT: Typo.

They are engaging in consistent (roughly hourly) physical activity (significant amount of walking) in order to go smoke, while the non-smokers are not.

The question here is not whether smoking is good for you, which it obviously isn't. It's whether, in this case, the benefit of being forced by addiction to get up and engage in light physical activity once per hour outweighs the carcinogenic effects of the tobacco consumed during smoke breaks.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com