Posted By Liam Mc Conalogue Freedom of choice is everyone's right, if it infringes on the right to have smoke-free air to breathe, then fair enough something had to be done. What about the barpersons who actually smoke themselves, are you taking away their rights? What about the altar boys who have to serve a priest burning incense? The ban in the ROI applies to public premises, but you are allowed to smoke in hotel/B&B's bedrooms - what about the cleaners who are exposed to a group of people in rooms smoking? Another more sinister issue that is rearing its ugly head- picture a woman/man going outside for a smoke, not all bars in the ROI have security personnell- the effects of this could see a rise in serious crime. Where will it stop? People do have rights smokers and non-smokers, surely there has to be another way. I can guarantee that this ban is definitely going to cause more hassle than is expected for everyone involved- i.e. the publican, the barperson, the customers and lets not forget those poor Health Board workers who are going to police this issue!!!

Posted By John Allen Hasn’t smoking at work always been contrary to the HSW Act? Section 2 says that employers have a duty towards their employees to ensure SFAIRP their health safety and welfare. Section 2 (2) extends the duty to “the provision of a working environment for his employees that is, SFAIRP, without risks to health” Section 7 lays a duty on employees to take reasonable care for their own safety. With regard to employees the risk is clear. In smoking at work they are consuming a product which if used in accordance with the manufacturers instructions will result in disease and their premature death – how can this be consistent with Section 7? With regard to passive smoking we know there is a dose response relationship between smoke and ill health. What we cannot at present be certain of is the relationship at the bottom left hand corner of the graph. Is it a straight line through the origin; no exposure = no response? Or is there some threshold below which there is no effect? Even though we do not know for certain, the test of reasonably practicability must come out in favour of banning; the risk is low but the cost in taking the preventive measure is incosequential. For the vast majority of businesses there is no loss at all. Even for those businesses where there it is perceived there may be a loss, the gain at a societal level is far greater. So why no ban up to now by the HSE? I suspect that at some point in the past their legal advisers have told them that because smoking is a personal habit like humming or chewing gum it is beyond the scope of our Principal Act thereby neatly avoiding controversy. Rubbish! Smoking is already in the group of behaviours proscribed by law in certain circumstances. You cannot smoke where there are highly flammables or where food is prepared for instance. And other human habits such as taking alcohol or drugs are also banned at work. Why should smoking be different? My wife works in an oncology clinic. Don’t ask her about a ban on smoking in public. The victims of the “perfect right to smoke” still drag their drips and chemo machines to the front door in order to light up. How many of them would be enjoying better lives today if we had banned smoking at work twenty years ago? If you ask them most of them would have preferred it. There has been a lot of joking around this subject concerning peeing in swimming pools and the like but this is the single most preventable cause of death in our society. The medical profession have already come out in favour of a ban on smoking in public. Why can’t we as safety professionals take the same position? A serious reasoned position that will save lives by the thousand? If we did nothing else in our careers this would be the single most important step we could take in improving human health, life expectancy and well being. Why are we even arguing about it? Of course its about TOLERANCE - our continued tolerance of unnecessary death and suffering.

Posted By Geoff Burt Peter, you wrote: 'I say ban smoking in public places, why should I (along with employees) be subject to second hand smoke. As for "tolerance", would you tolerate someone blowing asbestos in your face ?' I've tried and tried but I can't see the irony.

Posted By Stuart Nagle Paul. 1) I think my writing on the public house went askew. I was in fact stating that it is much the same as the public highway, and thst in using it you accept the risks of so doing. 2) Writing, no problem... As I'm doing an MSc, but thats another thread, I have learnt to put word to paper quite (I hope) effectively. Keep up the good work with your studies, and who knows, perhaps you too, one day, can seek to research and write upon subjects in thousands of words too... Stuart

Posted By Steve Langston Smokers and non smokers - never the views will meet. Here is my unbalanced view to add to the rest: An article in the telegraph 3 weeks ago - (referenced to studies in 2002 by ASH and the Department of Health) stated that: the revenue gained from the sale of all tobacco products does not cover two thirds of the costs of the medical bills taken up by smoking related medical bills! So any argument of smokers "subsidising" us non smokers is also a myth is it not?

Posted By Paul Costelloe Just because there are risks involved - be it racing on the highway, urinating in public, etc. etc. doesn't make it acceptable

Posted By Geoff Burt How about drink? How do we feel about pouring an addictive drink down our throats? Alcohol also causes disease and suffering. Wouldn't it be a coup for us to all get our act together and call for the total banning of alcohol and smoking. Let's go for it guys. Chargeeeeeeeeeeee

Posted By Hilary Charlton But Geoff, someone will come back and say that their drinking doesn't adversely affect you. Of course, if you were a woman walking down the same street as a couple of "merry" men it would affect you - whether that was the intent or not, this can be extremely intimidating. Because these men don't mean any harm and would never ever dream of doing something does not mean that this lone female is aware of that - it can be a nervous experience. I'm not saying that women don't get drunk and out of hand, but let's face it, how many single men are going to be intimidated by a couple of drunk women - not many I wouldn't think. So before anyone starts shouting - bear in mind how you appear to other people when you've had one over the eight - it may not be how you think you appear. Personally I think anyone who deviates from the norm in anyway, shape or form should be lined up against the wall and shot (suggest Great Wall of China might be long enough). And before you all go off on one - I was joking! Hilary

Posted By navigator So, we're back to issue of cash into the coffers are we, and the assumption that smokers are a burden to carry around by all you healthy non smoking lot... Well, lets look at just a very few facts: 1) in the UK tax on the best liked brand of ciggies is 78.6% - thats a cost of £4.65 for 20 and tax on that packet of 20 of £3.65 -on every packet... 2) the tax revenue earned (the latest dates available) for 2001/02 in the UK was £9.5 Billion (Yes thats right Billion) - Source HM Customs and Excise. due to tax increases affecting prices - from £2.52 for 20 in 1994 to 4.65 for 20 in 2004 (£2.13). 3) the previlence for smoking in the UK 16+ adult population from 1974 to 2002 (last figures available) has dropped, and now only 25% of the population smokes as opposed to 45% in 1974, although there is a supposed increase in the trend for young women smoking, these figues do not reveal sex so this cannot be stated. 4) Now its your turn.... £9.5 Billion divided against on 25% of the population... That is a lot more cash going into the revenue, per head of population, than through any other form of taxation made!! Work it out yourself - and then tell me us that we're a burden. With more people not smoking, and more non smokers dying of cancers totally unrelated to 'smoking diseases' who's the burden here.... It would seem that some adjustment of the view that smokers are a cost to society needs to be made....

Posted By Kelvin George Well What a conundrum. Whatever your opinion of smoking the said fact I find is that for all our posturing we are not getting the message across. I do smoke and enjoy it amencely, however I do it at home in the back garden. I agree it is a filthy habit but I enjoy it and until I have a medical where they say that my lung capacity is decreasing or the chest axray shows signs of a problem I will probably keep on smoking. That aside I believe that more YOUNG women are taking up smoking each day. What a shame that the youth of today still think smoking is cool. Get the youth on your side then smoking will eventually fade away with the old boys and girls as they die slow and painful cough wrenching deaths. Cheerio, got to go to work Cheers Kelvin

Posted By Jonathan Breeze Thank you Carl for re-enforcing the point that: "This legislation is about the workers in pubs and other places where they have no choice but to inhale large quantities of ETS on a daily basis and for several hours." Lets please not forget that. Even though I looked at similar evidence to Carl, I do not particularly favour a blanket ban for several reasons: It could be misinterpreted as a civil liberties issue, thereby alienating a vast segment of the population; It would be going back to prescriptive h&s legislation (which I feel would be a bad thing); and The lesson from 30's US is surely that prohibition of a long accepted practice just does not work. (It wastes police resources, it reduces taxes to government, increases money going to criminal gangs and makes criminals of otherwise law abiding citizens.) Which is why I think addressing the issue in a similar manner to other COSHH issues is the way to go. Give tobacco smoke a MEL, acknowledge the potential hazard to employees and look to control it in the workplace. That way the state is not nannying, civil liberties are protected and workers feel significantly safer. Jon