Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By mike.mcdonnell
Has anyone heard of any recent legislation stating that Companies should not
have smoking rooms on work premises, I have not heard of anything I have
only heard of Liverpool shopping centre and some pubs in Dublin banning
smoking due to passive smoking.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By David Mains
I think it was the whole of Ireland has banned smoking in public places, certainly all of Dublin is affected by it and it seems to work well after the initial difficult period - 20 odd reported fractures from fights during the first weekend that it was in force!
Not sure about the UK but it sounds like a good soundbite for a pressure group or a politician.
Banning smoking within your organisation is easy, the difficulty, especially in the public sector, is enforcing it and dealing with the associated problems that come from the ban e.g. an increase in violence and aggression towards staff, illicit smoking and increased fire risk.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Rob Todd
Mike,
No there is no such legislation in the UK. Various Fascist organisations like ASH (AKA Tobacco Taliban) would like to see it and think by pretending that it exists, will force the issue. One must remember that we in the safety and health profession should protect all people, not just pick and choose. Therefore rather than kicking people out into the cold and rain to smoke a cigarette, the best thing for all is to provide smoking areas.
The only specific requirements in the UK at the moment are that in REST areas, non-smoking areas must be provided and, in foundry's, a smoking area must be provided!
Oh dear not this old chestnut again!!!!! Let's see if we can keep the replies down below 50 this time and no apoplexy!
By the way - if passive smoking ever harmed anyone (absolutely no proof it has - only theory) I would have died before I was born!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By John Allen
It’s strange how people who want to help prevent involuntary exposure to a noxious, offensive and long proven carcinogenic substance are considered “fascists” and those who apparently endorse the resulting illness and suffering consider their attitude reasonable and normal.
Just how smoking while at work is considered as “taking reasonable care” for one’s own health and safety is beyond me. If employers must cater for such reckless behaviour then provide a bus shelter out the back. Then give the rest of us two weeks extra holiday to compensate for the time the tobacco junkies have spent skiving.
“I’ve been exposed to such and such all my life and it never did me any harm” is an attitude we all hear when we start out in health and safety. It’s our job to know the facts so we are able to counter the argument, but it’s still a surprise to see it repeated on this website.
Sorry to raise the old chestnut about the single most preventable cause of death…
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Rob Todd
John, John, John. Those of us who smoke know the dangers to ourselves and willingly accept that. The passive smoking argument is a lie of which there is no clinical evidence that confirms that it is a hazard (along with mobile phones in petrol stations!). However that was not what I was saying (it's amazing what anti's can miss what they want to).What I was saying was that a designated smoking room is the ideal solution! I'll bet you are one of those who want to ban everything that is "bad" for you, alcohol, fatty food, cars, nuclear power, contact sports, scaffolds, chemicals in schools, eggs (some years), dieting, not dieting - the list is endless and farcical. Hey, I've agreed that segregation is a good thing but please don't be arrogant enough to try to speak on my behalf (the "oh they all really want to give up" brigade) when wanting to ban smoking outright. I don't want to stop smoking - I like it as do 30% of the population.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By John Allen
Far from banning everything I have long argued that the only way to effectively control drugs is to legalise them all. And I certainly don't want to ban tobacco, just involuntary exposure to its bi-product, a well proven human carcinogen. I have no such risk from an introvenous heroin user for instance.
As I say the fascists are not those in the protective camp.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By james mackie
Mike
I think smoking rooms should be provided at work. They should be made of 2" steel with no windows. When all the smokers are inside the door should be locked and they should be made to stay inside and stink each other out until they are sick.
Then they will know how non smokers feel!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Adrian Watson
Dear Rob,
As a life long non-smoker, with a heavily smoking mother, I have had first hand experience of passivwe smoking. As a consequence I abhor smoking, but I also accept that there are other people who like smoking and that is their right. As I don't like smoking I avoid areas where people smoke and that is my right.
In respect of passive smoking whilst there is evidence that it passive smoking may cause irritation and that it a risk factor in childhood asthma and upper respiratory tract infections, there is no conclusive evidence that it causes lung cancer.
As I've said before on this forum and I'm sure that I will say again, there are levels of exposure to substances to harm and those that don't. The simple fact is that if passive smoking were such a potent carcinogen then doll et al would not have been able to show the association between smoking and lung cancer in the 1950's. If passive smoking causes cancer ... and it may do, then current epidemiological surveys don't have the ability to show that association.
The current debate is not really about the health effects of passive smoking but about how far the state and others should interfere with the rights of free individuals.
Regards Adrian Watson
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Rob Todd
Adrian,
I agree with all that you say, very reasoned. I was being a touch mischievous in my first reply however all I really wanted to say is that smoking rooms should be provided which allows seperation of people. I think pubs should go back to the old days where you had two bars (okay maybe not saloon and public now) but one smoking and one not. In this day and age ventilation systems can cope with excessive smoke and those who don't wish to be in a smoking atmosphere can go in the other side. I just wish some people would not try to ban smoking for the sake of it and particularly those who try to patronise us by saying "it's for your own good".
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By John Allen
Mmm. Just checked the references. There about 30 reports showing causal relationships between environmental tobacco smoke and a whole range of illnesses including lung cancer and heart disease. Cigarette smoke contains 30 known or suspected carcinogens. On the other hand a couple of reports (paid for by the tobacco industry who for years refused to accept that even first hand smoke was harmful) say that some of the studies may be over-estimating the number of cases caused.
Quite clearly the evidence is inconclusive.
Good debate chaps. I’ve really enjoyed the discussion. Sorry I can’t keep it up but I’m off to Dublin for the weekend and a night out in a carcinogen free environment. The trouble is deciding where to go next, New York? Oslo? Maybe this time next year I’ll be able to go back to a local bar.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Adrian Watson
mmmm ...
Are you suggesting that just because the science isn't paid by the tobacco industry it's not biased or just because it is published by the tobacco industry it's wrong. Consider the last major study, it was started by the anti-smoking lobby and because it wasn't finding what they wanted, they dropped their sponsorship. The tobacco industry then picked it up and sponsored the end of the study. All scientist are biased... They are human and have their pet theories. I suggest there is a little of the defence of orthodoxy here. If smoking is bad, then passive smoking must be bad. It appears that if you suggest that the orthodoxy is not right or as clear-cut as is suggested, and then you're either a moron or a paid lackey of the tobacco industry.
I suggest you read the article in "What Risk" edited by Rodger bates, I also recommend that you read Occupational Epidemiology by Richard Monson 2nd Edn and then read the EPA meta study on second hand smoking and you'll see that the 30 reports are not as clear cut as you once believed.
Second quote "association is not causation." Just because something is associated with something else it doesn't mean that it causes it. Have you considered all of the Bradford Hill criteria? Didn't George Bernard Shaw once say that as top hats and cigars were associated with long life, everybody should have one?
Furthermore you state that you checked the references. Can I ask did you read the references, or the abstracts, or look at the number of references? If you didn't I suggest that you read the reports and not only the abstracts. Remember, just because it's been published , doesn't make it right.
Regards Adrian Watson
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Adrian Watson
Oh,
By the way, I forgot to say as a pedant. Epidemiologogical studies cannot show causation; they merely show association. Only experiments can prove causation. The Bradford Hill criteria do not show causation they merely allow you to infer causation on the balance of the evidence.
Regards Adrian Watson
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Jimmy
My answer to Mikes NcDonnell's initial and original question is----- No I haven't!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By joseph byrne
Must agree fully Mike we should be helping smokers, if an employee informs his employer he is an alcoholic or drug addict he is obliged to help him/her with treatment, why do employers attempt to just ban smoking completely? smokers also require help (this is a non smokers reply).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Rob Todd
Here we go again - no you shouldn't "help" smokers. How patronising can the anti-smoking lobby be? It's a conscious decision to smoke and ONLY if someone approaches you, wanting to give up, should you "help". When will you people realise that most smokers enjoy smoking and don't want your "help". Would you like me to "help" you give up drinking or eating fatty food or gambling on the Lottery?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By David J.
As ever the old smoke debate gets some hackles up. As a non-smoker and I suppose anti smoking, I do have some objection to my clothes, hair and I would suspect some of my internals contaminated by smoke from others
(smell y shirt, jacket etc. in the morning after being at my local the night before). However I do have some sympathy with smokers. Not least that it seems from conversation with friends, co-workers etc. that it IS NOT a FREE CHOICE and that many would give up tomorrow if they could kick the HABIT. I.e. the addiction to a DRUG. It may well be free will to actually start smoking. However, given that it takes less than four cigarettes for the addiction to kick in, I don’t think the argument that it continues to be an individual choice to carry on smoking holds water.
I would non-the-less make smoking rooms available to staff, mostly because I feel there is nothing worse than having to push my way past groups of employees congregated outside offices, shops etc. feeding there habit. Not sure either that it reflects well on the company/employer especially when the staff are proudly (or not) wearing the corporate uniform.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Zyggy Turek
Mike,
The Govt. will be releasing a Public Health White Paper later this year, which is widely predicted to propose legislation for smoke free public places. This would either be on a national basis, or allow Local Authorities to declare & enforce smoke-free workplaces and enclosed public places to protect employees and the public from exposure to secondhand smoke.
This debate is gaining momentum & a number of areas, e.g. Liverpool, have already declared that they will be "working towards smoke free by 2008".
Within the North West, 10 Council Leaders have expressed a similar commitment by 2006.
As for the use of smoking rooms per se, I do not agree that this is always the answer.
Just ask yourself how many of these are inadequately ventilated, poorly maintained & with a distinct "off white" decor?
How long will it be before claims come through that employees have contracted illnesses due to being subjected to a concentration of secondhand smoke rather than as a result of their own particular habit?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Rod Douglas
Employees are not contracted to smoke...........
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Robert.J
I think that smoking rooms are generally a thing of the past. Space costs money, and redecoration is a nightmare. Even smokers (like me), I believe, prefer to have my "contracted" break from my work, outside.
There is a big demand for "smokers shelters", they in the open and well vented and also provide staff,non-smoking and smoking a rest area away from the work place.
It's good to talk. The one thing that seems to slip a non-smokers mind is that, yes, some people need to smoke, they are addicted to the nicotine. Some are addicted to food!!So I would say that to weigh the odds up and to get a better return from employees that cannot or wont kick the habit then, a shelter may be a better option than just a total ban or get wet attitude which in my view is a bit draconian and at the least selfish.
Must go now I'm dying for a cup of real coffee a sticky bun and a fag!!
R.J.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.