Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By garyh
Excerpt from The Times today:-
"The ban on smoking in pubs was an over-reaction to the threat posed by passive smoking and symptomatic of MP's failure to understand the concept of risk, a House of Lords committee has said".
Well I never. How much other Safety legislation has ben put into place by these geniuses without proper consideration?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Philby'
A bit like the NRA claiming:
'guns dont kill people, people kill people'
and I smoke!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By garyh
It is true that guns don't kill people, people do.
It's just like the saying "there's no such thing as fast cars, only fast drivers". This is also an absolute truth.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By David J Jones
The most dangerous component of a motor vehicle is the nut holding the steering wheel.
(And they're licensed to do so!)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Jonathan Breeze The Times report can be found on: http://www.timesonline.c...cle/0,,2-2214806,00.htmlHaving read it, I'm trying to decide whether the Times report is muddled, or the Lords Committee are muddled or a bit of both. For example, the Times report states: "The committee disputed a principle underlying the work of the Health and Safety Executive: that society has a greater aversion to an accident killing ten people than to ten accidents killing one person each, and that safety spending should be allocated accordingly." Then goes on to say: "The committee also criticised the Government for spending less on road safety than rail safety, when there are far higher number of deaths proportionately on the roads." To my mind the latter statement backs up the HSE theory rather than contradicting it, because of the nature of rail and road accidents. I also wonder how an "Economic Affairs Committee" is qualified to comment on bad science, surely that is the remit of a "Scientific Affairs Committee"? Having said all that, there are some points they make that I do accept, notably risk aversion in the public sector and the private sector motivation by profit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By garyh
The main point is, I feel , that MPs don't understand the concept of risk..........
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Jeffrey Watt
The Irish regs go to 4 pages
Page 1 title
Page 2 The regs
Page 3 The regs repeated as a schedule
Page 4 This page is intentionally blank
There ain't a lot of room for manoevuring with handy words like "risk assessment".
So we are used to taking a risk based approach. IMHO pubs are workplaces therefore the Welfare regs cover this and employees are entitled to a workplace safe from the effects of inhaling tobacco smoke. Elimination can achieve this but so can LEV, which allows people to continue their addiction to nicotine.
Technology can deal with this issue with a subsequent boost to industry through investment in HVAC style companies.
Jeff
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Jonathan Breeze
... wheras Lords committees do by virtue of being ennobled?
Is that what you mean?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Jim Walker
Without getting involved in details about passive smoking.
Living north of the wall, I now find pubs a pleasant experience and have been to them much more in the past few months.
As with Eire, landlords have not noticed much loss of customers.
I know several people who have now managed to defeat the weed.
Get on with it you lot down south and stop wingeing!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By garyh
I personally can't stand the smell of smoke. However, I believe that the aproach should have been to set an air quality standard (based on an assessment of the real and not perceived risk) and made pubs achieve or be made to enforce a ban.
A way to do this would be by LEV ie air handling systems (next time you in a Wetherspoon pub, look upwards........they have long had a policy of having this sort of system).
Recall, this is what we do for many substances hazardous to health; even Carcinogens are handled like whis, albeit with an ALARP proviso.
Why didn't they just set a WEL for Tobacco smoke? Then again how many MPs studied our existing UK model (ie COSHH, which I believe is an excellent approach) before putting this through?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Smurfer
garyh - it's all very well mentioning COSHH and AQSs, but the first principle of COSHH is ELIMINATE the hazard or SUBSTITUTE it for something less hazardous. Therefore it could be argued that the Government DID consider COSHH when implementing the ban by ELIMINATING tobacco smoke from public areas.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By J Knight
Gary,
I agree, COSHH is an excellent model; the hierarchy begins with elimination. If you don't need it, don't use it. Who, after all, needs to smoke? So ban it at work. Stopping smoking isn't about a stranger (your future self) not dying of cancer in 40 years time; its about feeling better today, and tomorrow, and the day after. I'm entirely with Jim on this one,
John
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Sean Fraser
Hear, hear Jim - I too am delighted I can go to a pub or restaurant without the disgusting smell of smoke in my nostrils and irritating my eyes, or having to smell the residue off my clothing for days and weeks later. Even if passive smoking isn't as harmful, it is still disgusting to those of us who don't smoke and smokers seem too selfish to be considerate to the comfort of others - but then, junkies don't care anyway, do they?
And in Scotland, the evidence gathered before the historic decision (democracy in action by the way) was "very persuasive". I suppose if your key players either front tobacco interests, are lobbied effectively by the pro-tobacco people or simply have a heavy investment in their companies directly or otehrwise, then you wouldn't want to upset that particular apple cart would you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Martin Monaghan
I've just spent a week in Scotland and it was great not having to put up with smoke in the pubs. On the way home I stopped at an English pub for a meal and had to leave because of the smoky atmosphere. I don't know whether or not our MPs understand the concept of risk, but in this particular case they understand what the majority of the people want.
Martin.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By jackw.
As a non-smoker up here in gods chosen country the smoking ban is great no more smelly clothes hair etc. Also having managed to overcome the big C the health benefits are welcome. Oh as a matter of record LEV takes the smoke away but does NOT remove the harmful chemicals of cigs from the air.
Prior to the ban I often visited Ireland and parts of Canada both had the smoking ban again i found it refreshing (no pun intended), Also i figure if my clothes and hair stink..my insides must be getting damaged.
Cheers all
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By garyh
As the person who started this thread I find it interesting that no one has really commented on my suggestion of a WEL for Tobaco smoke and that several people have gone onto the "unpleasant" aspect of smoke.
However unpleasant smells are surely Environmental issues, not H&S issues.
I repeat my assertion that a WEL should have been adopted and pubs required to put in LEV or other measures to achieve it.
All this baloney about banning public smoking on health grounds from MPs - if they concerned enough why not ban the sale of tobbacco? Could it be that the words "tax revenue" are in their minds?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By J Knight
Gary,
at least two people have commented on the idea of a WEL. WELs are only used where it is necessary to use a substance at work, otherwise hazardous substances are simlpy eliminated. Tobacco smoke is not necessary; therefore it can and should be eliminated; therefore a WEL is not required,
John
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Steve B
Garyh, last comment absolutely spot on Tax Revenue. The government go about smoking bans all the wrong way, they talk of how much money will be saved through the NHS etc, yet if they feel so strongly about it why not ban it all together. TAX that's why... so the NHS will save money on treating smokers or the results of passive smoking... I have heard many comments about non smokers not wanting to pay for the NHS treatment of smokers.. what about Alcoholics, drug users etc the government give Alcoholics extra money to feed their habit because it's an illness and even drug users are now getting a safe place to take drugs. ( but I suggest you all wake up, a lot of people are stopping smoking (including myself 4 months now) therefore the revenue on smoking will dissapear or at the very least decrease... and where do you think the government will get the money from then? (you got it you and I through something else) VAT on fresh air maybe. segregation, smokers pubs, levs etc etc would have been a much better appoach. finished ranting now
Steve B
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By IanD
In response to Gary and others suggesting the COSHH approach. Tobacco smoke would be classified as a Class 1 carcinogen (Proven to cause cancer in humans) and with this classification the substance would be banned from being supplied and used ??
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By jackw.
Total ban what a load of baloney, No one is saying you can't smoke. just that you can't inflict your filthy habit on others. I can't ever recal a smoker in a pub or on trains, buses etc etc. ever asking me if it was ok to poison me, leave me smelling like an ash tray etc. As for the tax..sure the government gets income and if it didn't from fags then it would have to be from something else.. Thats how it works.. what a country..want the best health service, schools, roads, education, pensions..just don't want to pay for it... sorry for the rant.. but really how else do you think it works
cheers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Aidan Toner
Try and not panic boys and girls.There are a few positives for smokers within the total public ban scenario.(1)You get to mix with fellow smokers and rant in a collective and universal fasion at being hard done by-The rant goes along these lines, why did'nt public places invest heavily in extraction equipement,training,maintenance and inspection of systems to facilitate my addiction.(2)And Seriously-You,ll like this one,you get to experience the old bike shed phenomenon,yes you get to be a rebel AGAIN.In Ireland we now have what is called the 'new court'.In translation this means the opportunity to meet available partners in a discreet,unique and non distracting place ie. external shelters or pub doorsteps dont generally have loud music, plasma screens etc.You can then engage in that old pastime called conversation and THEN MAKE YOUR BIG MOVE--GOOD LUCK- AND HOPEFULLY TOP OF THE MORNING TO YOU.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Jeffrey Watt
Aidan
You old lounge lizard you. I'm going to warn all the ladies about you at the next meeting.
Jeff
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By jackw.
And of course you are confident that your prospective new partner has the same disgusting habit and wont complain..much!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Philby'
I wasn't going to respond to this thread but have been keeping an eye on it....WHY do people have to be so vitriolic and abusive about smokers? Fair comment on the clothes, hair, air smells etc...but to sign off...
'And of course you are confident that your prospective new partner has the same disgusting habit and wont complain..much!!!!!!!!!!!!!'
...is a bit harsh...I wonder how many of you speed...the passive effects of that are a bit more immediate, and yes I know you get prosecuted for it, if it can be proved...but as pointed out some of us are addicts and some genuinly derive satisfaction, no matter how false... educate and support us, but please don't have a go!
Philby'
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By jackw.
Can I assume then that you always check with non smokers before you light up?.. "passive cancer" now that's harsh!!!!!!!!!!!!!
end
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Philby'
JW
Yes, and I dont smoke in my own house or car, never smoke when invited to at other peoples houses unless they smoke, but not if they have kids...and if in the pub yes if its the smoking area.... pub/eateries/restraunts, never if eating or others eating and, visit Scotland and Ireland often and abide by laws...even if locals dont! And will abide when law comes in here!
I'm not defending smoking, just dont think lumping us all in as iresponsible, dirty, digusting killers is fair or called for.
Here we support alcoholics and drug users, we dont label them or sack them...get caught smoking and it may just be a different matter!
Philby
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Aidan Toner
Philby- good to hear from you.I must however protest and seek evidence(personal testimony will do) of flouting of public smoking ban in Republic.You see,Im a part time holiday barman in a very nice pub in West Donegall.Lighting up a fag would be equivalent to saying something derogatory about Jack Charlton.The real fact is its all now a way of life.No bother at all.GB will get their head around it and, 12 months from implementation,wonder what all the fuss was about.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By J Knight
There's also fire risk, not just smoke,
John
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Ron Young
"I repeat my assertion that a WEL should have been adopted and pubs required to put in LEV or other measures to achieve it."
And if this WEL was exceeded on a particularly busy night or the LEV broke down, who is going to clear the pub?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Philby'
Aiden,
I couldn't possibly divulge, only to say it was in the old country...south and rural...and I also have to admit that it quite possibly might have involved part of my own family, who are still resident in them there parts....and I believe that one has now given up....as for sunny Scotland, yes it was sunny(and it was TOO hot), the bar in question had a conservatory where all the big windows, almost to the floor, opened out, so not entirely an enclosed space. The other one had an exceptionally large porch, with seats and tables, to the side enterance, it looked and smelt very new...almost as if it had been put there for smokers...havent been back so things may have changed now.
Funny comment from my inlaws in Scotland....'oh we can get something called a 'fish supper' up here'
'Really' says I, 'is that 'once?' I enquire, 'no!' is their response...walks into chippie, they order two fish suppers, I order 'twice, one with scraps and a kiddies portion'...we all get the same thing! Best of all, the fryer is only from Yorkshire and his mother from the street up from us in Otley!
Philby'
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.