Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By Ian Hurley
We are a factory which is enclosed by fencing only entrance to the main building is via a gate which has a sign stating "no smoking beyond this point".My question is,Do we require more no smoking signs at the staff entrances to the main building?
thanks in advance
Ian
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Simon Shaw
Ian
The Regulations apply to enclosed public/ workplaces (premises). The Regs state that signs have to be displayed at each entrance to the premises.
Therefore I read this as meaning that yes, you will have to display signs at the entrance to the premises; under these Regs you don't have to display one at the main gate.
Legally you could allow people to smoke within your factory gate but outside the main building.
http://www.dh.gov.uk/ass...04/14/29/56/04142956.pdf
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Ali
At each entrance to the building you need to display a size A5 sign displaying the International non-smoking symbol (70mm diameter). Additionally, if the entrance(s)are shared with the public / visitors/ contractors / non-employees you need to add "No smoking. It is against the law to smoke in these premises". As afore mentioned you don't need one at the boundary.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By artisdeeian
Forgive me guys, but being a non smoker, I thought that it is illegal (1st July 2007)to smoke anywhere in a public place and at work. If it is that you can smoke outside the boundry fence then surely this must be classed as a Public Place. If this is the case then the 'Smokers' will have know where else to go but 'Home'.
Ian.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Alan Hoskins
It applies only to enclosed or substantially enclosed spaces, Ian. Those with a roof.
Alan
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Robert.
In the meantime Artisdeeian, have a read at the proposed legislation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Nick House
Here's a slightly different angle on this then.
If you are a tenant in a multi occupancy building, where the landlord has the relevant no smoking signs displayed at the entrance to the building; does each individual tenant have to display a no smoking sign at the entrance to their respective office areas?
I have heard that this is a bit of a grey area, but someone has suggested to me that I don't need to display the full signage, including the 'no smoking' wording, simply the sign depicting the symbol.
Could anyone clarify this?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Frank Newman
I can't see it. If I read the legislation correctly you can't smoke anywhere but in a designated space. So it is automatically assumed that you cannot smoke unless it is signposted as a "smoking area"
I don't think you need to sign post anywhere as a "non-smoking" area.
Merv
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By James Lawrence
Nick,
My understanding for clarification.
A no smoking sign which displays only the international no smoking symbol (min of 70mm in dia) may be displayed in a prominent position at the entrance instead of a A5 no smoking sign with tthe required words when
- premises are located within other smoke free premises that carry the A5 sign. e.g a bar within a train station, or a shop within an indoor shopping centre.
There is a business free packs on smoke free for England and do register to benifit.
James
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Nick House
Excellent - thanks guys.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Kenneth Patrick
Merv,
For a lot of us working in plants it is the opposite of what you say. Legally we will be allowed to smoke in most areas of our premises because they are open.
"Section 2 of the Health Act 2006 sets out that premises that are open to the public, or are
used as a place of work by more than one person or where members of the public might
attend to receive or provide goods or services are to be smokefree in areas that are enclosed
or substantially enclosed."
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Frank Newman
Ken,
you are probably correct but I think there is now a legal assumption that smoking is not allowed except where expressly authorised.
Merv
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Jay Joshi
The legislation only applies to premises that are 'enclosed' and 'substantially enclosed' with some exemptions.
Therefore there is no statutory ban on smoking "outside", although most employers, even before the regulations come into force do not permit smoking on their premises except designated rooms or areas.
A smoking shelter from 1st July 2007 has to be outside the definition of enclosed or substaintially enclosed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By artisdeeian
Hi Guys.
Thanks for your responses but just to clear things up or make them a little more understandable. I work in a large factory with many buildings, all 'Enclosed' therefore smoking is banned. We have several fork truck drivers who drive trucks with open cage cabs. we also have drivers delivering goods in and out of the factory. the public do not enter our site but the odd contractor does. Is this then down to managements discretion wether or not he allows smoking outside these buildings, or does he have the choice to provide a 'Shelter' inside the perimeter fence, or can he ban smoking on the premises alltogether?
and if a delivery driver jumps out of his cab and 'lights up' so to speak is he breaking the law.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Kate Graham
The smoking ban does not apply in the open air where there is no roof. Of course employers can choose to ban smoking anywhere on their site if they want to. That's up to them but anyone who does smoke there isn't breaking the law, they are just breaking the site rules.
You do have to post no-smoking signs at the entrances to buildings.
All the information is at the link already posted.
Kate
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Crystal Butler
If you are allowed to smoke outside, is there any specified distance away from the building or footpaths that you need to specify and are you obligated to have a smoking shelter if you allow smoking to continue on site.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Kate Graham
There's no specified distance, and no obligation to provide a shelter.
Kate
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By gillian collins
hi
i have never heard so much rubbish,why is the goverment having a go at the smokers again,can they not think of anything else to moan about. I think i would rather be in a room full of smokers than outside with all the fumes from cars that are known to kill.My mother and father died from cancer three months ago and the cancer doctor told me that there was no proof that smokink causes cancer. I think the goverment needs to live in the real world and see what is going on,they must all sit round a table and think what can we do now ,i know we will pick on the smokers again.If you go to your hospital at night just see how many people are there through drink, and what did the goverment do increased drinking hours,i would rather be in a pub next to a smoker than a drunk. They want to look at living expences with gas and electricity going up and people that carn't work dont get any extra so they sit in the dark with no heating on, Do they know it costs £40+ a week for elec and gas, and most people only get £96ish.i think this is a bigger problem than smokers. I am sure it is an infringment on there human rights.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Steve Cartwright
Gillian
You are obviously a smoker by the sounds of your rant. I personnaly can't wait for it to be banned having spent many an enjoyable evening in Scotland where you can have a drink and something to eat without the stench of smoke.
I am an ex smoker who managed to pack in 19 years ago. One of my biggest regrets in life was starting smoking when I was 14. Thought I looked cool with the rest of the idiots.
I'm not a doctor so can not say smoking is a direct cause of cancer, however all the medical experts in the world agree that it is not good for you and it can damage your health.
If you want to carry on smoking you go ahead. I bet you even went for smoke after your rant as well just to calm yourself down. At about £5 for a pack of 20 its a very expensive hobby, not to mention having to decorate your house every 12 months because everything turns yellow, all the extra perfume to mask the smell of the smoke, buying gum to stop your breath smelling, it just goes on and on and on.
Oh and I forgot to mention all the wasted money on pension schemes etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Martin C
Gillian, do you work for the tobacco industry?
Over 50 years ago Professor Sir Richard Doll first showed the link between smoking and lung cancer. The only studies that have ever attempted to disprove this link have been organised by the tobacco industry. Then there is COPD, thrombosis and a long list of other things linked to smoking. If you want to go to a hospital go to the medical wards where you will find they are stocked full of smokers suffering from the effects of tobacco smoke. I watched my father, a life long smoker, die a slow and painful death from COPD. Ten years from the day he retired to his death he was virtually a cripple who could not get enough oxygen into his blood to allow him to cross a room without stopping to get his breath. Brother in law died aged 43 from a heart attack. Neighbour also aged 43 died from a heart attack. Aunt aged 54 died from COPD. All smoked to the day they died. My wife lived with her pipe smoking father (stroke at 56) until she was twenty. All through her childhood she suffered from chronic bronchitis, until she moved away from her father, and still has impaired lung function.
Finally, how dare you put the rights of a smoker to smoke above the rights of a non-smoker to clean air. That is the last stupid claim of someone who has lost the argument.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Rob T
Well Martin,
There we see it again! If you can't win an argument you start shouting at people and calling them stupid. Well there is an argument which I have on many occasions put on here and NO-ONE has answered (because there is NO evidence) which is that passive smoking has NEVER directly killed anyone! No death certificate has ever been issued in England which places passive smoking as a direct cause of death. Don't come on here and challenge this without evidence (and don't quote cases of type 2 cancer which are not associated with smoking).
Yes smoking can kill people who directly smoke (sorry Gillian you're wrong there)along with many other factors i.e. obesity (no skinny person has died of heart disease associated with smoking). But and a big but, if you as an adult want to smoke then it is up to you as is suicide or running head first into a wall in your spare time (i.e. not at work).
Myths are made up by the medical association and ASH of course for their own ends (similar to some of the more extreme Greens - did anyone watch Channel 4) and the only way they have of winning arguments is to lie and ridicule people.
Facts are exactly that - Facts. It is totally factual tosay that there is no evidence that passive smoking alone causes lung cancer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By James Perry
O...Kay..
If I can just side step the passionate debate on the effects of smoking for a minute.....
For a Smoking Shelter (Bike Shed design - No Bikes), how do you define enclosed or substantially enclosed?
Thanks
Jim
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Jonathan Breeze
James,
Substantially enclosed = a roof and more than 2 walls (or walled aread greater than 50%)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By BB
Come on Gillian, time for a retort! What about another rant, your last one was top entertainment!
Yeah, but no, but yeah, but no, but........
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Martin C
Rob T, you are using the same arguments against passive smoking research as were used against smoking research in the past. Have you ever seen a death certificate that put cause of death as hit by a car? If not then by your standards this means no one has ever died because they were hit by a car.
In 2004 Professor Sir Richard Doll published research on passive smoking in which it was estimated that non-smokers exposed to second-hand smoke are between 20 and 30 per cent more likely to develop lung cancer. If smoke breathed in through a cigarette's filter is dangerous how can smoke that is breathed in without going through the filter be less dangerous? The dose is lower maybe but it is still a dose of dangerous chemicals. Simply applying the law relating to COSHH the fumes from a cigarette would not be allowed in the workplace, there was no need for further legislation, just applying the existing laws would have been enough.
You seem to be on the side of Gillian, can you explain why a smoker's human rights are more important than a non-smoker's human rights? That claim is what I said was stupid, perhaps you can explain why it is not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Crystal Butler
We presently let our staff smoke at appointed tables out side our main canteen although this is an open picnic area for smokers and non smokers alike to eat there lunch, if there is no legislation for smoking outside then can they continue to smoke at these tables or is this classed as an out side in side area?
Also some staff stand just out side the main door smoking to get a little shelter and you have to walk through their smoke when entering or leaving the building again is this still acceptable under the new legislation
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Rob T
Yes Michael but there is no such thing as a toxic chemical only a toxic dose.
None of the amounts of smoke passed by passive smoking would exceed an OEL (sorry WEL now)! And to quote from an avid anti smokers research is I suppose typical. Have a look at the Froggat report (sponsored by none of the interested bodies) a few years back.It was the only one that actually put testers near the mouths of non-smokers who lived with smokers.It showed that you would be lucky (sorry unlucky) to get 1 cigarettes worth of smoke per week. When you consider that almost all smokers who get lung cancer are at least 20 a day persons and on average have smoked for approx 25 years at least then you'd have to live well into your thousands to have a problem. (Not many vikings left to worry about).
In any case your body can cope with at least 8 cigarettes a day and epel all amounts of the cigarettes noxious substances in inhaled form.
I think sometimes people just tend to believe what they want to believe and, particularly where bereavement is concerned, have to blame something. I have also lost relatives to smoking and would do as much as any of you to stop youngsters taking up the weed. That doesn't ever mean that I would twist statistics or downright lie like one particular anti smoking group, to do it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Merv Newman
Froggart actually suggested that Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) "might cause several hundred of the current annual total of 40 000 lung cancer deaths in the UK, a small but not insignificant number"
Like Rob, and for similar reasons, I have a hard time getting my head around that.
Merv
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By gillian collins
steve & martin
why are you so arrogant and rude, this is supposed to be a discussion forum not a site to slag people off? By the way drink,drugs,and car fumes cause death (KNOWN FACT)
DO you have a car or two that is poisoning innocent people in the streets
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By J Knight
Gillian,
I don't run my car in restaurants or other people's houses.
Rob,
Once again you concentrate entirely on lung cancer, as though that was the only cause of death associated with smoking. What about COPD? I have a quick quote from an abstract I just found on the Internet 'Even passive smoking in early childhood as well as intrauterine exposure could pave the way for COPD'. Don't know if that's true, as its only a quote lifted from an abstract, but its somebody's opinion. COPD is the fourth (or maybe the fifth, I forget) biggest cause of preventable death in the UK, and for the many who don't die of it, it will be a severe limit on their lives. As with cancer, the evidence is difficult to interpret, but far more smokers end up with COPD than they do with cancer, and we could therefore reasonably expect that to be true for passive smokers.
Anyway, come July this debate will effectively be ended, or does anybody believe that the forthcoming restrictions on smoking will ever be lifted?
John
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By A Hayden
I lost my Mother in January to lung cancer. She was diagnosed last May and it was excruciating to watch her die slowly and very painfully over eight months. At the end, the doctors had to give her morphine just to turn her in the bed. Her specialist said that without a doubt her years of smoking caused this awful disease.
Gillian, I don't think anyone is slagging anyone else off, just participating in a lively debate, but I personally would like to see cigarettes banned, cigarette manufacturers outlawed and vilified, and most definitely smoking made taboo.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Steve Cartwright
I couldn't have put it better myself J Knight.
Gillian
I am a Chartered Health and Safety Practitioner and I am in the business of promoting good health and safety.
Smoking is one of the biggest killers in the UK.
Do I need to say anymore.
Steve
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Rob T
Yes Steve, no problem with your comment - smoking can and does kill some smokers - but it can't kill anyone else just by they're being in the vicinity of smoke.
As for the guy who wants to ban smoking because it killed a loved one - do you want to ban cars, peanuts, swings, mountain climbing etc.
Let adults kill themselves if they want to, it's their choice if they're not at work and they know the dangers. What business is it of anyone elses. Stop trying to ban everything, coz in the end you won't have anything to ban as we'll all be locked in padded cells.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By John_Webster
Just the fact alone that it STINKS is sufficient reason alone to ban smoking from enclosed public places.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Dave West
When i eat junk food i admit that it is playing a part in my excessive weight gain and i also admit if i carry on it will have a part to play in my death at some point. Now that was not hard was it? So why do some smokers live in denial and make excuses for a habbit that we all knows is not very good for you.
My dad has always smoked and he came out with that argument about car fumes etc and my 14 year old boy bless him said "Grandad i think that is a typical smokers answer as i have always been taught at school the dangers of smoking" That was in January and he has not smoked since. in his words "shamed by a child"
I am a non smoker but i feel physically ill when i come home from the pub, my eyes and throat sore and clothes stinking. I have little Patience for smokers who also hold there arm out straight to prevent the smoke going in their eyes (but its OK to go in mine!)
And the rubbish excuse of the death cert lol How many HIV deaths have that on the certs? Its usually pneumonia or something.
Ok can i ask? We have smokers who stand in the entrance to the building and they say its council land and i cant stop them. People cant open the windows of their office cause of the smell. I will stop it no matter what but just wondered how i stand legally?
Many thanks
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Rob T
What is so difficult about letting smokers smoke amongst other smokers??? Why can't we have pubs for smokers and no smokers? Why can't we have segregated areas (completely segregated!)? Wouldn't that satisfy the ASH brigade? No, you want to stick your noses into my daily life - what gives you the right? If we are segregated you don't have to smell it, inhale it, look at it or be near it. Why ban it? By all means concentrate on the young to stop them, but leave us alone. You're never satisfied are you? I'm not bothered about whether I get lung cancer, I have to go sometime and to tell the truth I have a lot more hazardous stuff to do than worry about smoking. And yes, at 44 I still play rugby every week, can run 10 miles, can trek through 20 miles of jungle or desert without much problem on 40 fags a day. I hope all you who talk about health effects can do the same - if you can't - Get a life!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By gillian collins
nice one rob, there lives must be so sad they need something to moan about,so they all jump on the band wagon
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By gillian collins
i think the only reason the goverment want to ban smoking is that they passed the rule that anyone can bring in ciggs from EEC countries which means the goverment are not getting the taxes they would normally get from cigs in this country,and for the anti smokers ,the tax from ciggs helped pay for most things eg NHS .Once they ban smoking they will be lost at what to do next so beware drivers its your turn next
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Pete48
Oh what a joy to find the perversity of human nature in all its glory.
Those who are addicted trumpet their cause as if it is their last breath.
Those who feel afflicted, sit smugly on the "evidence" and the cusp of legislative change.
It's almost enough to drive me back to tobacco. I don't even have the comfort of good hunting anymore. The bottom line, of course, is that we live in a democracy and that democratic voice has spoken; so smokers will just have to adjust like those who hunted.
All the indications are that if you do things quietly...............
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.