Welcome Guest! The IOSH forums are a free resource to both members and non-members. Login or register to use them

Postings made by forum users are personal opinions. IOSH is not responsible for the content or accuracy of any of the information contained in forum postings. Please carefully consider any advice you receive.

Notification

Icon
Error

2 Pages<12
Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Admin  
#41 Posted : 17 March 2007 08:42:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Dave West
Gillian, Its not just Britain and many more will follow. So Far

1 Australia
2 Ireland
3 New Zealand
4 Norway
5 Italy
6 Sweden
7 Uruguay
8 Scotland
9 Hong Kong
10 Wales
11 Northern Ireland
12 England
13 United States

I heard an interview somewhere that in Scotland that many people have packed in smoking that case of lung cancer will be drastically reduced within a generation.

I understand that you are feeling persicuted but as a smoker you would not understand how it feels as a non smoker to feel the effects of your habit. I would like to hear your thoughts when this has been in force for 6 months if possible.

What i would like to see is more support for smokers who want to pack in.
Admin  
#42 Posted : 17 March 2007 08:57:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By J Knight
Hi Rob,

I can, though I don't often get the opportunity to trek in jungles (and currently plantar fasciatis is reducing my running, but I'm in rehab).

Segregation won't work; too many people have friends who smoke and friends who don't. Voluntarism doesn't work, because if smoking is an option smokers will take it. Smoking is now very much a minority pursuit, and will continue to decline. And Rob, believe me, lung cancer is the least of your worries. Try COPD, try emphysema, try amputations through circulatory disorder. Yes, at 44 you're doing OK, and I sincerely hope you are still OK at 74, but smoking is not helping your odds.

Oh, and if you look at the BBC website there's a piece about a study done in the US; early findings (and yes it is only one study) suggest that black kids are much more likely to develop asthma if they are exposed to second-hand smoke than are white kids. Seems most of the studies are done on the white majority,

John
Admin  
#43 Posted : 17 March 2007 10:46:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By gillian collins
pete48
can you tell me what pleasure it gives you to shoot a defensless animal that god put on this planet,that is sick,you can walk away from smokers, animals carn't walk away from your guns or dogs that rip them to bits as they screem in agony
Admin  
#44 Posted : 17 March 2007 13:52:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Nick House
Oh my, this is very entertaining.

I currently class myself as a smoker, although I am in the early stages of trying to quit, so can see the argument from both sides.

Even when I was smoking, when out socially I only tended to smoke where it was socially acceptable at the time - i.e. not in restaurants, etc.

Why is it that smokers will nearly always defend their right to smoke, often citing that it is their right to smoke wherever they like? Whatever anyone says, there is plenty of irrefutable proof that smoking is not good for you, and also that second hand smoke is not good for anyone either.

Yes, I understand why smokers often take the stand that seems prevalent on this thread, but if rational thought were put into practice, the argument would soon fall apart.

I also understand why non-smokers take the stand that they do, but again, their argument is often unnecessarily biased in their favour.

I have visited both Ireland and Scotland both pre and post legislation, and can honestly say that the bulk of people (smokers and non-smokers alike), are pretty happy with the situation in both countries. The only comment I would like to add is that pubs there often smell even more disgusting, as the smell of stale tobacco is now replaced by the smell of stale beer in the carpets...

In a so called democratic society, why is it that people find it so difficult to accept cultural change? Let's face it, as has already been posted here, whether you like it or not, smoking is fast becoming socially unacceptable, not just here in the UK, but on a global scale.

Also, those who still stick to saying that smoking is not really as harmful as the experts say, I can only say wake up and smell the coffee!
Admin  
#45 Posted : 17 March 2007 14:03:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By gillian collins
hi nick
do you not think that drink and drugs kill, but the goverment has increased drinking hours and smoking cannabis leagal
Admin  
#46 Posted : 17 March 2007 15:02:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Nick House
That is not the argument though is it, as it does not necessarily follow that increasing drinking hours equals people drinking more. In fact, in a lot of instances, the opposite is true.

As for drugs, yes drugs are bad. The government has not legalised cannabis though, just reduced the category (which, I have to agree though is a bad decision).

The thing that makes me smile, not just in this debate, but in a lot of others is that it quite quickly becomes apparent that people step away from reasonable argument pretty quickly, and let their emotions cloud their judgement.
Admin  
#47 Posted : 19 March 2007 08:53:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Rob T
In a poll published today it was found that 74% of people in Scotland think that it is fair to allow segregated smoking clubs! That's fair isn't it?

Oh and by the way, I was in Ireland recently and all pubs I visited had back rooms, furnished and with heaters that allowed smoking. None of this roof/50% open rubbish. That's why it isn't so much of a problem over there.
Admin  
#48 Posted : 19 March 2007 16:47:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Steve Cartwright
The point of the smoking legislation is not to protect the smoker but to protect the non smoker.

The Government has only banned smoking in all enclosed public areas.

You can still smoke in the comfort of your own home, own car and in wide open spaces providing you are on your own and not on company business.



Admin  
#49 Posted : 19 March 2007 18:30:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Merv Newman
Enough. I'm off to the bar for a large Aberlore. No ice thanks.

S'legal innit ?

Merv
Admin  
#50 Posted : 20 March 2007 16:40:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By J Knight
Rob,

Segregated smoking clubs; what about the workers? That, at the end of the day, is the point,

John
Admin  
#51 Posted : 20 March 2007 16:47:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Dave West
Just to add something here. I phoned the helpline to ask about people like gas engineers who have to visit private homes. Where do their employers lie there with duty of care? "oo er! dont know that one!" came the response "We will get back to you"

Two weeks later a guy phoned to inform me that the worker could ask the home owner not to smoke. When asked what they should do if the home owner refuses "errr I dont know that!" When i asked if the worker would be within his rights if he refused to work there "sorry sir we cant advise you on this"
Admin  
#52 Posted : 21 March 2007 18:57:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Patrick de Landre-Grogan
Hi all
There was a point raised first by Crystal Butler and later by David West.
That point was about people stood just outside the door of a workplace (still on company premises). Other workers and members of the public have to walk through the smoke to enter the building.
Does anyone know if the new law covers this or not.
I don't want to here emotional comments on the moral rights and wrongs, I would like to know if the new lae covers it.
Admin  
#53 Posted : 22 March 2007 00:11:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By darren booth
i am not 100%, but i am sure that the new law states a minimum distance away from entrances, although i dont know whether the entrance in question needs to be public access or not or what the distance is.i have not had to do too much research on this as my employer has been unusually cooperative!
Admin  
#54 Posted : 22 March 2007 11:13:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By J Knight
Hi Patrick,

I don't believe the law does cover that. We have tackled it by way of policy statements, but to break the policy in the way you state wouldn't, in our opinion, be breaking the law,

John
Admin  
#55 Posted : 22 March 2007 12:22:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Patrick de Landre-Grogan
Hi all
John I think you are right about the act not covering people gathering outside an entrance.
I have located the actual act on-line, visit:

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/ACTS/acts2006/20060028.htm

I could not find any mention of that matter. I was quite amused to read that the meaning of "premises" for the purposes of this act explicitly includes a "tent". I guess the government could fore-see all the pubs putting up large tents. Then there is the "wedding marquee" that's a tent.
I was also surprised to read that the person responsible for a "premises" must put up a "no smoking" sign (because it is against the law), but they do not have to put up hundreds or notices to say "no stealing", "no killing people", "no setting fire to the pub". . .
Sorry - I just had a flippant moment.
Patrick
Users browsing this topic
Guest
2 Pages<12
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.