Posted By Bob Youel

I advise that you try to stop the erection of such shelters as we should be looking to enhance peoples health and re-educate them

One place that know of put their shelter 10 mtrs from their main office but on slight breeze days the smoke drifted into the offices

There was uproar especially so as all the old chestnut came out e.g. people taking time to smoke where others could not 'officially' stop work

The shelter was moved but only after some none smoking staff rang the enforcers

use common sense - Risk assess and involve all staff not just thesmokers

Posted By Ian Bennett
Why should anyone have to run the gauntlet of smokers whilst entering buildings. Once in the building all is OK, but.
Some pubs have now errected shelters for their smokers in beer gardens. When we do get a day nice enough to enjoy the weather should we have to endure the localised smog whilst eating our pub-lunch.

Posted By Mitch
Following along the lines of the main argument for the smoking ban 'intrusive health management' alcohol costs this country, particularly the NHS, more money than tobacco so I think they should ban alcohol from pubs. As an ex smoker I packed up for 2 reasons A) the grief the kids gave me, I personally think there are far more important things to teach primary school children! b) I lost all the pleasure in annoying non-smokers and diners in pubs with the introduction of the ban.

Peddy later, inside and no roll up happy days!

Alan, put the shelter somewhere you cannot get blowback, no-one can see it from the main building and the anti smokers don't have to pass, there is no legislative distance.

Next thing will be shelters for eating meat in within restaurants!!


I'm glad it's Friday only half a day of boredom to endure.

Posted By Rob T
Absolutely flabbergasted at the arrogance of Bob Youell! Absolutely unbelievable! "Re-educate" who on earth do you think you are! They "re-educated" the students after the Tianamen square massacre, they "re-educate" people who disagree in North Korea and Joe Stalin loved the term "re-educate" in the USSR.

You might not like smoking, and that's a fair enough point of view but your condescending attitude is downright rude to all smokers and there are still millions of us who like a puff!

Maybe you could put your body mass index on here and I could "re-educate" you on that!

Posted By IOSH Moderator
Pausing to don our PPE - flameproof hats, flameproof overalls, fire extinguisher to hand.

Please could participants keep within the AUGs on this thread. While it is easy to cause offence it is often not deliberate. Please give one another the benefit of the doubt wherever possible.

Thank you
Regards
Jane

Posted By Bob Youel

I appoligise to all who took offense. However as this site is supposed to be a professionals site I presented the comments about education to mean what a professional practitioner would mean not as described / indicated by others

The welfare programs that I and others have been involved in took smokers and non-smokers together and had jointly hearing the different arguements and the facts etc so the end result was that everybody came away with a new appreciation and to quote some of the smokers involved 'they were educated' to the full circumstances

Again sorry if there was offence taken but it was not intentional

Posted By Andy Petrie
I can tell you that the HSE commissioned a study in 2000 to see what the impact would be on passive smoking and the effect of businesses should they introduce measures to reduce smoke in their premises. It showed that most premises (i.e. bars & clubs) could introduce smoke extract & treatment systems for only a few thousand pounds that would reduce smoke levels markedly and reduce any risk from passive smoking accordingly.

This was never actually published however, I think this was because it didn't support the idea of a 'ban'. I'm sure anyone could apply to the HSE under the FOI Act and get a copy if needed.

Posted By Glyn Atkinson
To Edward, not having seen the report, but Roy Castle was a high profile reported death from lung cancer, having been a fervent non smoker all of his life, but played in smokey clubs and other entertainment venues throughout his trumpet playing career.

As for gauntlets, smokers always try to stand in pub doorways not away from entrances, so the lingering smoke is like a barrier to fight your way through as you try to enter a smoke free zone, not pleasant with children or grandchildren when you take them out for a meal in such venues.

Posted By Rob T
Glyn,

Please note that Roy Castle did not get type 1 lung cancer - he got type 2 not associated with cigarette smoke. That's why ASH dropped him from their anti smoking campaign as soon as the autopsy results had been published. So no - no-one has ever died from passive smoking induced lung cancer (ever). No not one listed on any death certificate in the UK.