Rank: Forum user 
|
Hi
A query has cropped up in my workplace today - an agency worker was found on the balcony of the staff cafe having an electronic 'cigarette'. Someone spotted this and reported to a Duty Manager thinking that it was a real cigarette (which would be contrary to our smoking policy, which required smokers to smoke in the smoke shelter).
This presents us with a problem - I don't want someone who is trying to give up smoking to have to go and stand with a bunch of smokers to have his 'healthier fix'. Yet, we also don't want it to appear that they can 'smoke' where they wish on the grounds (for food safety and (public/staff perception reasons)).
We do not have anything in our smoking policy which covers this at present and would love to hear from anyone who has successfully implemented guidance or a policy relating to this for their staff. Do we designate a 'smoke-free' smoking shelter??
Many thanks
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
This again
We have done this topic to death
Let's move on or look back through the archives
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
AK, your answer to a new forum user is both rude and unhelpful. Whilst "we" may have discussed this recently, our new friend may not be aware of how to search or indeed that the subject has been discussed.
K Pickard, http://forum.iosh.co.uk/...spx?g=posts&t=100659 may assist you here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
possible solution to "other people are confused by these cigarette lookalikes" ? Require electric cigarettes used at work to have the white portion concealed by by bright red/yellow/green/fluorescent tape to identify them as "fakes"
Merv
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
K Pickard
AFter you've identified the options you consider appropriate, check that you haven't overlooked the vital simple one: ask the employee involved which particular option appears most appropriate to him of those avaiable, and why.
How safety/health is managed conveys critically important messages about how you regard the person whose behaviour you want to influence.
K
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Merv, I'm sure one of the enjoyable things about the fake cigarettes is that they look like a cigarette. I don't think the desired effect would be obtained from holding a 'bright red/yellow/green/fluorescent taped' thing in you rmouth.
And our 'super user' AK should take note of David's point. Any super user who treats a new forum user in that way ought to be labelled as a 'bad user' - for a while anyay :o)
JohnW
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Thanks for the helpful responses here and I will look at the previous discussion which I was not aware of for further inspiration!
KP
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Apologies to K Pickard
I just saw this thread and my heart sank. This issue has been cropping up regularly since 2008!
The last time it was discussed on this forum was one month ago. That debate generated much heat but no light.
The fact is that there are no regulations, guidance, or anything else that can tell definitively what you need to do in relation to these devices. It is simply down to company policy, which means that either you can tell people what you want to do or get caught up in an endless round of negotiations with various stakeholders. Or you just give up.
The last lot of arguments was interesting but only in that it showed the range of attitudes to what constitutes occupational H&S; some respondents sharing my position, that it is not really anything to do with H&S, to those who argued that H&S should take a lead on health and wellbeing issues and actively discourage the use of such devices, if not actually banning them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I would argue that the fumes etc. given off are fumes that come under COSHH so in that situation they come under H&S. That said there has not been any studies to date that I know of that say these fumes are not hazardous. Therefore treat them as hazardous to health until proved otherwise
This is also a management issue so if possible get managers to mange
Additionally the substances inside the fake are made up of many chemicals and I would be very surprised if they were not environmental pollutants as cigs are - a half smoked cig left on a beach is loaded with bad chemicals that take years to dissipate
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Bob - I have one brand of these and according to the paper work only water vapour is given off and the only substance inside it is nicotine. The main issue with these has been discussed after the M6 incident and the fact that there is a rechargeable battery inside which could cause an issue in some workplaces.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user 
|
Wow Ive learned another thing today.
I dont smoke but often approach people at the entrances to our hospitals not to smoke there- I will have to be more observant to know if it is the real thing or not as I approach people just before they light up and advise them to use the Smoking shelter.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
This thread has also caused me to pause for (albeit wry and slightly amused) thought.
My employer is in the process of adapting current policy to "ban" e-cigarettes from the enclosed work environment, and we also provide smoking shelters at some of our larger buildings.
We have this issue to address, and I don't think it's been thought about up to now- i.e if the employee can't do this in his workplace, then where within the curtilage of our premises is the non-smoker to be directed in order to enjoy his non-smoking materials?!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
The directions given as to where to use an electronic cigarette needs to be considered as I am using the electronic cigarette to assist me with giving up so the last place I want to have to go is the smoking area to be surrounded by the evil weed which I am trying to avoid. Surely we need to have an area away from the smoking area where it is OK to be used, safety not being an issue, such as the coffee area.
BTW it is also possible to get these that 'glow' green for example so are easily distinguishable from the real thing
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
(a) 'smoking' refers to smoking tobacoo or anything that contains tobacoo OR SMOKING ANY OTHER SUBSTANCE
(b) Smoking includes being in possession of lit tobacoo or of anything lit which contaions tobacoo OR BEING IN POSSSESSION OF ANY OTHER LIT SUBSTANCE IN A FORM IN WHICH IT COULD BE SMOKED.
Electronic cigarettes are allegedly safer to smoke or 'vape' as some users define the use. They do produce vapours and can set off Fire Alarms. They give out a vapour through the oil vapour they produce and there has been suggestions that the vapour produced by electronic cigarettes may harmful. There are warnings that come with the refill packs to that effect.
I am going to take the approach as stated in (a) above that smoking or 'vaping' an electronic cigarettes is 'smoking any other substance' and therefore cannot be used in the enclosed work environment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
But it's not actually 'lit', is it? You don't use a match or cigarette lighter or other ignition technique to activate them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Kate wrote:But it's not actually 'lit', is it? You don't use a match or cigarette lighter or other ignition technique to activate them.
Is it Lit? One of the reasons why this is a 'grey area'. I would suggest because it is powered by a battery it has a source of ignition and as such is 'lit' or 'switched on' to make it work. Users argue it is not 'lit' and thay are not actually smoking and because it produces a 'vapour' they are 'vaping' rather than smoking. The debate will go on!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
With any other battery-powered device such as a watch or a phone or a calculator, would you describe switching it on as lighting it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Batteries are potential ignition sources, but in this case the battery is not being used as an ignition source; it is not igniting anything; nothing is burning.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Kate wrote:Batteries are potential ignition sources, but in this case the battery is not being used as an ignition source; it is not igniting anything; nothing is burning.
It is my understanding there is an oil inside, which when the device is 'switched on', 'ignited', 'lit' or whatever you want to call the power source, the battery, in my view, is the ignition source to heat or burn the the oil that produces the 'vapour' that is given off. When the the oil inside is used up users have to purchase a refill. The main issue in my view is the vapour given off by these devices and if they are used in an enclosed work environment may cause discomfort to other workers. The jury is also out that the vapour may be harmful. Therefore, until there is more specific information that they are safe to use in an enclosed working environment I am erring on side of caution to say they cannot be used and if users want to use them they go the outside 'smoking shelter' provided.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Vaporising and burning are two different things with a very clear distinction. Vaporising (evaporation) is a change of physical state without chemical change and burning involves chemical reactions. To heat something is not the same thing as to burn or ignite it.
Have you considered the passive smoking risks to the users if you send them to the shelter used by genuine smokers?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Kate wrote:Vaporising and burning are two different things with a very clear distinction. Vaporising (evaporation) is a change of physical state without chemical change and burning involves chemical reactions. To heat something is not the same thing as to burn or ignite it.
Have you considered the passive smoking risks to the users if you send them to the shelter used by genuine smokers?
Is the oil based solution a chemical? What cause's the vaporising? Heat I think. This issue has caused me to make a decision which I have and if users do not want to 'vape' their fix of vapour in a smoking shelter with other smokers that's their choice. Maybe the answer will be separate 'vaping' and 'smoking' shelters but I am not going to suggest or make that decision. It's Friday thank goodness.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Heating a chemical is not the same thing as igniting it. My point here is that there is no grey area about whether using these devices falls in the legal definition of smoking; it clearly doesn't.
I'm surprised if there is more worry about the so far purely speculative health effects from the vapour than about the established risk of passive smoking, which after all is the main reason behind the legal ban.
I'm also surprised that anyone would be willing to undermine smokers' efforts to give up by sending them to the smoking shelter with their non-smoking material.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Kate wrote:Heating a chemical is not the same thing as igniting it. My point here is that there is no grey area about whether using these devices falls in the legal definition of smoking; it clearly doesn't.
I'm surprised if there is more worry about the so far purely speculative health effects from the vapour than about the established risk of passive smoking, which after all is the main reason behind the legal ban.
I'm also surprised that anyone would be willing to undermine smokers' efforts to give up by sending them to the smoking shelter with their non-smoking material.
You go your way, I'll go my way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
It looks to me as if some have taken this opportunity to further demonise smokers by actually putting obstacles in the path of those wishing to give up based on a hatred of smokers.
E cigarettes are not lit, there is no source of ignition and therefore cannot be classed as smoking.
If companies want to make a decision on banning their use in offices then fair enough but to force users to use the smoking shelter rather than simply using their gizmo outside is immoral and quite frankly daft.
Asking someone to use a smoking shelter when they are not smokers might make a few lawyers quite happy in a few years time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
The substance isn't lit (ie. alight) in an e-cigarette. I don't think you can apply or stretch the legal definition of "smoking" to these devices - to do so would bring a steaming kettle or cooking pan within the definition.
The Regulations are concerned with the inhalation of smoke (not vapour) from a lit substance and are concerned with the harmful effects of tobacco. The definition is stretched-out in the statute only to ensure "herbal" cigarettes and smoking mixtures are captured.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Re the good response from Hopeful and the comment on the packet """according to the paper work only water vapour is given off"""
Until there is proper science in place to confirm just what is given off then I will go my own way and say that we work to caution and as its a substance given off it comes under COSHH noting that it used to be said [quite a while ago I admit] that the vapour given off from a cig was good for U!
The overall subject is a management area as people should be encouraged and helped to stop so adequate facilities should be in place and managers should manage
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
ron hunter wrote:The substance isn't lit (ie. alight) in an e-cigarette. I don't think you can apply or stretch the legal definition of "smoking" to these devices - to do so would bring a steaming kettle or cooking pan within the definition.
The Regulations are concerned with the inhalation of smoke (not vapour) from a lit substance and are concerned with the harmful effects of tobacco. The definition is stretched-out in the statute only to ensure "herbal" cigarettes and smoking mixtures are captured.
As these are devices produced to 'simulate smoking' what then are users actualy doing when put the device to their lips and 'inhale' are they sucking, licking, tasting, blowing or doing something else that 'simulates' smoking?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
They are inhaling, ie breathing in, just as you can inhale (breathe in) fresh clean air, or a medicine. You wouldn't say asthma inhalers are covered by the smoking ban would you?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Kate wrote:They are inhaling, ie breathing in, just as you can inhale (breathe in) fresh clean air, or a medicine. You wouldn't say asthma inhalers are covered by the smoking ban would you?
No.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Just a question, does anyone supply the non smokers with an area/shelter were they can get out for five minutes during the day or is this opportunity to stop work for 5 minutes in every hour just open to smokers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
think we need to think about this carefully before acting, I have just read an article where a hospital has banned this device on the grounds that the battery may explode. the obvious follow on from this is, has the hospital banned mobile phones, pagers car imobiliser keyfobs and so on....
Without a logical approach based on assesement I think we will start to look out of step and fuel the theory that we professionals are just jobs worths
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Rob M wrote:think we need to think about this carefully before acting, I have just read an article where a hospital has banned this device on the grounds that the battery may explode. the obvious follow on from this is, has the hospital banned mobile phones, pagers car imobiliser keyfobs and so on....
Without a logical approach based on assesement I think we will start to look out of step and fuel the theory that we professionals are just jobs worths
A hospital banning batteries?? I wonder how they power their UPS?!!!!
You are right Rob, this is totally conkers bonkers
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Note to self:
1 Purchase a large box of baby's dummies for everyone in the company who smokes...
2 Tear down all existing smoke huts
Remove the hazard
:-)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
As far as I know no one has yet died of giving up smoking... ok, there may be one or two that have killed someone when having a bad 'giving up day' but that is only a few... and the odd one or two who have bled to death by chewing the ends of their fingers off ... but..
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Funnily enough zimmy, though giving up smoking has never killed anybody (at least to my knowledge) some research a few years back identified a link between giving up and diagnoses of lung cancer. I read that this may be because an early symptom of some types of undiagnosed cancer could be an intolerance to tobaco smoke, leading the afflicted person to quit at just about the wrong time,
John
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
I think it was briefly mentioned in passing in an earlier post, but surely the most practical approach would be to have a designated e-cigarette area, in a separate location away from the existing smoking areas. This will;
- Control the use of e-cigarettes in the workplace - preventing users of e-cigarettes using them anywhere they wish (as they will have to go to a designated area)
- Prevent colleagues mistaking them for real cigarettes in the workplace
- Separate users of e-cigarettes from the designated smoking (tobacco) areas.
?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.