On site we operate with 2 smoking booths, smoking is limited to these areas. We are being asked by E-Cigarette users who dont want to use the booths (passive smoking issue) if they can smoke anywhere externaly on site. I am interested in what other organisations are allowing.

There seems no reason why e-ciggy smokers should not also stand outside, as the real addicts do. Although exactly why firms allow people to evade work by pleading drug addiction, and discriminate against non-smokers, is another thing.

Where I work we have provided E-cig addicts with their own shelter separate from the tobacco shelters. Interestingly, all the E-cig smokers I've talked to prefer to stand with the tobacco smokers. The shelters for tobacco addicts weren't about being nice to them, more about removing ignition sources away from the buildings in a controllable fashion to lower fire risk.

Agree

I agree with John and Walker and always will until they build "shelters for non-smoking skivers" and allow us an extra 10 minute break every half hour.

IanDakin's comment is VIP so take note of it when making and enforcing policies NB: By providing shelters etc. you are encouraging bad habits - You should be trying to stop people using drugs e.g. Nicotine and directing them to help and support as against providing shelters

"We should also seek to help people stop smoking at work, as it is the major cause of premature death" I quite agree, work is a major cause of premature death!

I think it’s fair to say that the jury is out on the effectiveness and health risks associated with e-ciggs and of course there are many different brands/products. The comment that they contain carcinogenic substances I would question - where is the scientific proof of this? I thought that Nicotine in itself is not carcinogenic and that it is the burning and inhaling into the lungs of the resulting chemical mix which is. If it is carcinogenic why do we proscribe nicotine patches and gum (and allow their use in the workplace)? There was an interesting debate about this on radio four several weeks ago where a yearlong study in Italy was mentioned. In the study a large percentage (I cannot remember exact figures but it was enough to peak my interest) of e-cigg users who had no intention of giving up smoking, but had used them when in situations where they could not smoke, had given up smoking after a year of using e-ciggs. That seems to me to be a staggering success story. I am sure that the manufacturers of these products, bearing in mind law suits etc, would have researched likely health issues before putting these products on the market. Some come on guys should we not wait to review published research and scientific evidence before banning outright what might prove to be a life saver? My boss puffs away on his e-cigg in the office with the intention of giving up smoking, it does not bother or offend me or my non-smoking colleague, in fact it helps keep the boss’s stress levels down which is good for us too!

" am sure that the manufacturers of these products, bearing in mind law suits etc, would have researched likely health issues before putting these products on the market" I see that tobacco, and products, are still being sold despite the known damage being caused and the legal action already taken by users...... http://scienceblog.cance...he-unanswered-questions/

From a health perspective, there's no doubt that changing the delivery method from burning tobacco to vapourised vegetable/propyl glycerol is massively more beneficial to one's health. I think the safety aspect has been exaggerated, and the ban ban ban brigade are doing what they always do, but the health aspect is worth exploring. Allowing ecig smokers a place inside the office, like the old smoking room, would reduce the time trekking to and from the cow shed outside and increase productivity. This would slightly appease the "smokers are skivers" crew, and put ecig smokers on a par with the tea and coffee addicts on the skiver scale. (How many of the sanctimonious are ten cups a day on the caffeine juice I wonder?) Despite a huge Big Tobacco lobby and funding towards studies to discredit them, there's been very little in the way of health warnings in the studies concluded on ecigs thusfar. The rate of quitting using ecigs is markedly higher than any other alternative and if you really care about the health of your employees, you'd do well to bear that in mind. On the other hand, if you want to be santimonious and smug, whilst putting the boot into smokers rather than doing your job and looking to improve the health of your workforce, just carry on as normal.

"The rate of quitting using ecigs is markedly higher than any other alternative and if you really care about the health of your employees, you'd do well to bear that in mind" You'd do better, if really worried about your employees smoking, to just ban smoking during work time. That gets over problems with the 75% or more who do not smoke, or "vape". What message is sent by bedraggled clusters of employees standing under trees/shelters smoking ? Worried about "caffeine addicts"? Easy solution: De-caff. Not prejudice; common sense. I await the inevitable litigation for knowingly allowing an employee to harm themselves, and even encouraging it: Smoking shelters, you know they make no sense!

Great response.

Good response by hilary at #20 and one which prompts several thoughts: Some smokers who wish to give up smoking might find acupuncture to be effective and also quicker and cheaper than using e-cigarettes. One good friend of mine tried it about 25 years ago and found that one session totally eliminated her craving for tobacco. However, everybody is different so what works for one person might not be effective for someone else. If I spent a bit too much time on this forum when I used to be employed, this might perhaps explain why my former employer was happy "to let me go" last year. However, compared with forum users or employees who sneak off work to smoke tobacco or use e-cigarettes, there's surely a much larger category of employees who squander significant portions of working time on text messages or surfing the internet. A minor insight into this phenomenon was provided by a TV documentary several months ago about a British journalist who spent some time living and working in Germany and compared the differences between British and German attitudes and practices: During his first day or two in a German factory he stopped to look at his mobile phone and perhaps start composing a text message. As he did so, his supervisor promptly intervened to advise him that using his mobile phone for a non-essential purpose in works time wasn't allowed. I think other employees nearby were shown looking askance at the sight of the mobile phone. The documentary continued by explaining that this attitude was common in German workplaces and not just the particular factory shown. It might perhaps help to explain why Germans work for shorter hours than their British counterparts but have a notably stronger national economy. Unfortunately, I can't recall if the documentary touched on breaks for smoking or e-cigarettes. As regards "Friday fun threads", why should humour - a very useful commodity in life - be limited to Fridays on this forum? There's nothing to this effect in the forum rules or indeed why such threads tend to get locked by moderators on Saturdays. This latter point is purely an observation and should not be interpreted as implying any criticism of the moderators - I don't want to risk being held in breach of forum rules which assert moderatorial infallibility!

"Does "Reasonably Practicable" exist in your universe" That would depend upon the context the phrase is used within. Smoking:Kills. Around 100 thousand a year. Smoking. Personal choice. But not at work. Does duty of care exist in your universe?

Hi Linda I stated they contain potential carcinogenic products. This is patchy research, but here is a link you can read and then pick up the PDF. http://www.nhs.uk/news/2...garettes-and-vaping.aspx Gum and patches are not vaporized and inhaled, and they are tested and regulated. They are also proven to work. And can be sourced free via local stop smoking organizations. These are dedicated to breaking addiction. I am not sure the same is true of the manufacturers of e-cigarettes. Also, the vapour from e-cigarettes could be inhaled by others if allowed in the workplace, possibly exposing them to unnecessary harm. I believe that is covered by H&S laws. Hope that is clear. Ian

There are 2 completely different areas here A: Use of tobacco products B: Use of e cigarettes etc. A: 'A' has been talked to death and as we all know that there is too much £ involved to ban smoking tobacco products outright even though everybody knows that cigarettes are proved killers!! B: 'B' is a new subject area and it must be logical and sensible to manage the use of such objects until we have top quality impartial and proved scientific knowledge about the pros and cons of these new gadgets which we do NOT have at this time. Hence is it not good to err to caution until we know better?

"Are you now writing in Haiku? " Smokers outside standing, smoking Workers inside, working Fresh air inside, wet outside

After seeing mention of Haiku in postings #30 and #33 I wasn't sure of its location so had a look in my large world atlas. Managed to find somewhere named Haikou on the Island of Hainan in the South China Sea. Are Haiku and Haikou different spellings of the same place? By the way, Limerick is in the atlas but there's no sign whatsoever of Iambic Pentameter! Does it really matter where or even how anyone writes their poetry? :-)

Seems an easy one this. Smoke what you like in your own time as long as no one else is at risk. When in company time get on wit the job. Smokers stink as a rule. Sorry but its true. I for one don't like being in conversation close up to one.