Personally I think there is enough information in the public domain to assist those who wish to give up smoking without the company getting involved.

I generally find my ears closed to such "well intentioned" company interventions - now if you want to pay me for the 168 hours that comprise a calendar week rather than the 40 hours contracted.....

Remind them of company policy and discipline those who fail to follow "in the work environment during contractual working hours"

Unless there is an issue with people smoking at work I would not bother apart from the occasional sneer. I would also take down all of the smoking shelters. They can smoke outside in the rain if they want (after clocking off!)  

These are perhaps two issues that need to be dealt with seperately.

The law is very clear around smoking in the workplace and I agree this is a management issue not H&S. If someone is breaking the law at work then they should be the subject of disciplinary action.

If you then want to go on and offer support for quitting, thats great, but I advice that you clamp down on the criminal acts first.

Originally Posted by: WatsonD

Originally Posted by: biker1

Originally Posted by: A Kurdziel

Unless there is an issue with people smoking at work I would not bother apart from the occasional sneer. I would also take down all of the smoking shelters. They can smoke outside in the rain if they want (after clocking off!)  

I have to say that such a response is typical of the intolerant attitude that makes this such a divisive issue.

To be fair biker1, we should be trying to eradicate it - not tolerate it.We have done that for far too long, and far too many people have died. We banned asbestos, but smoking?

Tobacco smoke contains around 7,000 chemicals, made up of particles and gases, over 50 of which are known to cause cancer. Second-hand smoke has been confirmed as a cause of lung cancer in humans by several leading health authorities.

Compounds such as ammonia, sulphur and formaldehyde irritate the eyes, nose, throat and lungs. These compounds are especially harmful to people with respiratory conditions such as bronchitis or asthma. Exposure to second-hand smoke can either trigger or worsen symptoms.

I would think almost everyone is aware of the scientific evidence on smoking, and constant regurgitation of this is not going to stop people smoking in most cases. To compare it to asbestos is at best misleading; exposure to asbestos is not a personal choice on the part of those exposed to it, smoking is. In an ideal world, nobody would smoke, or do anything bad for them, but we don't live in an ideal world. People engage in many things that are not good for them, or have a history of injury, illness and fatalities, from occupations, leisure activities to what they eat and drink; do we ban all of these things as well? Smoking is a personal choice; likewise, giving up smoking should be a personal choice, not something forced on people by a nanny state or those on a personal crusade. And the financial arguments about the cost to the NHS don't hold water.

As long as smokers don't affect other people, and the smoking ban inside buildings has pretty much addressed this, then those who smoke and those who don't should have some respect for each other and treat each other fairly.

I'm all for banning smoking completely. When I was serving in the Army, I got bored very quickly, so I conducted a week long time & motion survey for a smoker and a non smoker. The results were quite startling

Because we worked with explosives the smoking area was outside the compound we worked in. So to smoke a single cigarette took some daft amount of time.

When I factored in all the other breaks the smoker had, (lunch, NAAFI etc) and time off for sport, it transpiered that I was only getting about 15hrs work out of him. Not bad for a working week. Made my blood boil when he asked for time off to have a meeting with his bank manager resulting in more time off.

So for me, smoking should be done in your own time not company time

Edited by user 19 September 2018 12:07:17(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

Originally Posted by: WatsonD

"To compare it to asbestos is at best misleading; exposure to asbestos is not a personal choice on the part of those exposed to it, smoking is." Really?

The OP is refering to employees smoking in banned places. Passive smoking kills and it is not a personal choice, it is inflicted on us those smokers who think they are entitled do do so wherever and whenever they want.

You wouldn't tolerate me creating dust, or removing asbestos (as per my example) where you were exposed to it. But "hey its okay, some people smoke, lets be tolerant. Wouldn't want to upset them. Its only a Cancer risk after all!"

Maybe we should also spend some company money on building a nice smoking shelter for those who like a nice cigarette during company time - why?

I like fishing but my employer has yet to dig me a pond so I cna pop out when the mood takes me. Maybe he thinks I sould wait to fish on my own time - does that make him intolerant?

I suggest you read my post more carefully, particularly the last paragraph.

There seem to be two issues that cause such a self-righteous response. The relevant health act banned smoking inside buildings, which is where the risk of passive smoking was a real issue, although I personally didn't see the problem with suitably designed smoking rooms. Smoking is therefore only allowed outdoors, where the risk of people being exposed to passive smoking is pretty negligible unless smokers are being especially thoughtless, and the original post only referred to 'smoking on site and in vehicles', which doesn't exactly make it clear about banned places.

Secondly, the old chestnut about smokers taking breaks at any time they choose and not therefore getting on with their work. I would think that most places have by now taken the popular route of confining smoking breaks to certain times of the day, at mine for instance it is immediately before starting work and after finishing work, and during lunchtimes. To object to this is to work on the assumption that non-smokers have their noses to the grindstone every minute of the working day, and never chat to each other, have a tea break etc. There might be places like that, but I somehow doubt it. If workers are taking an excessive amount of time not working, for whatever reason, then that is a management issue.

The relevant health act also made provision for suitably constructed smoking shelters, rather than taking the inhumane route of expecting everybody to stand in the wind and rain whilst smoking. I have always taken the view that it is far better to control when and where smoking takes place than trying to ban it completely and drive it underground with the result that people smoke at inappropriate places or times. I do agree that there is a responsibility on smokers to indulge their habit responsibly, or any other habit like chewing gum, spitting, drinking etc.

Originally Posted by: WatsonD

Originally Posted by: biker1

I suggest you read my post more carefully, particularly the last paragraph.

No need. You are clearly a smoker and therefore blinkered to the damage it does to other people, you angle your arguments to identify other people as interfering or intolerant rather than face facts. Smoking kills. You are a H&S practioner. I can't argue with that level of ignorance.

You win. Have a cigarette and celebrate

I am neither blinkered nor ignorant, and for your information there have been periods of my life when I have smoked and periods when I haven't, but my views have remained unchanged. I will leave it at that, as I don't think it is helpful to start trading insults.

Originally Posted by: WatsonD

Originally Posted by: biker1

Originally Posted by: WatsonD

Originally Posted by: biker1

I suggest you read my post more carefully, particularly the last paragraph.

No need. You are clearly a smoker and therefore blinkered to the damage it does to other people, you angle your arguments to identify other people as interfering or intolerant rather than face facts. Smoking kills. You are a H&S practioner. I can't argue with that level of ignorance.

You win. Have a cigarette and celebrate

I am neither blinkered nor ignorant, and for your information there have been periods of my life when I have smoked and periods when I haven't, but my views have remained unchanged. I will leave it at that, as I don't think it is helpful to start trading insults.

Biker1 -I did not mean to attack you personally, but spoke to you as a general advocate for smoking, so for that I am sorry. I have not handled the discussion well, but the arguments for smoking infuriate me. I am not interfering for wanting to eradicate something which kills. The fact is I have lost too many people as a result of smoking. There is no redeeming reason for anyone to ever smoke. And I don't feel that an employer should have to make provision for smoking on their premises. It is a choice. If you must do it, do it away from others where you cannot harm them.

Thank you for your message, appreciated. Personal experience, especially involving loss, is bound to give you a perspective on things, and I am sorry for your losses. Why people smoke is a complex issue. It is not just about the addictive nature of it, although that is a factor. There are also relaxing, de-stressing benefits to it that should not be underestimated, especially when one has been going through a period of high stress and distressing things to cope with. Like most smokers, I know logically I shouldn't smoke, it's bad for me, but at the present time.....

Back in the 1970s, I worked at a place where the laboratory next door was researching a 'safe' cigarette. However, this never saw the light of day, and it's not difficult to imagine why. The moment a tobacco company (or anyone else) marketed this, they would then be admitting that what they had been selling was dangerous, and they would then have been tied up in litigation for the next fifty years. It's only been in recent years that e-cigarettes/vapers have appeared, although I am far from convinced that these are completely safe, when you consider that glycol is commonly used as the carrier solvent (I suppose your lungs would never freeze up in winter!).

I fully agree that those who smoke should do so responsibly, and avoid affecting others. Unfortunately, not all smokers are as considerate as they should be, but providing segregated areas for smoking is more likely to control this than an outright ban, so I suppose I just take a pragmatic view of it, but I am sorry if I have caused any offence.