Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By Simon Carrier Good morning When I read this was a bit shocked, whilst I am a non smoker I still believe in the rights of individuals to smoke and I think that this is a bit ott. http://euobserver.com/9/22212/?rk=1
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By John Beadle
All means available to mankind should be used to rid the world of tobacco smoking, the cost to the world economy runs into billions of pounds. The cost to the health of the individual who smokes, the cost to the health of the passive smokers, the cost and death caused by fires started by careless discarded smoking materials. I say well done to employers who will not employ smokers, they are obviously looking after the health of their workforce and premises.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Philip McAleenan
Including extermination John?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By RA
I guess some like to take it to the extreme.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By John Beadle
Sorry, maybe I should have said "all reasonable means" but don't forget smokers are already on a self extermination journey.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Darren J Fraser
Morning
If smokers are discriminated against on the grounds mentioned, then lets state that alcoholics should also be discriminated against.
Why? - more chance of an alcoholic causing an accident either physically to an individual or to a system.
Imagine an alcoholic driving a forklift, compared to a smoker driving a forklift, which is the competent person, I would say the smoker everytime, the effects of smoke stays in the body for a lifetime, yet takes years to manifest into cancer amongst other diseases. Alcohol enters the bloodstream within 20 minutes and effects the body immediately - reduced reaction times, reduced co-ordination......need I say more.
Smokers contribute approximately £1 billion per year in tax to the economy, yet cost the NHS £700 million, alcoholics cost more than they contribute.
I smoke in case you have not yet figured that out, I do not drink on a regular basis (occasionally, but never if driving within 48 hours (24 hours to clear + an additional 24 hours to be positive my reactions are back to my normal level)).
Anyway this will be a mute point if the government adopt the same laws as in Scotland.
Monday morning rant over.
Regards
Darren
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By tommy_t
Darren,
I would be a little bit surprised if companies knowingly allow people to drink and drive forklift trucks - alcoholics or not.
If you are comparing drinking alcohol and smoking, then my company operates a no drinking alcohol during work time policy - so why shouldn't there be a no smoking during work time policy?
As you can imagine, I'm a non-smoker but I do like the odd alcoholic beverage. In my youth (a few years ago) I did my fair share of binge drinking at weekends, but now I'm down to a regular glass or two of wine - I don't however think I should have the right to drink at work.
Having said that, I quite fancy a special room set aside. We could call it the 'drink room'; it could have a little bar in the corner, and you could go there anytime during the day for a drink and a chat - 10 minutes every hour; you wouldn't have to have a whole drink every time just a few sips and you could leave the rest for the next break.
Having said all that, joking aside, the prospect of an organisation selecting people on 'health' issues doesn't sit comfortably. I'm a little bit overweight (all that booze) but not obese and I don't think I would be too happy if companies started only employing people within their 'ideal weight range'.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By bec_batty
What if you are a smoker who doesn't smoke at work?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By John Webster
Whilst I have no quibble with an employer insisting on no smoking during work time, there is a worry that some are starting to behave like the big American Corporations who interfere with their employees' lifestyles, firing people who indulge in certain, legitimate, sports and pastimes or visit certain bars, or dictating whether employees have beards or moutaches or hair of a certain length because they do not fit with the corporate image.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Darren J Fraser
Hi all
Tommy T - like your room idea...........
Seriously, even though I smoke, I do agree that it affects those that do not, I have always recommended that any company that wishes to bring in a No Smoking or No Alcohol within 24 hours of shift start policy at work, provided free and confidential helplines, assisstance etc.
In respect of knowingly allowing alcoholics to drive a FLT, companies are unlikely to find out unless they carryout random alcohol / drug sampling, which is an issue all on its own, or if an accident occurs, however the 'local' population will know who drinks and who smokes and which one they want to stay away from, reason for my stance on this is it was an incident like this involving an alcoholic FLT driver (not at present company I should add) that made me change careers from production management to H&S as a career - best move I made in my opinion despite the problems of getting people on board.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Rob T
to John Beadle - just two things
1. There would be no NHS if it wasn't for the tax paid by smokers on their cigarettes and:
2. I think that mankind should get rid of bigoted nazi's who think that they have the right to dictate how people live in their own time (and unpaid lunchbreaks are your own time too - have a look at accident reporting!).
If a smoker pays his/her NHS contributions he or she has as much right to treatment as anyone else. Obesity causes far more deaths than smoking so I suppose you want to judge how much food people can eat now do you? or ban childrens play equipment or alcohol or cars or or or or .....
Get a life!
and to the Moderator - the tone of John's rant was offensive to me (but not to the extent of any complaint) so if you intend to take this off the chat room you must remove his too! I'm sick and tired of people thinking they can say anything they like against smokers but get all uppity when they get a come-back. Yes I'm having a bad day!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By John Beadle
Rob T - So your having a bad day, I was not when I made my point, my comments were purely to give the post more depth, obviously some people are easily offended. In this world I hope we are aiming to give people a safer healthier life that's why the government bans the use of various things e.g. asbestos. p.s. I have a life, no need to get one thank-you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By gham
I am a bornagainnonsmoker, and i can honestly say i feel much better for stopping 2 years on
fair enough smokers have the right to smoke in their personal life, as much as I have the right not to be subjected to smoke fumes in my personal life, yes even when im walking down the street and get smoke blown in my face bladeblabla
I would add that the smoking ban i scotland have pros and cons the pros are obvious but you can half smell the Body oder on some folk in pubs buy the way!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Rob T
hi john,
I think what we are trying to do is make the workplace as safe as possible within the bounds of sense and reason. What we are not trying to do is become a banning organisation. The conkers bonkers brigade (who fortunately are not (in the main) members of IOSH) can try to do all that themselves in their ignorance. I did not become an H&S professional to interfere in people's personal lives and I certainly didn't suddenly think that I had a right to lecture people on their personal lifestyle, when I qualified. I'm not sure if you know that this website has been used on many occasions to air views on this subject and it's getting a bit repetative. To be sure you have a view equally as important as mine but maybe the arrogance (whether or not meant) in the tone of your posting tended to rankle. Maybe just stop and think for a minute - many smokers do not want to stop smoking! If they are over 18 - do you think you should tell them what to do? I think we know the hazards!
Feeling slightly better although still a bad day.
Regards
Rob
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Jez Corfield
I think discriminating on the grounds of smell from smoking is going to far, but if an employees smoking costs your firm in either reputation or money then its reasonable. US firms are not employing smokers because their insurance costs more. If I was the WHO, or ASH there is a reputation issue about staff smoking.
Have any of you been to HSE offices at Rose Court recently, always a couple of HSE staff outside having a fag, it might be ok at a factory, but the HSE...?
All these frayed tempers, some people need a fag break.....
Jez
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By JEB
Frayed tempers need anger management training, not fags, and why is it OK to smoke outside of a factory. Any way surely smoke breaks are discriminatory to the non-smokers,
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Is Kismet
'The conkers bonkers brigade (who fortunately are not (in the main) members of IOSH) can try to do all that themselves in their ignorance.'
Are you sure about that Rob. As far as I can see there are a lot of them making strident calls on this forum.
It's worrying.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Lynne Ainge
I have just joined the chat forum and picked this topic as it is dear to my heart. I Chair a smoke free group in an acute hospital and for the last twelve months it has been smoke free grounds as well as building (we had smoke free building for many years previous to this) It is the most difficult job to inform people who are patients and visitors that they cannot smoke on the premises as this population changes on a daily basis. The staff issues have been far less than was imagined when we introduced it. My concern is about weighing up the risk of informing someone they cannot smoke as we are a healthcare establishment and need to be seen to be promoting good health, and coming across the person who has just received bad news, or they are watching a loved one die and perceive they need a cigarette to cope. There is also the risk of injury to staff when telling a drunken agressive person in A&E that they need to put their fag out.All these arguments go around and back again and there is no easy answer but anyone who has any tips for balancing these risks would be welcome.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Mike Grey
Hi Lynne
I work at a large acute trust in Bristol. Our HR Director, since retired, introduced a total ban, grounds as well as buildings. So far it has bee totally unmanagable. would be interested to know if you have succeeded, and if so, how
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By John Webster
Mike
Similar here. No problem with no smoking in buildings - everyone accepts that, but the ban in the grounds is virtually un-enforceable. After all, the smoker in the car-park can quite rightly claim to be breaking no laws (provided they pick up the dimp), and to be harming nobody but themselves (which they would do the same outwith the grounds). And they are not inclined to stub out just for the sake of the NHS image!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By DOUGLAS BLAIR
Sorry to interject but I understand that the main reason the smoking BAN in Public places was to protect the health of workers in such environments as bars, clubs etc not for some Health and Safety PROFFESIONALS ?! to hark on about their right to pollute. Remember Roy Castle (non-smoker) who died of cancer.
Whether you smoke or don't, drink or don't, be obese or not is entirely up to you (usually) but the need to remove the anomally of accepting tobacco smoke in enclosed spaces which does affect workers and others should not be challenged. No different from trying over the years to reduce the level of asbestos, benzene etc etc is surely the point to remember. The ban in Scotland in my view has been good for the majority of people in Scotland young or old, worker and non-worker.
ps Who won the world cup?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By John Webster
Quite so, Douglas.
PS. Which Word Cup, and when?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Bunny
jez,
What do you mean it's ok to stand outside a factory smoking but the HSE shouldn't be seen to be smoking outside their place of work?
Talk about one rule for them..
Anyway, I'm an ex-smoker and I think all smoking should be banned...everywhere. Can't stand the smell and I don't see why I should be subject to other poeple's smoke when I went to so much effort to give up myself. Nasty, horrible habit...shoot the lot of them!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By JEB
Bunny
Be prepared for a rap on the knuckles from Rob T
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By jackw.
Hi, As a non-smoker in the brave new smoking laws inn Scotland I am very happy. don't go home after a night out and stink of some one else’s discarded fag smoke. As a survivor of cancer I feel I must say to those smokers that feel so aggrieved. I can't ever recall a smoker asking me if it was ok to pollute my clothes, hair, lungs etc. or if I had any health issues e.g. asthma that his or her smoking might make worse. So sorry NO sympathy from me.
cheers
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By steveig123
I agree with the need to protect people from the effects of smoking but couldnt the government allowed pub etc to smoking pubs only with a big warning smoking pub enter at own risk then all non smokers need not enter it is geting to the verge of a Communist country cant do this do that. my aunty owns a pub which has nearly gone under because out of 30 of her regulars 24 of them smoke and the other 6 were ex smokers and didnt mind it so now she has 6 regulars where is the sense in that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Merv Newman
OK, so smokers stink. As a pipe smoker I'll accept that. And we make you stink as well. Sorry.
In a private house, at the end of a dinner, I always ask the LADY of the house if I may smoke (the MAN of the house has, of course, no say in this) If she says yes then it's ok. If the answer is no then I refrain.
Restaurants, bars, shops whatever either ban it or not. You stick to their rules.
And I have been known to partake of a little alcohol. On special occasions. Such as after about 6pm.
And it is STILL raining our there.
Merv
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By GT
Merv, What a shame you offer a pipe of peace
and get wet inside and outside, absolutely
persisting!!!
Hic!Hic!
Doesn't matter how many bottles you open
there is no objection to the smell
( rasberry, blackcurrent,smoked oak?)
GT
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Paul Devlin
Hi All
I have read most of the postings with interest and in some cases a sense of alarm!!
Where do we stop? Not hiring a smoker in my eyes is a form of discrimination and how does the irish employer check to see if his potential employees are indeed smokers or not? Blood tests? Lung volume tests? There are a lot of smokers out there who can perhaps last all day without partaking of a ciggy and who is to say that they arent allowed 1 on their lunch hour, it does take a few of fags to make you smell "disgusting".
We all have our little foibles and addictions, do we then discriminate against people who drink, bite their nails, suppport the wrong team, leave the toilet lid up? The list is endless.
For the readers information I dont smoke and I have been enjoying the smoking ban in my homeland for some of the same reasons as people have mentioned but I think we are going too far and its fast becoming a form of hysteria against smokers. Mark my words its already "fatties" who are fast becoming the next tartget. George Orwells world isn't as far away as we'd all like to think.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Calum Clark
Paul, yours is one of the more sensible postings on this issue.
I don't believe this forum is the place to launch an anti-smoking tirade. That would be best directed at your local MP or by forming/joining a campaign group.
If people do complain about the smell of cigarette smoke, bearing in mind it does take more than 1 fag to give a consistently bad odour, this should be treated in the same way as any other hygiene issue like body odour.
I can understand some jobs requiring a non-smoker, for example, a spokeperon for an anti-smoking campaign. However, I think the World Health Organisation is going a bit too far by making all posts non-smoking as is the company in article in the orginal post.
If a smoker can maintain the same productivity as his non-smoking counterparts and adhere to what his employer feels is fair by way of fag breaks then what is the problem.
In Scotland and Ireland employees are protected from passive smoking and that will soon be the case in England and Wales. With regards to employment, smoking will soon be an HR issue, not a health and safety one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Bunny
Well I think that employers may have a good reason not to employ smokers.
- smokers smell foul after sneaking off to have a fag and this isn't pleasant either as a colleague or as the next customer they serve / client they visit
- many smokers then don't wash their hands after having a fag, even when handling food etc
- many smokers are less productive because they have to disappear for fag breaks
- smokers are more likely to have time off work with coughs and colds etc
- smokers are more at risk of developing serious health issues
To say it well spread to other issues (such as being overweight) is not looking at the issue in hand. Smoking affects other people, not just the smoker. Being fat generally just affects that person. Although to be honest I think more employers should tackle the issue of overweight employees who are more likely to suffer ill-health problems due to their excess weight. This is something more enlightened companies are doing by, health screening, educating their workforce, providing healthier snacks and taking part in local incentive schemes to use leisure facilites. A fit and healthy workforce is a more productive workforce.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Jane Ling
How do you define a "non-smoker"? Is this someone who has never smoked, or maybe someone who gave up yesterday, a week ago or six months ago. I have spoken to people who have been off the cigarettes for 2 years and have sadly succumbed and back addicted again. Does this mean that they would be dismissed from their job as a smoker after two years employment even if not smoking at work.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Paul Devlin
Why dont we just line all smokers up against a wall and put them down?
Thats the sort of hysterical and biased rants I was talking about in my earlier post
I'd hate to not fall into your idealistic employee model.
What do you suggest we do with alcoholics etc?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By steve e ashton
And now it gets truly ridiculous!
How many of you noticed the item (Scotsman, page three today, doubtless in many English nationals as well..) regarding the classic cartoon strip Tom and Jerry being censored to remove any hint of glorifying smoking.
Because ONE person complained.
Dropping anvils on each other is OK, slicing each other with chainsaws and carving knives is OK, using blow torches to fry each others tails is OK....., but please don't show our kiddies a cartoon cat smoking, it may give them the wrong idea.....
If I believed in God, I might now be saying God help us all, because it seems we're incapable of helping ourselves....
Steve
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By steve e ashton
John,
sorry I posted before following your link. I didn't realise you had beaten me to it...
Steve
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Calum Clark
Bunny
Smokers not washing their hands atfter a fag before handling food is the same as anyone else doing it. If they are preparing food for others then the employer should insist on hand washing.
Fag breaks should be controlled by the employer. If a company is not happy with constant fag breaks then employees should be told.
As for smokers being likely to have more time off for coughs and colds do we say that people with illnesses and dissabilites should be discrimnated agaisnt too. What about people who partake in dangerous hobbies and contact sports.
Don't get me wrong, I commend any comapny which tries to actively promote a healthy lifestyle amongst its workforce. However, saying live your life like this or don't work here is a bit much.
Calum
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Darryl Jones
Ireland have had his smoking ban in for a while now, I heard the other day (not to sure if its true) that the increase in house fires has doubled due to folk staying in with a six pack and a packet of fags.
Can anybody confirm this ?.
Darryl
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Bunny
Darryl,
Unfortunately it's not quite so easy to show how many people's lives (and quality of life) have been saved by them no longer being exposed to passive smoking. Or maybe the tragedy of people like Roy Castle has been too easily forgotten.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Rob T
Bunny,
You really seem to have no idea of your own arguments! Firstly Roy Castle was dropped from the ASH campaign about passive smoking when it was found, after autopsy, that he had a cancer not associated with smoking! Secondly there has never been a death certificate issued in the UK with passive smoking listed as a cause. Passive smoking causing lung cancer is a myth as anyone who actually researches the subject will tell you. I know you won't believe it and will sit there all indignantly mouthing various obscenity's but hey ho I don't really care. You can live in your own little world of make believe and think that smokers are the very embodiment of the devil incarnate, but it might be an idea to air your views on ASH's web site rather than this one.
If there was any reasonableness left in this nanny state they would just go back to having Saloon/public type bars in pubs - one for smokers and for non-smokers. That's fair and it's none of the non-smokers business if people want to smoke in areas that don't affect them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.