Posted By Bunny And what about the people who have to work in those bars? If it has been categorically proved that passive smoking does not cause harm then why is that argument still used for the ban of smoking by some scientists? By the way your tone is deeply offensive. I have a right to my opinion and a right not to be abused for it.

Posted By J Knight Rob, You take as usual a straight down the line FOREST view on tobacco smoke. I have two things to say; as someone who has 'studied' this I find that there is evidence for an increased risk of lung cancer from second-hand tobacco smoke, though this is very ambiguous and I have to agree that it often does not meet set confidence limits. However, there is no ambiguity at all about the effects of second-hand smoke on asthma sufferers (like me for example)(e.g. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih....ract&list_uids=15082893; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih....tract&list_uids=16192366). I can also give you chapter and verse about my subjective experience of second-hand smoke, though I agree that this is not scientific evidence. Asthma kills people as well you know, as does chronic bronchitis and other forms of COPD, which are also unambiguously linked with second hand tobacco smoke. By concentrating your pro-smoking assaults on the perhaps dodgy evidence for a link with cancer, you (and FOREST) cleverly avoid tackling the known and un-arguable contribution of second hand smoke to other life threatening and life limiting conditions, well, how very clever of you, John

Posted By andymak Fair enough no smoking in public places, and work places no problem with that, but when companies start dictating to people how they should be living their lives it it rather OTT. Where I am they wanted to start docking smokers pay for their fag breaks..... That was until it was pointed out that to avoid being accused of discrimination they would also have to dock pay for people making personal phone calls, wandering off and making tea or coffee, using the IT system for personal e-mails, and having non-work related chats with colleagues, etc, etc. In some respects when looking at it like that smokers are quite economical to the company as they often have tea / coffee, and make personal phone calls and have non-work related chats all while they are having a fag! ;-)

Posted By Ali Strange how suicide is outlawed and an employee can be prosecuted under s7 of HASAWA 74, but it's "your right" to inhale numerous toxins into your body over a period of years with the high risk of harming yourself and the loved ones who live with you....otherwise known as "smoking".

Posted By liam.b We all discriminate smokers; being a smoker myself there are certain habits that some smoker have that I dislike. When I hear people, say way should smokers having fag breaks It costs the company money. Well lets be honest we all work our finger to the bone right up to the bell. Never having a chat on the telephone to family and friends for 20 minutes Never talking to a college about what happened at the weekend. Never replying to post on this site whist in work or reading posts, having a coffee break and so on on on on. However, I will say this tax gained from smoking is around £10.7 billion pounds a year in this country of ours, and the NHS cost to smoke related disease is around £1.7 billion pounds a year so smokers more than pay for there own treatment . So if you like there is a £9 billion pounds spare to spend on other treatments and other areas policing, transport the forces and so on. So let us band smoking in this country altogether, and am sure we will all be happy to pay for the loss on our taxes.

Posted By Mick Day What a range and degree of comments and emmotion.............! Can all the people who have commented on the smoking issue, arrange to get together for a social evening to carry on the debate. ( which the original question now seems to have ended up ) Question is where do the smokers smoke, the drinkers drink and the tubby ones munch.............. any one mentioed trouser coughers ? Serious note : As companies compeat and strive to be ahead in all aspects of running a business, is it not reasonable to expect of policy makers within the company to realise ways in which to increase productivity, reduce running costs, keep the workforce healthy and if possible happy. I am an ex smoker ( stopped 5 years this December ) Since stopping, I have had no colds, coughs, whereas when I did, I had them all year round................!!!!!!!!!! Food for thought ( Not if your obese.......this will go against the anti tubby brigade ) I managed a department several years ago in which the company did not have any smoking ban / restrictions. (apart from inside buildings was not permitted ) The amount of time the smokers spent tabbing it over and above their normal Tea Break and Dinner Break was probably the best part of 1 1/4 - 1 1/2 hours a day. Over the course of a five day week this equated to approximately 1 whole day..........! Lets say the cost per hour per person including all the add-ons i.e. NI / Overheads / Van or Car / Fuel / Phone is £ 20 per hour ( which I can tell you from experience is a very low cost ) then this costs an employer approx £ 7040 per year ( 44 weeks per annum ) So I ask for those wishing to be allowed to smoke at work as well as the Health benefits of not doing so, and taking aside your " Intruding on my Liberty " and all that Political C..p that many spout on and believe that they can dictate company policy and do as they wish and not as they ought.......... Become for a few minutes an owner of a company and way up the costs of allowing smokers to have breaks whenever the urge gets the better of them. When you are in your own home you live by your rules, when at work you live by the employers.............if you dont like it........why not find another employer who will entertain this time consuming, money wasting, unhealthy , smelly habit. Nothing worse than an ex smoker........go on say it........! Oh by the way........what was the question........... Discrimination........................, Let me ponder that one, after the responses from this lttle beauty..........

Posted By Merv Newman I had to go back to the origins of this thread : "The commission later clarified its position saying that "the fact EU legislation does not cover non-discrimination of smokers does not mean that the Commission regards discrimination against smokers as rightful"." So .... it would seem that employers are not "rightful" should they discriminate against smokers. So, the fact that I am a smoker would not legitimise an employer who discriminates against smokers. So, if I respect my employers reasonable rules on smoking then my employer would have no case for any disciplinary action against me if I smoked off-site. Nor would a refusal of employment be acceptable because I smoke at home. So maybe I stink. So does the person who does not bath or shower at least once a year. (necessary or not) Ok. going for the job interview you take a shower, shave (no sexisme intended here), underarm deoderant, whatever. Two weeks into the job and someone whispers to the boss "BO". Do you get fired for stinking ? Merv (pipe smoker)(tweed jacket but no elbow patches)

Posted By Merv Newman I think we may be getting a bit esoteric here. (means "off thread") So, I'm sacked for "stinking". What would the Employment tribunal say ? And how does one define/measure "stinking" Is there a TLV ? Merv