The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: You must not smoke in public... oops, I mean in PRIVATE!  (Read 13777 times)

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12656
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
You must not smoke in public... oops, I mean in PRIVATE!
« Reply #25 on: 30/06/2007 22:51:59 »
I don't like overly loud music in pubs - so I avoid pubs that have it.

I don't like drunken football fans screaming & hollering every few seconds while watching a match on the pub TV when I'm trying to enjoy a nice, quiet pint - so I don't go to sports bars.

I don't like hip-hop music - so I don't go to clubs where it's played.

If I want a meal without having someone smoking next to me, I go to a no-smoking restaurant. Similarly, if I want a pint without breathing someone else's smoke, I go to a no-smoking pub.

You see, I have enough sense to avoid places where there are things I don't like. I don't want to stop people who enjoy those things having places to go where they can indulge themselves.
 

jolly

  • Guest
You must not smoke in public... oops, I mean in PRIVATE!
« Reply #26 on: 30/06/2007 23:36:09 »
I don't like overly loud music in pubs - so I avoid pubs that have it.

I don't like drunken football fans screaming & hollering every few seconds while watching a match on the pub TV when I'm trying to enjoy a nice, quiet pint - so I don't go to sports bars.

I don't like hip-hop music - so I don't go to clubs where it's played.

If I want a meal without having someone smoking next to me, I go to a no-smoking restaurant. Similarly, if I want a pint without breathing someone else's smoke, I go to a no-smoking pub.

You see, I have enough sense to avoid places where there are things I don't like. I don't want to stop people who enjoy those things having places to go where they can indulge themselves.

Vote for beaver!!!!!!
 

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12656
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
You must not smoke in public... oops, I mean in PRIVATE!
« Reply #27 on: 30/06/2007 23:45:11 »
 [:I]
 

Offline Karen W.

  • Moderator
  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *****
  • Posts: 31653
  • Thanked: 5 times
  • "come fly with me"
    • View Profile
You must not smoke in public... oops, I mean in PRIVATE!
« Reply #28 on: 01/07/2007 03:03:46 »
I don't like overly loud music in pubs - so I avoid pubs that have it.

I don't like drunken football fans screaming & hollering every few seconds while watching a match on the pub TV when I'm trying to enjoy a nice, quiet pint - so I don't go to sports bars.

I don't like hip-hop music - so I don't go to clubs where it's played.

If I want a meal without having someone smoking next to me, I go to a no-smoking restaurant. Similarly, if I want a pint without breathing someone else's smoke, I go to a no-smoking pub.

You see, I have enough sense to avoid places where there are things I don't like. I don't want to stop people who enjoy those things having places to go where they can indulge themselves.

I agree with you whole heartedly!.. Here here!
 

Offline Karen W.

  • Moderator
  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *****
  • Posts: 31653
  • Thanked: 5 times
  • "come fly with me"
    • View Profile
You must not smoke in public... oops, I mean in PRIVATE!
« Reply #29 on: 01/07/2007 03:06:59 »
I don't like overly loud music in pubs - so I avoid pubs that have it.

I don't like drunken football fans screaming & hollering every few seconds while watching a match on the pub TV when I'm trying to enjoy a nice, quiet pint - so I don't go to sports bars.

I don't like hip-hop music - so I don't go to clubs where it's played.

If I want a meal without having someone smoking next to me, I go to a no-smoking restaurant. Similarly, if I want a pint without breathing someone else's smoke, I go to a no-smoking pub.

You see, I have enough sense to avoid places where there are things I don't like. I don't want to stop people who enjoy those things having places to go where they can indulge themselves.

I agree with you whole heartedly!.. Here here!

I have always been that way.. lost a lot of people who say they ar your friends until I say Oh no thanks I don't like those places, or no thanks I will stay here while you do whatever drug or idiotic thing you want to do there.. LOL I will see you when you return! LOL... I hate being in places I am uncomfortable with but that doesn't mean there shouldn't be those places , it just means that I shouldn't be in them if I am uncomfortable! LOL...
 

paul.fr

  • Guest
You must not smoke in public... oops, I mean in PRIVATE!
« Reply #30 on: 01/07/2007 07:49:12 »
what we need is a person with lung cancer who never smoked to sue the government, for allowing smoking in public places. He / she cites the present law as his evidence, that way the government either have to tell us that there is no evidence and they are just interfering in our lives or show the proof for passive smoking.

Quote

I don't understand this. The council want to avoid exposing their staff to toxic chemicals and lots of you seem to think this is a bad idea. Why do you think these people should risk their health?

BC, we do not need a law, just common courtesy. If someone asks me not to smoke in their home, pub, office or where ever for whatever reason, i would not smoke. Respect for others is all that is needed.
 

Offline kdlynn

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2851
    • View Profile
You must not smoke in public... oops, I mean in PRIVATE!
« Reply #31 on: 01/07/2007 07:50:54 »
thank you, paul
 

paul.fr

  • Guest
You must not smoke in public... oops, I mean in PRIVATE!
« Reply #32 on: 01/07/2007 07:53:40 »
before the shouts, i am not being nasty or inconsiderate about lung cancer. i just think this is one way to get the truth out of the government.
 

paul.fr

  • Guest
You must not smoke in public... oops, I mean in PRIVATE!
« Reply #33 on: 01/07/2007 07:56:53 »
Quote

I don't understand this. The council want to avoid exposing their staff to toxic chemicals and lots of you seem to think this is a bad idea. Why do you think these people should risk their health?

Also, the council send out their traffic wardens, exposing them to exhaust fumes. are we expected not to drive past them? Sorry to be flippant, but you can legislate but it only goes so far.
 

Offline kdlynn

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2851
    • View Profile
You must not smoke in public... oops, I mean in PRIVATE!
« Reply #34 on: 01/07/2007 07:58:34 »
plus, are all of these council members non smokers?
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8648
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
You must not smoke in public... oops, I mean in PRIVATE!
« Reply #35 on: 01/07/2007 10:35:44 »

OK, for a start the title of this thread is misleading. Nobody is being banned from smoking in their home. Got that? All the council are doing is asking smokers to be considrerate and not to smoke in the presence of their staff.

So Pauls comment "BC, we do not need a law, just common courtesy. If someone asks me not to smoke in their home, pub, office or where ever for whatever reason, i would not smoke. Respect for others is all that is needed." becomes questionable.
Sure, we shouldnt need legislation.  We should rely on people's consideration. Unfortunately it seems that we cannot. The council is therefore reminding people that smoking in front of people without asking them is inconsiderate.
As for the "evidence", Can you explain how the benzpyrene and such like know that they are in the lungs off a smoker, and can therfore cause cancer, rather than having been passively smoked and therefore cannot cause cancer?
The idea is ridiculous, why is there any question about it?
 

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12656
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
You must not smoke in public... oops, I mean in PRIVATE!
« Reply #36 on: 01/07/2007 23:16:39 »

OK, for a start the title of this thread is misleading. Nobody is being banned from smoking in their home. Got that? All the council are doing is asking smokers to be considrerate and not to smoke in the presence of their staff.


That's not quite true. The council are asking people not to smoke in their own homes for 30 minutes prior to a visit from a council worker plus to have their windows open.

For a start, I have never known a council worker to arrive on time. And yes, I do mean never. As an example, I was at my friend's house a couple of weeks ago as she had to go to work & a council worker was coming to look at her kitchen. He was due to arrive between 9:30am & 10. He finally turned up just before 1pm and left at 1:35. In that circumstance the council would have had her not smoking from 9am until past 1:30pm; plus having the windows open. Windows open on that day? Yeah sure. It was bloody cold & chucking it down with rain!

The council worker was there to see what repairs needed doing to her kitchen - not a job that could be done at the council's offices. So, if that doesn't amount to a ban on her smoking in her own home, then I'm not sure what does.

 

Offline ukmicky

  • Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3011
    • View Profile
    • http://www.space-talk.com/
You must not smoke in public... oops, I mean in PRIVATE!
« Reply #37 on: 01/07/2007 23:38:34 »
No one would win a court case over passive smoking as they could never prove anything they breathed in came from ciggarettes , benzpyrene for instance comes out of deisel exhasts.
 

another_someone

  • Guest
You must not smoke in public... oops, I mean in PRIVATE!
« Reply #38 on: 02/07/2007 01:45:33 »
what we need is a person with lung cancer who never smoked to sue the government, for allowing smoking in public places.

So what happened to crown immunity?

In any case, it took a long long while for the courts to find a way of apportioning blame with regard to asbestosis (proving cause was easy, the problem was that if someone had worked in 5 different places where they were exposed to asbestos, in which of those 5 places did he actually contract asbestosis?).  The problem will be even more greatly magnified where one is dealing with exposure to substances outside of the workplace.


BC, we do not need a law, just common courtesy. If someone asks me not to smoke in their home, pub, office or where ever for whatever reason, i would not smoke. Respect for others is all that is needed.

Nice theory.

In one place where I had a job interview, the person interviewing me was smoking like a chimney.  When he had completed the interview, and was on the point of offering me the job, I asked if there was any policy on smoking in the workplace, and he said that people did smoke in that workplace.  When I suggested that I could not accept a job if I had to work in a smoking environment, since I was sensitive to smoke, he was none too happy that I had wasted his time in interviewing me.  There was certainly no suggestion that out of courtesy I would be allowed to work in a smoke free environment.
 

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12656
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
You must not smoke in public... oops, I mean in PRIVATE!
« Reply #39 on: 02/07/2007 09:08:44 »
Now, that I disagree with. I think non-smokers have as much right to a smoke-free environment if they wish as much as I believe smokers should have somewhere to go if they want a ciggy.

However, I think it should be left to the individual company how that is implemented. If a firm wants to provide 2 canteens, for instance, 1 for smokers and 1 for non-smokers, then that should be allowed.

Similarly, my local is not what you would call a family pub. They don't provide food & there are no carpets etc in the place. I would estimate that 90% of the customers are smokers. I think this smoking ban will hit pubs like that.

Yes, I've seen the interviews on TV with Scottish landlords who say that their trade hasn't been affected but, & I've taken careful note of this, almost all of those interviewed run restaurant-type pubs or, at least, pubs where food makes up a large proportion of their income. Those sort of pubs won't be as badly affected as those that cater solely for drinkers.
 

another_someone

  • Guest
You must not smoke in public... oops, I mean in PRIVATE!
« Reply #40 on: 02/07/2007 13:01:01 »
Now, that I disagree with. I think non-smokers have as much right to a smoke-free environment if they wish as much as I believe smokers should have somewhere to go if they want a ciggy.

However, I think it should be left to the individual company how that is implemented. If a firm wants to provide 2 canteens, for instance, 1 for smokers and 1 for non-smokers, then that should be allowed.

Similarly, my local is not what you would call a family pub. They don't provide food & there are no carpets etc in the place. I would estimate that 90% of the customers are smokers. I think this smoking ban will hit pubs like that.

Yes, I've seen the interviews on TV with Scottish landlords who say that their trade hasn't been affected but, & I've taken careful note of this, almost all of those interviewed run restaurant-type pubs or, at least, pubs where food makes up a large proportion of their income. Those sort of pubs won't be as badly affected as those that cater solely for drinkers.

In principle, I agree with everything you say, although I can also understand some of the practical problems involved.

The problem is not with the right of people to have a place to go and smoke, but the rights of non-smoking workers who may need to provide services for those people or those places.  Thus, there is nothing wrong in principle with there being a smoking room in a pub, so long as none of the pub staff are required to enter that room while smoking is taking place.  The problem is, what happens if there is a disturbance in that room?

Similarly, having a canteen for smokers (few enough workplaces are even able to afford one canteen, let alone two - but that is another matter) - but what about the people serving food to the smokers?

I do think more could have been done to allow smoking rooms (where no services are provided).  There was an argument that cleaners still need to enter the room, but it merely requires that the room be well ventilated, and that no smoking be allowed in the room from shortly before the cleaners arrive until after they leave.  Yes, there will be residual smell of smoke, but how is this different from a residual smell of curry in a kitchen, or a residual smell of all sorts of things in a toilet.
 

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12656
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
You must not smoke in public... oops, I mean in PRIVATE!
« Reply #41 on: 02/07/2007 15:14:00 »
If you don't like smoke, don't work in a pub. QED.
 

another_someone

  • Guest
You must not smoke in public... oops, I mean in PRIVATE!
« Reply #42 on: 02/07/2007 15:19:26 »
If you don't like smoke, don't work in a pub. QED.

Could have interesting implications for the Disability Discrimination Act.

Someone suffering from severe asthma, might claim discrimination at the workplace if they are not provided with a working environment (even in a pub) which allows them to work.  OK, I know the DDA has lots of controversy in all sorts of area, but merely demonstrating that this is a wider issue than merely a smoking ban.
 

Offline Mirage

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2733
  • Dry Hump anyone?
    • View Profile
    • http://brokenzanymind.blogspot.com/
You must not smoke in public... oops, I mean in PRIVATE!
« Reply #43 on: 02/07/2007 16:32:27 »
fag breaks are what makes going to work worthwhile

What does SIA stand for? Smoking It Anonymously?  :D

Seeing as Dan did not reply to you, Doc. The SIA Licence is what Dan has to have to be able to work. a marvelous scheme by the government where you have to pay for a licence to be in the security industry and only 210 for 3 years plus a few hundred quid for the course to attain your licence.

http://www.the-sia.org.uk/home

Oooops, didn't see this.

But yes, it is a rather expensive, although I didn't have to pay for mine. Probably because I was with a security group before the licence came out. Although I had to supply them with my birth certificate and passport as proof of identity. That went out in recorded post and they sent it back to me using the normal post, not recorded mail, no security whatsoever!!
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8648
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
You must not smoke in public... oops, I mean in PRIVATE!
« Reply #44 on: 02/07/2007 20:25:59 »
"That's not quite true. The council are asking people not to smoke in their own homes for 30 minutes prior to a visit from a council worker plus to have their windows open"
Exactly, ASKING, not banning, not telling, just asking them to be considerate; so in what sense was it not quite true to say that "Nobody is being banned from smoking in their home". I still say that there is a major difference between the thread's title and the more accurate "council ask residents to be considerate of the health of their staff." Don't you? "In private" means alone, not with others, such as council workers, present.

"The council worker was there to see what repairs needed doing to her kitchen - not a job that could be done at the council's offices.  They couldn't have just asked her?"
"So, if that doesn't amount to a ban on her smoking in her own home, then I'm not sure what does." Well, it's quite simple really, one of them is a request not to smoke temporarily- uncomfortable but not generally life threatening, the other would be a ban on smoking in her own house.
Since it's a matter of considerate behaviour I think anyone turning up late and complaining would have major problems.
There will be another question here when they actually have to do the work, they really can't do that from the office. Still, I don't know what the work might be; if they are going to be using any paint stripper (based on dichloromethane) then there will be a smoking ban.

Incidentally, there's nothing new in this- council employees (like others in the EU) have had the right to refuse to do anything, such as enter a house, if they felt it would be a hazard to their health. It's part of the Human rights act IIRC- if not it came in at about the same time.

"If you don't like smoke, don't work in a pub. QED."
Turn down a job offer and get you dole stopped QED; bar jobs are often more common than others.


"So what happened to crown immunity?"
It doesn't apply in the case of the control of substances hazardous to health regulations. They are excluded from Crown immunity (except for the armed forces, though they do apply to the police in some cases).

"Similarly, my local is not what you would call a family pub. They don't provide food & there are no carpets etc in the place. I would estimate that 90% of the customers are smokers. I think this smoking ban will hit pubs like that.

Yes, I've seen the interviews on TV with Scottish landlords who say that their trade hasn't been affected but, & I've taken careful note of this, almost all of those interviewed run restaurant-type pubs or, at least, pubs where food makes up a large proportion of their income. Those sort of pubs won't be as badly affected as those that cater solely for drinkers."

OK, here's a story that backs you up (based on a rather poor return on a survey which makes it somewhat questionable, but nevermind).

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/5276680.stm
Even this article says the change has only been 10% so presumably about 90% of people are happy with the new arrangements (or they would stay home and drink)
Such a dreadfull idea that 90% of people are prepared to put up with it.
 

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12656
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
You must not smoke in public... oops, I mean in PRIVATE!
« Reply #45 on: 03/07/2007 23:38:43 »
It's an old house & the work they will be doing is stripping out everything with asbestos in it. Even the type of Artex on the ceiling has traces of it, apparently.
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8648
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
You must not smoke in public... oops, I mean in PRIVATE!
« Reply #46 on: 04/07/2007 21:23:37 »
The synergistic effect of smoking and asbestos is well documented. If people might be spreading asbestos into your environment it's a really bad idea to smoke. Similarly, if you are working with asbestos then you really don't want smoke there too.
 

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12656
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
You must not smoke in public... oops, I mean in PRIVATE!
« Reply #47 on: 04/07/2007 21:41:04 »
No-one has said anything to us about smoking & asbestos being a no-no
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

You must not smoke in public... oops, I mean in PRIVATE!
« Reply #47 on: 04/07/2007 21:41:04 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums