Naked Science Forum
General Discussion & Feedback => Just Chat! => Topic started by: DoctorBeaver on 29/06/2007 16:02:14
-
Taken from http://lifestyle.aol.co.uk/smokers-smoking-at-home-warning/article/20070629001309990007 (http://lifestyle.aol.co.uk/smokers-smoking-at-home-warning/article/20070629001309990007)
Smokers are to be asked not to smoke in their own homes to protect council staff, it has been revealed.
Health and safety officers at Liverpool City Council have drawn up plans to request residents not to smoke at least half an hour before their staff visit and to open windows and not light up during a home visit.
The plans are to protect employees from exposure to second-hand smoke. The city council insist the new rules are not a "ban" and they will not be able to force householders to comply.
But if residents insist on smoking at home during a visit from a council employee the visit will be ended and they will be asked to attend a council office - which comes under the UK-wide no smoking ban from July 1.
The new rules will apply to all residents in council houses and private homes (my emphasis) and to all staff visiting homes, including social workers, enforcement officers and planning officers.
The new rules come as one council defended its decision to investigate "odour nuisance" caused by a couple smoking in their own home.
What will be next?
"Please do not keep pets as some of our employees are allergic to pet hairs"
"Please do not keep any alcohol in your home as some of our employees are alcoholics (we are an equal opportunities employer) and are likely to go on a bender"
-
where is the concrete proof for second hand smoking? Anecdotal evidence, yes but concrete proof. I wonder where this will end, just wondering, is smoking still legal?
Hay doc, does the ban cover your stables?
-
The smoking ban will be interesting here at work. When it rains the staff who smoke all huddle under the archway which is right by the front door, if not there then there is a fire exit next to that. They shouldn't really smoke there anyway but with the ban coming in, even more so. However the company have bought a shelter for the staff which is around the corner away from the front door. The problem is, the shelter is tiny, can probably only fit two big people under there. Sometimes there can be over 10 people outside smoking. So when it's raining where will they go? What will they do?
Personally I think I'm gonna have a bit of fun with it all, having to tell them to move away from the front door, out of the fire exit area and to move around the corner [;)]
-
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi154.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fs262%2Fpf0604%2Fpoliceman.jpg&hash=52bd24ca37db65e5411d3bfc5b838173)
Move along, please. dirty filthy criminal...er, smoker
-
No because the stables is not open to the public. But were I to say that once a month disabled kids could come to ride my horses then the ban would apply even if I was not charging them to ride.
And here's something else to think about. I run my own businesses and my home is my registered office. Therefore it is classed as a place of work. If I have prospective clients round to see me rather than my visiting them, then I am not allowed to smoke at home.
Similarly, if I am giving a client a lift in my car then neither of us is allowed to smoke even if we both do.
Whether or not you approve of this smoking ban, it has not been thought through at all (how typical of this government). When the knee jerked it threw them onto the bandwagon.
-
Similarly, if I am giving a client a lift in my car then neither of us is allowed to smoke even if we both do.
that is the one that really gets me.
-
It'll be interesting if the government follows Liverpool council's example. Picture the scene...
Chief inspector: So did you arrest the criminals?
Constable: No sir. We couldn't enter the premises as they were smoking cigarettes.
-
It'll be interesting if the government follows Liverpool council's example. Picture the scene...
Chief inspector: So did you arrest the criminals?
Constable: No sir. We couldn't enter the premises as they were smoking cigarettes.
Put the cigarette down son, and come out quietly. will cigs now be classed as a weapon? lighting up when the council worker comes around, could you eventually get done for attempted ...something.
-
"Don't come any closer, copper, or I'll light up!"
-
This reminds me of the Jasper Carrot quip about the difference between British & American cops.
An American cop shouts "Stop or I'll shoot"
A British cops shouts "Stop or I'll shout STOP again"
-
if i remember correctly, prisoners can still smoke in their cells! shurley shome mistake...
-
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi154.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fs262%2Fpf0604%2Fpoliceman.jpg&hash=52bd24ca37db65e5411d3bfc5b838173)
Move along, please. dirty filthy criminal...er, smoker
LOL, I might have to do that [;)]
If only I could have a uniform like that, they're hot.........if they still had uniforms like that I would become a police officer [:)]
This reminds me of the Jasper Carrot quip about the difference between British & American cops.
An American cop shouts "Stop or I'll shoot"
A British cops shouts "Stop or I'll shout STOP again"
LOL I love Jasper Carrot
-
This was questioned in The House recently. I think the reply was along the lines of "We have waffle waffle and when all considerations are taken into blah blah waffle it was decided that the research waffle blah and the indications are therefore blah blah waffle"
-
Dan, if you smoked and got caught and charged, do you realise you could lose your sia licence for just being a smoker.
then you would be out of a job, now that's forward thinking by the government of the people!
-
This was questioned in The House recently. I think the reply was along the lines of "We have waffle waffle and when all considerations are taken into blah blah waffle it was decided that the research waffle blah and the indications are therefore blah blah waffle"
rabble, rabble, rabble...when's lunch
-
This was questioned in The House recently. I think the reply was along the lines of "We have waffle waffle and when all considerations are taken into blah blah waffle it was decided that the research waffle blah and the indications are therefore blah blah waffle"
rabble, rabble, rabble...when's lunch
Hear hear!
-
I know we're being flippant about this, but I do find this gradual erosion of liberty very worrying.
-
I know we're being flippant about this, but I do find this gradual erosion of liberty very worrying.
I think this is all we can do, Doc. There is no real people power, we could vote someone else in but would that make a difference? We have very few liberties left, and i suspect i will be cut off before i..........
text removed by HM Government, for anti-government stance
-
I would vote for anyone who said they would stop nannying me. If they also said they would stop the installation of any more CCTV systems I'd vote for them twice!
-
Dan, if you smoked and got caught and charged, do you realise you could lose your sia licence for just being a smoker.
then you would be out of a job, now that's forward thinking by the government of the people!
Oh, that would not be good [:o]
I'm gonna have to be a little careful while smoking [;)]
-
What does SIA stand for? Smoking It Anonymously? [:D]
-
it's all just stupid. i'm no longer allowed to give "cigarette breaks" at work. i have to give everyone, whether they smoke or not, a five to ten minute break, and i am not allowed to say cigarette break.
-
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
-
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? Doesn't it make more sense for them to work in an environment free of this problem- if not someone's home then the council office?
Cigarette smoke is known to be a carcinogen. Why is there any question that this is true whether you paid for the tobacco or not? Surely it's obvious that if this collection of chemicals causes cancer in people who deliberately inhale it then it will also cause cancer in those who are forced to breathe it by inconsiderate smokers.
-
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? Doesn't it make more sense for them to work in an environment free of this problem- if not someone's home then the council office?
Cigarette smoke is known to be a carcinogen. Why is there any question that this is true whether you paid for the tobacco or not? Surely it's obvious that if this collection of chemicals causes cancer in people who deliberately inhale it then it will also cause cancer in those who are forced to breathe it by inconsiderate smokers.
I know what your saying but many of the reports are conflicting, in other words the jury is still out on passive smoking, well still out for me, most have already decided what they believe, evidence or not.
I have just given up been 2-3 weeks now. No-one other than one priest smokes here and its pipe tobacco, which is horrible so I dont enjoy smelling it.
However it is hardly right to ban smoking in the home, I do not see an issue with banning in some public places, it would have been nicer to have a 50, 50 policy, some places like resturants, but bars and nightclubs?
They could have decided on a smoking licence, and then just like with alcohol, if a bar or club wants to allow people to smoke, they need to apply for it, that way you could control the number of smoking premises, and put in place certain rules for places that did allow smoking- for example it could require that all the workers smoked, which would solve the passive smoking issue.
BILL HICKS: ´You non smokers are a bunch of winey little maggots, my greatest fear is that if I give up smoking, that I´ll become one of you´
-
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 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!!!!!!
-
[:I]
-
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 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...
-
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.
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.
-
thank you, paul
-
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.
-
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.
-
plus, are all of these council members non smokers?
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
If you don't like smoke, don't work in a pub. QED.
-
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.
-
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!!
-
"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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
No-one has said anything to us about smoking & asbestos being a no-no