[another_someone]

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.

[DoctorBeaver (OP)]

If you don't like smoke, don't work in a pub. QED.

[another_someone]

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.

[Mirage]

fag breaks are what makes going to work worthwhile

What does SIA stand for? Smoking It Anonymously?  []

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!!

[Bored chemist]

"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.

[DoctorBeaver (OP)]

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.

[Bored chemist]

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.

[DoctorBeaver (OP)]

No-one has said anything to us about smoking & asbestos being a no-no