[DoctorBeaver (OP)]

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

[kdlynn]

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.

[paul.fr]

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

[Bored chemist]

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.

[jolly]

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´ 

[DoctorBeaver (OP)]

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]

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!!!!!!

[DoctorBeaver (OP)]

 [:I]

[Karen W.]

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!

[Karen W.]

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]

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.

[kdlynn]

thank you, paul

[paul.fr]

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]

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.

[kdlynn]

plus, are all of these council members non smokers?

[Bored chemist]

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?

[DoctorBeaver (OP)]

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.

[ukmicky]

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]

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.

[DoctorBeaver (OP)]

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.