Can employer ban smoking outside????

[Movingon]

Ok then, what are they going to do next to make people washing their hands after visiting the toilets in the hospitals? Or going into the hospital with germs that assault others on their shoes and clothes? Or even in the air they exhuale?

 

They already DO all those things where it's needful. Not washing your hands after toilet use is already widely regarded as socially unacceptable. In hospitals, there is a hand-wash gel dispenser at the end of every bed and on the wall all over the place. Ward Sisters regularly bollok people for not repeatedly washing their hands. Operating theatres are out of bounds to ANYONE who is wearing outdoor clothing and has not thoroughly "scrubbed up" and donned a sterile mask and gloves. You think they do that because they don't want people to see them doing the operation?! It's because of airborne infection risk! If someone's breath gets into an operation incision, it would cause untold damage; and if I CHOSE not to wear a mask, and CHOSE to breathe into that incision, then yes it would be assault.

 

By CHOOSING to act in a way which you KNOW will harm others... you get the idea? Why not just give up smoking for goodness' sake? YOU will see untold financial and physiological benefits, and there is NO long term downside.

[alvinlwh]

There are 3 issues here, and I will address them seperately.

 

Smoke affecting others:

You are correct about the hand scrubs and clean areas of the hospital. HOWEVER how do they enforce it with Joe Public? And how many Joe Public enter the clean areas? You say that smoke can carry all kinds of nasty stuff, which is also correct. My concern how far they want to go? A staff in critical care should have cleaned up anyway, but what about a Joe Public visiting?

 

How far will they go with rules?:

I see all the arguement about walking through a cloud of smoke to get into a doorway, but I do not see the arguement about someone smoking in their own vehicles. And if the nasty stuff can hang around for 30 minutes, then what? Ban smoking 30 minutes BEFORE entering the hospital?

 

I obey all rules and regulations as posted, but how far will this go? What will they ban next? Dying?

 

Giving up:

As for giving up, well everyone would have their own reasons for doing something or not doing something, I do not feel it is right to tell them what to do. (about giving up that is, not about smoking in a room/building/doorway/etc) Free country. A person who smoke may feel it reduce stress (there is another discussion here about the stress brought on by quitting), have enough money to afford the cigarettes, feel that they had live life enough, etc..., so what is in it for them to give up then? *This para is a seperate issue about giving up so should not be read with the part about smoke affecting others at the top of this post.

 

As for your AIDS example, if you know the person has AIDS, and you still want to have sex, you should take extra steps to protect yourself. Further more, AIDS is not something that can be seen (therefore decleared), unlike cigarette smoke which is visible. So you can avoid a cloud of smoke at the doorway by taking a different route (according to health and safety, it is also your duty to take reasonable steps to protect yourself). BUT I can see your response coming (why should you take a different route?), so I am going on with this suggestion, a seperate external area (not internal smoking room) for smokers away from the general public (back doorway, courtyard, etc). That way you will no longer have to walk thorugh the cloud of smoke. However this still leave the issue of the 30 minutes unresolved. Will they ban smoking 30 minutes before entering the hospital now?

[Movingon]

However this still leave the issue of the 30 minutes unresolved. Will they ban smoking 30 minutes before entering the hospital now?

 

I would certainly hope so. I already made my relatives who smoke aware of the still-present (although much reduced compared to actual smoke) risk to my baby son of them smoking outside and then immediately returning to cooing and ahh-ing at him. They tend to smoke far less at my home now than they did. I would fully support any regulation which reduced the risk inherent in smoking to anyone, including the smoker.

 

If they (the smoker) choose that risk for themselves, let them choose it in a place and at a time which will not expose me to any risk. Let's not forget that a Health Professional who chooses to smoke can work in a large number of places which do NOT restrict smoking. They can choose to move to a country where smoking is less restricted. Or they can choose to stay where they are and accept that it imposes some restrictions upon them, for the good of other people. Life's all about choices; about deciding what you want more. And this particular choice is - what do you prefer, a job with the NHS with smoking restrictions, or a vastly increased risk of a smoking-related disease?

[Movingon]

Oh, and people in OUR local hospital, visitors, staff and patients alike, are CONSTANTLY reminded to use the hand-cleaning facilities.

[alvinlwh]

Let's not forget that a Health Professional who chooses to smoke can work in a large number of places which do NOT restrict smoking. They can choose to move to a country where smoking is less restricted....what do you prefer, a job with the NHS with smoking restrictions, or a vastly increased risk of a smoking-related disease?

 

Now we know why NHS is running out of staff and need to employ sub-standard staff from overseas. They had all moved to Canadia.

 

http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=oddlyEnoughNews&storyid=2006-11-14T183022Z_01_N14313540_RTRUKOC_0_US-LIFE-MARIJUANA.xml&src=rss

 

Personally, I do not work in the NHS so that is a non issue to me. But I would love to see how they enforce the 30 minutes rule so welcomed by you. CCTV or bugs to track the smoker?

 

Oh, and people in OUR local hospital, visitors, staff and patients alike, are CONSTANTLY reminded to use the hand-cleaning facilities.

 

They are reminded to use it, not made to use it. How about enforcing it by, maybe, getting staff to be CONSTANTLY stationed at entrance and toilet cleaning every single hands that enter the hospital? That will surely cut cross infection to almost zero.

 

My issue here had always been, "how far are they going to go?" not just with smoking, but with this nanny state thing.

 

Any people area always saying that a smoker can choose not to be a smoker, but can he/she? As I said earlier, a person could be born a smoker due to smoking parents. Isn't it the same as a handicapped person that is born that way. Non of them have a choice in their parents. So why discriminate against one and not another?

[Movingon]

I was probably born addicted to cigarette smoke and will probably always be addicted; it's a bit like alcoholism in that respect - you can never let your guard down again once you've quit. If I go through a difficult time in my life in the future it will probably take a lot of effort to not smoke; HOWEVER long it's been since I gave up. Once a smoker, always a smoker. However, right now I choose not to smoke - and ANYONE, however addicted they are, can make that choice. It's a hard choice to stick to, and it's not very enjoyable to desire cigarettes and not smoke them... but it's still a choice. One which takes a little effort to stick by. I have so far, and I hope to forever... but as I said, my guard is firmly UP.

[Movingon]

Now we know why NHS is running out of staff and need to employ sub-standard staff from overseas. They had all moved to Canadia.

 

LOL!!! I suspect that that is less due to the smoking rules, and more due to the lower pay and less favourable working conditions here...

[dom2599]

Now we know why NHS is running out of staff and need to employ sub-standard staff from overseas. They had all moved to Canadia.

 

Sub Standard staff from abroad!

 

I work for the NHS m8 and i can tell you that there are plenty of Sub Standard staff from THIS country.

[Solowka]

I work for the NHS in Warrington, and we`re still allowed to smoke on the grounds, were told it would be banned completley but it hasnt, the extra cost in insurance wouldn`t have been worth it, if it had been banned you could still smoke in your car as the trust `do not accept any liability` for the vehicle whilst in the carpark, therefore it is your responsibility and therefore still your property and you can do whatever you want in it.

[blacksheep1979]

Any people area always saying that a smoker can choose not to be a smoker, but can he/she? As I said earlier, a person could be born a smoker due to smoking parents. Isn't it the same as a handicapped person that is born that way. Non of them have a choice in their parents. So why discriminate against one and not another?

 

I'm sorry but thats just an excuse for the weak willed. It is always your choice to buy the cigarettes, it is your choice to put one in your mouth and it is your choice to light it - there is no magic force making you do it - and before you ask yes I have given up so know what its like.

 

I work for the NHS in Warrington, and we`re still allowed to smoke on the grounds, were told it would be banned completley but it hasnt, the extra cost in insurance wouldn`t have been worth it, if it had been banned you could still smoke in your car as the trust `do not accept any liability` for the vehicle whilst in the carpark, therefore it is your responsibility and therefore still your property and you can do whatever you want in it.

 

Whilst the car is your property it is still on their land so no you can't do what you like in it - try that attitude by driving onto some MOD land and see how far it gets you.

 

 

As to the previous comments on the prisoners. The reason they got the money was not that they weren't allowed to do drugs it was the fact that they were made to go cold turkey and suffer unduly when there was alternate treatment available. Now as already has been pointed out, the NHS gives help with quitting and you are more than free to get patches, gum etc - so the human rights thing is completely different to the prisoner/heroin thing (although that was rediculous imo).

[Solowka]

Whilst the car is your property it is still on their land so no you can't do what you like in it - try that attitude by driving onto some MOD land and see how far it gets you.

 

 

Ahh yes my friend, but there is a HUGE difference between the NHS and the MOD, the NHS doesnt have armed patrols with orders to shoot to kill....but then again

[Movingon]

Nor do the MOD. The MOD and Forces bases have armed guards with orders NOT TO SHOOT unless it's ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY, but if it becomes so, and there is no other way of stopping the immediate deadly danger - you shoot at the largest exposed part of the body of the "enemy" in order to ensure a hit (and therefore to ensure stopping them presenting a deadly danger). NOONE in peacetime has orders to shoot to kill.

[hbomb]

I am in the same position and have just searched the web looking forn someome to answer my question.

 

I work for the NHS however I do not work on their property. They lease a building and car park from a private company. I beleive that on this basis as long as I stand on property that they do not lease then I may continue to smoke, even if this is within sight of the building. What does anyone think??? Am I right??? They have told us that we are not to smoke anywhere on the premises, however they do not lease the entire property!!!!

 

Please help, I want to fight this one!!

[poppynurse]

do you wear uniform? and what does your policy state about it - it is your local nhs policy that you will be held to account against as it were.

[bidstermeister]

On a lighter note, if you want to hear a rather amusing arguement FOR smoking, with an interesting twist at the end - Take a listen to this...

 

 

It's from the mid-90s, a chat show with Nicky Campbell - and Tommy Boyd is the speaker. I think this'll appeal to those on both sides of the fence

[hbomb]

do you wear uniform? and what does your policy state about it - it is your local nhs policy that you will be held to account against as it were.

 

Hi, not to worry I have today won my battle. Cheers for your reply.

[Movingon]

Hi, not to worry I have today won my battle. Cheers for your reply.

 

Would it really be so bad to give up?

[Rich44]

I do think that smokers should be provided somewhere but the trouble is they are their own worst enemies sometimes, our local hospital used to allow smoking outside but the place was always covered in cig butts on the floor so they banned it - obviously it was the public and not just staff but if the smokers hadnt been so lazy then they probably wouldnt have banned it.

 

Went to the James Paget in Yarmouth to visit and I wanted to wait outside with the baby whilst my partner visited her nan and I could not sit on a single bench outside as there were patients and visitors smoking there despite many many no smoking signs its disgusting esp when I was there first with a 2 month old baby and someone sits next to me and starts smoking I was livid filthy pigs!!!

 

Personally roll on 1st July 2007 I cant wait

[dom2599]

Hi, not to worry I have today won my battle. Cheers for your reply.

 

 

I'm suprised at that, the stance with the trust i work for is that if you work for the trust (as i do) i'm not allowed to smoke (i dont anyway) in buildings, any sites, trust vehicles, or on any type of trust business, anywhere.

 

Typical NHS, no one singing from the same hymn sheet