Can employer ban smoking outside????

[alvinlwh]

What about CCTVs?

[iwgunter]

Surely there's a clause in that bloody Human Rights thingamebob that says we as a people are allowed to smoke and if you don't like it then you can lump it.

[barracad]

Surely there's a clause in that bloody Human Rights thingamebob that says we as a people are allowed to smoke and if you don't like it then you can lump it.

 

Nobody is saying she can't smoke, just that she can't smoke on their premises. You can do what you like in your own home.

[avlasc]

Perhaps someone should invent an air tight box that goes over your head that is large enough to get a fag into - then at least the smoke would be contained. The smoker could continuously inhale the same smoke ... what a way of cutting down to one a day .... right off to the drawing board.

[alvinlwh]

Nobody is saying she can't smoke, just that she can't smoke on their premises. You can do what you like in your own home.

 

Not really true. The law also states that they have to provide disabled access (deaf, blind, wheelchair, etc). Now if their premises = their homes and they can do what they wish, how come fines are given to premises that did not provide for disabled access?

 

Not trying to fight for smokers' rights issue here, but it is more about human rights issue, which is alot of nonsense I feel. Like junkies can sue the government for not paying for their drugs in jail.

[barracad]

I don't know how providing disabled ramps for public access is even remotely linked to somebody being able to smoke at home????

[alvinlwh]

Nobody is saying she can't smoke, just that she can't smoke on their premises. You can do what you like in your own home.

 

Ok maybe I am reading this wrong, don't shoot me. You are saying you can do what she like in her own home, but not on their premises. They can set whatever rules they like on their premises. But they cannot, human rights still covers their premises, which the DDA I used as an example.

 

Now they are not allowed by law to block someone in a wheelchair into a building, why should they block someone with a cigarette outside the building?

 

I am not sure if there are any test cases about smoking and human rights. Some will ague that smoking is disgusting, and shouldn't be allowed near the building. So how about someone else finding a disabled person is disgusting and shouldn't be allowed into public places? THIS IS JUST AN EXAMPLE!!!

[barracad]

I think there's a big difference there. For example, somebody in a wheelchair needs access to a building therefore it has to be provided.

 

If somebody chooses to smoke that's fine, but there is no reason why their employer should be forced to admit them to do so on their premises.

 

Smokers are not disabled so I don't think this has any relevance whatsoever, and more importantly smokers can chose not to smoke, somebody who is confined to a wheelchair can't chose to get up out of their chair and walk.

[alvinlwh]

True you are correct, but the issue discussed here is the human right issue is a wierd one. Look at those junkies taking the government to court for not giving them drugs in jails. Now isn't that the same issue as not allowing smoking? Drugs is an addiction, so is smoking. And, if like you said, smokers can chose not to smoke, then junkies can also chose not to take drugs. Then what is the human rights issue there? I bring in the handicaped example because it also relates to human rights issue.

 

Also the side issue is banning something just because someone else find it disgusting, is not a good reason. I could, FOR EXAMPLE, find someone in a wheelchair, head to one side, dripping form a corner of the mouth disgusting, and should they be banned from public place just because of that?

[cleungs1]

worst still the company I used to work for stop people from smoking during their working hours because of complain from non smokers

[barracad]

True you are correct, but the issue discussed here is the human right issue is a wierd one. Look at those junkies taking the government to court for not giving them drugs in jails. Now isn't that the same issue as not allowing smoking? Drugs is an addiction, so is smoking. And, if like you said, smokers can chose not to smoke, then junkies can also chose not to take drugs.

 

Prisoners can't leave prison to take their drugs. Smokers can go somewhere to have a cigarette if they want to. In this instance the employer is just saying that they can't smoke on their premises - they are not stopping them from smoking elsewhere should they wish to do so.

 

Also the side issue is banning something just because someone else find it disgusting, is not a good reason. I could, FOR EXAMPLE, find someone in a wheelchair, head to one side, dripping form a corner of the mouth disgusting, and should they be banned from public place just because of that?

 

I think you'll find that smoking is banned because it is a health risk, rather than because people find it disgusting. Although they would have the right to ban something else they found 'disgusting' for example offensive posters being displayed in the workplace, foul language in the workplace, etc. Again, these are things you are free to do in your own home but there is no reason why people should be forced to put up with it whilst at work.

 

Your comments about disabled people are, frankly, inappropriate.

[alvinlwh]

Your comments about disabled people are, frankly, inappropriate.

 

Inappropriate, in a politically correct sense? Yes, I agree with you. Which is why I put FOR EXAMPLE in bold. Thing is what a person like, another may find it disgusting. I am just using the DDA and human rights as an example of restriction to a person's action, or access.

 

As you said, a person is born disabled, he did not make the choice. HOWEVER, a smoker could be born a smoker too. Studies had show that an unborn child that is exposed to second (or is it third hand in this case?) smoke had a higher chance (cannot remember the %) of being a smoker too.

 

And as for leaving prison, well some work place could be like prison where the employees cannot leave the premises at all.

 

Personally, I do not agree with the human right issues that comes with EU membership. Why should a country set its law based on the decision made by other countries. But that is too a wide discussion for this forum. Even the parliment couldn't work it out.

[gizmo111]

Prisoners can't leave prison to take their drugs. Smokers can go somewhere to have a cigarette if they want to. In this instance the employer is just saying that they can't smoke on their premises - they are not stopping them from smoking elsewhere should they wish to do so.

 

 

 

I think you'll find that smoking is banned because it is a health risk, rather than because people find it disgusting.

Taking drugs is a health risk also.

]

[iwgunter]

OKay, so with smoking being a health risk and employers banning it, should they also ban...

 

Chocolate & sugary snacks as they can cause diabetes

 

or

 

Fatty foods because of clogged arteries leading to possible heart failure

[gizmo111]

OKay, so with smoking being a health risk and employers banning it, should they also ban...

 

Chocolate & sugary snacks as they can cause diabetes

 

or

 

Fatty foods because of clogged arteries leading to possible heart failure

 

Or working 5 days a week?

[Movingon]

Smoke particles continue to contaminate the environment around a smoker for 30 minutes after he/she ceases to smoke their cigarette. These particles are lodged in hair, clothes, skin and so on. The particles don't only cause a bad smell, they are also the same particles which can cause cancer in the smoker. Further to this there is the carriage (mentioned earlier) of small amounts of bodily fluids and bacteria on the smoke particles.

 

This means that smoking a cigarette just outside a hospital (where susceptibility to infection is already high) presents a VERY REAL INFECTION RISK to patients, EVEN AFTER the cigarette is finished and disposed of. THAT is why hospital trusts across the country are banning smoking. Not because it's distasteful or unpleasant - but because it's a HEALTH RISK to EVERYONE at the hospital, not just the smoker.

 

The Human Rights issue here, is that the patients and staff at the hospital have the ABSOLUTE RIGHT to work in a healthy environment which does not present a danger to them. (Health and Safety at Work Act refers). I think that the rights of those people far outweigh the rights of any smoker to smoke because they choose to.

 

So - by all means continue to smoke if you wish; but don't bloody bleat on about human rights because every time you spark up you disregard the rights to health of everyone around you for at least 40 minutes - up to ten minutes to smoke the cigarette and thirty minutes after you put it out.

 

I gave up smoking in 1992 for ten years and then started again when I had split from my ex-Wife. I gave up again in 2005 when my Wife became pregnant with my 4th baby. I haven't smoked since, and don't intend to let down my guard again.

[poppynurse]

Smoke particles continue to contaminate the environment around a smoker for 30 minutes after he/she ceases to smoke their cigarette. These particles are lodged in hair, clothes, skin and so on. The particles don't only cause a bad smell, they are also the same particles which can cause cancer in the smoker. Further to this there is the carriage (mentioned earlier) of small amounts of bodily fluids and bacteria on the smoke particles.

 

This means that smoking a cigarette just outside a hospital (where susceptibility to infection is already high) presents a VERY REAL INFECTION RISK to patients, EVEN AFTER the cigarette is finished and disposed of. THAT is why hospital trusts across the country are banning smoking. Not because it's distasteful or unpleasant - but because it's a HEALTH RISK to EVERYONE at the hospital, not just the smoker.

 

 

 

 

I wasn't aware of this:shock: , can I ask where you found this information?

 

The hospital where I work did not present the ban in this format - might have helped if they did! They just announced a complete ban and are forcing it upon us - I hate being dictated to but will accept a reasonable rationale!

[alvinlwh]

Fatty foods because of clogged arteries leading to possible heart failure

 

They did trued to n schools didn't they?

[iwgunter]

I was more meaning that if they say they are banning smoking during work hours because of MY health, then if they are allowed to do that, then they could also stop me from eating fatty or sugary foods during working hours.

 

I know it's a bit far off, but once 1 thing go through, then everything else follows suit.

[Movingon]

My Wife joined a number of sites related to the bringing up of babies when she discovered her pregnancy in May last year. This was a little gem from one of those sites, I think; but I will ask her for a credible source. However, it does make perfect sense when you consider that cigarette smoke particles are 0.2 microns in size which means they are really easily carried along with air currents, and equally easily caught up in apparel for a short time. When a smoker returns from their smoke break, even if it's a walk of several minutes from the smoking area to their desk, when they get back the smell of smoke is almost overwhelming. Smell equals particles; that's how we SENSE smell... we pick up the particles in the air and micro-analyze them. Which means that smokers give off particles. The smell fades after a while so that you don't (even as a non-smoker) detect it unless you stand REALLY close to them. As to the saliva thing, when a person exhales, there is a lot of moisture in that air. When a smoker exhales smoke, the particles pick up some of that moisture and it condenses onto them; thus enabling the carriage of moisture from place to place. Moisture from the mouth, lungs and respiratory tract carries bacteria; and if the smoker has a disease which can be air transmitted...

[Movingon]

I was more meaning that if they say they are banning smoking during work hours because of MY health, then if they are allowed to do that, then they could also stop me from eating fatty or sugary foods during working hours.

 

I know it's a bit far off, but once 1 thing go through, then everything else follows suit.

 

But they're not; they're banning smoking because of the detrimental effect that YOUR smoking has ON OTHERS. Without a smoking ban, they are needlessly exposing other people to your smoke and all its attendant health risks.

[alvinlwh]

That is nanny state gone mad, and throw human rights issue into the mix...you get all kind of rules and laws that don't make sense.

[Guest Battleaxe]

MOTH is reaping the rewards of his smoking habit. he started smoking when he joined the Navy at 15 (boy sailor). he has smoked up to thirty a day all this time, he reeked. I banned smoking from the house when I married him, made sure when we went out for a meal, we sat in the smoke free area, and everyone thought I was mean. He had to stand out in the rain and snow to feed his habit. He has now been diagnosed with COPD. he gave up smoking three months ago. he reckoned he had given it upsix months ago when he had to have treatment for Cancer and he started to lie to me about it, it took me packing my bags about him lying to me for him to stop. None of the kids smoked and I didn't. Never had an ashtry in my house. I feel so strongly about it, i would no go anywhere or visit people who smoke in their homes. I would tell the people concerned why.

 

 

Poppynurse sorry, your habit has detrimental effect on the patients you are nursing.

 

When I worked at the local hospital, the smoking room smell permeated the corridor. the other thing was walking past all the smokers congregated at the front door of the hospital and i had to walk through the contaminated air.

 

 

I am all for a smoke free environment.

[Movingon]

That is nanny state gone mad, and throw human rights issue into the mix...you get all kind of rules and laws that don't make sense.

 

Don't talk nonsense. Why do you have the right to inflict me with your diseases and smoking-related illnesses because you choose to? Would you be happy with someone who went around giving everyone AIDS because they choose not to use a condom? It's EXACTLY the same situation. This is nothing to do with Nanny state it's to protect me from being ASSAULTED by you when you smoke.

[alvinlwh]

ASSAULT? Now that is strong. 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?

 

It is only EXACTLY the same situation in your eyes.