...Hmmmm, just looks like we will have to get on with it I suppose!
Printable View
...Hmmmm, just looks like we will have to get on with it I suppose!
Hmmm, lets look at this from a different angle. We've all justified our reasons for the smoking ban (read back through the thread if you don't accept that). What are your reasons? So far, you have failed to come up with a reason to support your 'right' to smoke, except that it's in your 'human rights.' People (especially Alan) are getting wound up and angry because they have been affected in some way by ignorant smokers who can't see what harm they are causing to themselves and others. And you seem to be one of those.Quote:
Originally Posted by SarahWakefield
Nobody is against what you are saying, everyone is just annoyed that you can't justify your actions when all of us on here have. You can't enter a debate and say "This is what I think, I don't care what you lot have to say, I don't have to justify myself to anyone."
RE your grandma: there's a good reason why the surgeons won't operate. Its difficult to ventilate a smoker during surgery, especially if they have been smoking for years and have lung damage. Would you turn round and sue the doctors when your grandma dies from respiratory problems during surgery?
RE the accident: a doctor's main priority is to assess the situation and decide what treatment is required (including surgery). I'm sure if someone was dying in A&E the doctor wouldn't stop to ask if he was a smoker. You're just being pedantic now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jelly bellyPeople (especially Alan) are getting wound up and angry because they have been affected in some way by ignorant smokers who can't see what harm they are causing to themselves and others. And you seem to be one of those.Quote:
Originally Posted by SarahWakefield
Im angry yes. Wound up no.:)
Thought I'd move the talks on to other aspects of the knock-on effect of the smoking ban:
Okay so its smoke free in enclosed spaces - but what makes me laugh is all the propaganda about the ban will make people give up smoking, but really this will only effect those who really want to give up and this will aid them because they won't need to stay away from those places assuming of course that they broke the association between drink and smoking.
It won't stop more people from not smoking in the future because teenagers will see more smoking out in the street, outside in pub gardens, anywhere else you can think of etc. etc. etc., which of course will seem pretty cool for example, a network of people bonding outside for a smoke.
My only other real concern is will it drive more smoking around children in the home, because its not the effects of the smoking on their minds but I won't go to the pub because its raining, so I'll have a drink and a smoke indoors. (I might add here that I am not a parent - incase this causes an issue on this forum)
As it happens apart from the platform at the station, the ban hasn't effected my smoking at all. A number of my friends don't smoke, so I usually go outside for a smoke if we go out; I am past the clubbing stage, the resturants around my way had been non-smoking for many years. And being a dog owner, am quite used to smoking in all weathers, rain, snow, hail etc. I am probably not the only one either.
So out of interest and debate, has anyone got any other points to add both for and against my own personal viewpoint.
Maybe the inconvenience of having to go stand outside in all weathers may make people consider giving up. I know if I smoked I would consider it easier to give up completely rather than having to go outside away from friends/family for a smoke.Quote:
Originally Posted by crystalsea
On the teenagers front - a lot of teenagers see smoking as cool and most who smoke have their first fag at school (you only have to stand outside the school gates to see little year 7's having a sneaky fag before they go home) so I'm not convinced that it will encourage youngsters to smoke. I do agree with you about the bonding thing though. The smokers can all stand outside in the rain moaning about how they should be allowed to smoke where they want.
If its good enough for Ireland its good enough for England :)
I live in Scotland where we have had a ban on smoking in enclosed public places since March 2006.
I find it much more pleasent to visit pubs and resturants now, and I am grateful not to have to wait ages for a 'non-smoking' table as in the past.
I don't smoke and neither do any of my family, friends or colleagues. I read a couple of days ago that 1/3 of the UK adult population smoke. Not in my vicinity they don't - for which I am grateful, cigarette smoke used to induce my asthma.
The only smokers I see are the ones that stand outside the pubs, shopping centres etc. It is horrible having to pass them and their stinking smoke.
My wife and I are regular visitors to Scotland. The village pub we tend to call our local was always full of smokers. This didnt matter whether there were children in the pub or not. These were regular customers who we had known for years. They almost seemed to chain smoke lighting fag after fag. I remember saying that if they can make the ban work here it will work anywhere. We have been back numerous times since (Roll on August:cheer: ) and the same regulars are at the bar. They go outside for their fag and back in for their Pint of Belhaven Best. What we have noticed though is they do not seem to smoke as much as they used to. It used to be two fags per pint now its two pints per fag:)Quote:
Originally Posted by Trinity
No need for the thank you at the end of that cheers PB. I'm not a child and don't need to be spoken to like one.Quote:
Originally Posted by pinkbanana
General remark now: the question of this poll was, do you think the smoking ban is a good or bad thing - SarahW gave her opinion, in the thread, that she thought it was a bad thing. I was merely commenting on the fact that at the time of posting this, 5 people (not including myself as I have still absteined from voting) have voted its a bad thing, yet only Sarah had given her reasons why. And following on from that, a few members (and I'm not mentioning names, having a go at anyone, infringing on peoples human rights to reply or anything else here, so this post is not to be taken as such) have quoted every reply, thanked each others posts etc and yes that is allowed, but for me, to read these responses and comments, read it like bullying. People don't agree - thats fair enough, we are ALL human, we ALL have our opinions on things, as I've previously said, if we all think the same, life would be very very boring, but at the same time, aren't we allowed to respect each others opinions also?
The question was, is it a good thing or a bad thing, not is smoking good for you or bad for you. We ALL know, including smokers, that smoking causes lung cancer and many other fatal illnesses, to those who smoke and those who don't. No one has ever questioned that fact.
I have seen and am experiencing seeing close friends and family with cancer (my great uncle is terminal and waiting for the white light as we speak, and a very close friend is currently deciding whether or not to carry on with treatment, having been told that this time (the third), its no longer working. She is mid 30's, has two young children, is teetotal and has never smoked.) so I don't need to be told what the effects of smoking are (and neither of these examples I have given you ever smoked btw), but I still see both sides of whether or not the ban is a good or bad thing.
As an employer, we have been told that if any of our employees are caught smoking by officials, on our premises, even after we have told them that they aren't to smoke either on the premises or within any work vehicles, WE, the company will be fined £2,000 whilst our employee will be fined £50. Is this fair on us, when we have an unmanned workshop and my husband and I aren't there 24/7 keeping watch on what our employee is doing?!
Like I say, I am not going to get embroiled in an argument about whether or not smoking is good or bad for you, or whether any other pollutants in the world cause death or whatever. But when you know that people are scared to post their opinion in this thread, for fear of what is going to be asked/thrown or whatever at them, just because their opinion differs from another, is very very sad.
I think it's a good thing for myself and my health (never touched a cig. and never want to :))but I do think that it's bad for the smokers who have to stand outside and smoke in such bad weather and have no will (thats the word right?..) to quit. You can't blame them everyone's different but I do also think that's bad too because even though smokers are outside you could be still be breathing in other smoker's smoke as you pass them. This sort of makes it how it was before.
I voted 'yes' because afterall it's my health and I'm not seen much outside and more inside most the time anyways!
Thats too bad for the smokers but if they make the choice to continue poisoning themselves what harm will a bit of rain do them or cold or snow or minus 10 temperatures. Flu and pneumonia have a cure Lung Cancer is normally FATALQuote:
Originally Posted by .:SpIcYsPy:.
Hmm good point, obviously didn't think of it like that. :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoJoNo need for the thank you at the end of that cheers PB. I'm not a child and don't need to be spoken to like one.Quote:
Originally Posted by pinkbanana
I am full aware you are not a child (and likewise I could comment on you putting cheers at the end of your sentence). I was just taken a back, by your comment, and actually rather offended, that people (included me) have jumped on (to quote you) 'a bandwagon' for sharing the same opinions. I felt that was an insulting and unfair comment.
General remark now: the question of this poll was, do you think the smoking ban is a good or bad thing - SarahW gave her opinion, in the thread, that she thought it was a bad thing. I was merely commenting on the fact that at the time of posting this, 5 people (not including myself as I have still absteined from voting) have voted its a bad thing, yet only Sarah had given her reasons why. And following on from that, a few members (and I'm not mentioning names, having a go at anyone, infringing on peoples human rights to reply or anything else here, so this post is not to be taken as such) have quoted every reply, thanked each others posts etc and yes that is allowed, but for me, to read these responses and comments, read it like bullying. People don't agree - thats fair enough, we are ALL human, we ALL have our opinions on things, as I've previously said, if we all think the same, life would be very very boring, but at the same time, aren't we allowed to respect each others opinions also?
I would like to know in what way I was not respecting another poster's comments that I disagreed with. I cant see in any of my posts were I was being disrepectful TBH. I have been responding on this thread to other people's comments, and conversely other people were commenting on mine. Thus as far as Im aware engaging in a lively 'debate' and not bullying anyone (I take offence at the word 'bullying' being used in this instance).
Moreover, I did after a while on realising that we were starting to go round in circles withdraw from the debate. As I have said earlier on this thread pertaining to smoking, I believe people have free will and can do whatever they want as long as it doesnt adversely impact on others.:)
Good news for all you smokers
Council error stubs out smoke ban
Dax Robateau put up "Welcome to Smoke-on-Trent" posters
People are still lighting up in Stoke-on-Trent's pubs after a bureaucratic mistake over the ban on smoking in enclosed public spaces.
On-the-spot fines cannot yet be issued to smokers flouting the 1 July ban because of "late changes in technical bits of legislation", the council said.
Landlord Dax Robateau has put cheeky "Welcome to Smoke-on-Trent" posters in The Smithfield pub in Hanley
The authority said it would be able to issue fines from 16 July.
It said it was still able to take action against pubs or clubs where people were smoking and would be able to take retrospective action against any smokers caught flouting the ban.
'Bit miffed'
A spokesman said: "People are obliged to comply with a speeding restriction, regardless if there's a police speed gun nearby.
"The whole government advice and council advice is to advise and educate people in the early days.
"(But) they can still be reported and action can still be taken against them."
Pam Rowland is still enforcing the smoking ban in the Greyhound Inn
Mr Robateau said: "I found out about the loophole when it was in the local paper yesterday and I was just a bit miffed.
"I checked it out and found out it was true so I thought we might as well tell people that the law wasn't enforceable."
But one publican said she did not believe the council would implement the ban retrospectively.
Pam Rowland, landlady of the Greyhound Inn, in Penkhull, said: "It's sort of fun to flout the law and I don't think the council will do much about it because at the end of the day it's their mistake."
She added that she was still enforcing the ban and that most pubs were doing the same thing.
"I think most people are actually sticking with it. It could only happen in Stoke."
The council said the mistake was due to its belief that the city's elected mayor Mark Meredith had the power to delegate the authorisation of the ban to his director of community services.
It said late legal changes meant it realised too late that it would have to be enforced by the licensing and consumer protection committee instead.
It said the committee would delegate powers for officers to issue on-the-spot fines at a meeting on Monday.
So there you go - Enjoy
From what I've seen the ban has been successful around my area. I saw some hairdressers taking a fag break away from the shop (which they left open and unattended) today but apart from that I've not seen anybody smoking around town.
All of the local pubs bar one have seen a huge surge in customers and meals since the ban which is excellent for the local economy. In Weatherspoons they took £1000 more than they usually do just on the first day of the ban. Thats a heck of a lot of money for the small town I live in :thumbsup:
Just shows the land of Stoke has gone to pot, or should that be pottery? :cool:Quote:
Originally Posted by alan45
chris.. I thought the same too when smoke ban came here nearly 3 years ago now but we have kept it working well here and as a smoker I am fully in favour of it all.. I found it really hard to sit in a pub in germany cause it was so smokey and I ended up going outside most of the time. I welcome smoking ban everywhere.. it is much better drinking enviornment and you get to met loads of new people when you nip out for oneQuote:
Originally Posted by Chris_2k7
I think the ban is a good idea, as it seems unfair to make those that are choosing not to smoke find somewhere else to go so as to not breath in smoke, because it is the smoker's choice to smoke.
I am just back from a fortnight in France - it seems that (almost) everryone smokes there!
From smoke free Scotland to fuggy France was quite a culture shock!
I really appreciate the lack of smoking in Scottish pubs resturants and sports arenas etc even more.
I couldn't beleive the number of people smoking underneath the wooden rollarcoaster at Parc Astrix - there were signs up but there were universally ignored.
I heard something on the news this morning that totally shocked me.. some guy was shot in the face for telling people in a night club in London that they can't smoke anymore.
it is all here: http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/...276684,00.html
I was totally shocked that this happened
Absolutely disgusting!! Who would do such a thing like that?! I hope he recovers and those men are caught.
Adults should be banned from smoking in cars when children are passengers, the new head of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health has said.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8104062.stm
Thoughts?
I personally think this is taking the smoking ban one step too far. How would this even be enforced? Flashing blue lights when the cops see you drive by with a fag in one hand and a kid in the back?
I think it would be a very good idea if there was actually a viable way to enforce it.
Surely smoking in your car should be illegal anyway because you are using one hand to smoke and one hand to drive.
My dad has done both for almost 30 years in cars, LGV and HGVs and never had an accident.
I don't think it says anything in the highway code about not smoking and driving at the same time.
Hmm..I think it should.
It just seems dangerous to me. Especially if a person driving a manual, having to change gears constantly and if they drop the cigarette surely they would get distracted? But the same logic applies to eating and talking on mobiles. - incidentally also hands-free, as worse as hand-held mobile.
Its not specifically cigarettes that annoy me. A person should have their whole concentration on the road. There's always places people can pull over or stop if they want to do any of these things.
I think it would be very difficult to police if it did come into force. To me though, I would say it was common sense not to smoke and drive... also smoking in a confined space with anyone, let alone small children imo is just selfish... I for one dont want to have to inhale someone else's poisonous fumes... Sadly, their children wont get much say in the matter.Quote:
Originally Posted by Abigail
My mate dropped her fag while changing gears, lucky for her another of our mates was in the car with her so could grab it... could have easily have caused an accident or fire... with her searching for it and stuff.Quote:
It just seems dangerous to me. Especially if a person driving a manual, having to change gears constantly and if they drop the cigarette surely they would get distracted? But the same logic applies to eating and talking on mobiles. - incidentally also hands-free, as worse as hand-held mobile.
I think its a good idea, I mean its different around the house, in the car your in a very confined space
And if they are older children then they can walk out of a room.. can't decide to walk out of a car lol..
Exactly! lol
I mean I know it has windows and its not the same thing, you can inflict harm on your own body but that doesnt give the right to do it to someone else
I do agree with you on kids not having to breathe in smoke, I hated being in the car when I was a child.
But what concerns me is how would this even be enforceable? Smoking in public is easy for cops to slap you with a ticket but on a highway it's more difficult.
Thing is though, where will it end?! Not necessarily talking about smoking, but soon, we won't be able to talk to passengers in the car for fear of distraction, won't be able to change the radio channel because we aren't concentrating on the road - what next?!
You won't be able to open a window if your too hot, or put on the air conditioning as that will be an offence.
Yeah I see your point but isnt this more bout smoking and health
its a good idea, i hate being in cars with people smoking. and seeing as your not allowed to eat while youre driving cos its dangerous why should smoking be any different. dont know how theyd be able to enforce it though
The same as using a mobile phone whilst driving - if the police see you do it, they will stop and shoot you (only joking)
And the same with seatbeats as well!
theres loads of things that cant be mointored all the time, but if you get caught its bad luck so its best not to, its one of those things
I know I tend to see ploice cars driving around a bit
It is, but its also about freedom of being able to do what you want to do in your own car/life - freedom of choice, and the democratic way etc. When I smoked, if I had passengers, including my children, I didn't smoke in the car, simple as, but if I'm on my own in the car, why the hell shouldn't I have a ciggie?! I've paid however much money for my car and if I want to smoke in it, then I blimming well will! If no one else is in my car, then I'm not harming them or their health!Quote:
Originally Posted by Abbie
Its not actually against the law to eat or drink at the wheel, but it CAN be viewed as driving without due care and attention, and if you had an accident whilst doing so, then you would be charged as such and if the Police felt that your driving was impaired whilst eating, then you could be charged and fined also.
I agree that we are living in an increasingly nanny like state, where the Gov is poking it's nose increasingly more and more into peep's everyday life....Quote:
Originally Posted by JojoIt is, but its also about freedom of being able to do what you want to do in your own car/life - freedom of choice, and the democratic way etc. When I smoked, if I had passengers, including my children, I didn't smoke in the car, simple as, but if I'm on my own in the car, why the hell shouldn't I have a ciggie?! I've paid however much money for my car and if I want to smoke in it, then I blimming well will! If no one else is in my car, then I'm not harming them or their health!Quote:
Originally Posted by Abbie
Its not actually against the law to eat or drink at the wheel, but it CAN be viewed as driving without due care and attention, and if you had an accident whilst doing so, then you would be charged as such and if the Police felt that your driving was impaired whilst eating, then you could be charged and fined also.
However, I think the whole smoking in a car thing was about a doctor saying it was bad for children to be out in a position where they are in a confined space, with someone smoking... I have to agree, its common sense NOT to smoke in a car with your children in there, just as it's not really fair to smoke anywhere around non smokers... I really dont want, and think I have to right, to be in a public area and not breathe in these poisoned fumes... but to actually ban people from smoking in the car, I disagree with.
Smokers working at a district council must clock out when they nip outside for a fag. So is it fair that employees who smoke do it in their own time?
They're a familiar sight in British towns and cities, huddled at the foot of office blocks under wisps of smoke.
These are the outsiders, both figuratively and literally, who grab a few minutes away from their desk or the shop floor to have a cigarette.
The number of pavement puffers swelled with the demise of the office smoking room when legislation in Scotland in 2006 and the rest of the UK a year later spelt the end of smoking in enclosed public places.
But should they be paying back the time they spend away from their work?
For hundreds of staff at Breckland Council in Norfolk, that is now the reality. On Monday, the district council began a regime of compulsory clocking in and out for smoking breaks, thereby joining some other employers in the public and private sectors who have done the same.
William Nunn, leader of the council, says the move was not initiated by staff resentful that colleagues kept deserting their desk, but by smokers themselves.
"This all came about when staff contacted our HR team because they were confused about what the policy was on clocking out for smoking breaks. Some of the smokers were concerned because many of them, 54% it turned out, clocked out."
[I] What does the law say?
"Employers are not obligated to allow employees to have any smoking breaks at all, and they are legally required to prevent employees from smoking in the workplace. Generally, employees working a shift of six hours or more are entitled to a 20-minute unpaid break during their shift. The entitlement is to one break only and you can normally take this away from your workstation. However, there is an exemption to this where there is a requirement for a permanent presence."
Peter Done
Peninsula, an employment law consultancy [/I/
All 280 staff were surveyed about it and expressed a desire to formalise the policy so that smokers had to clock out for breaks, in the same way that staff would if they nipped out to Tesco, says Mr Nunn. That doesn't apply to coffee breaks because the kitchens are in the building.
"I would suggest that all staff take breaks. The difference is that smokers are taking additional breaks. Everyone, non-smokers and smokers, goes for a wander or for a coffee and we're not suggesting that they should be clocked. We have a policy around personal internet use - that it should only be in free time - and there are undoubtedly breaches of that, like in any company."
There was no suggestion the previous system was being abused, he says, and there have been no objections from the council's 53 smokers. Indeed, many have said they prefer to clock out so their time out is not frowned upon by resentful non-smoking colleagues.
'Tensions over breaks'
The length and frequency of the smoking breaks his employees take varies, says Mr Nunn. Some say they have a couple a day for 4-5 minutes, but others say they have three or four which could last up to 20 minutes if they have clocked out and had a good chat.
On average, a smoker spends an hour each day on a fag break, according to research published last month by www.onepoll.com, who contacted 2,500 adult smokers in the UK. This was usually made up of four 15-minute breaks a day, or a year over their working life.
Smokers have to make up the time taken for cigarette breaks
But a previous study in 2003, by employment law firm Croner Consulting, estimated that it was more likely to be three five-minute breaks a day, making about eight working days a year. The Leicestershire firm said it would receive up to 100 calls a week from bosses worried about what to do about it.
One company head who found smoking to be particularly divisive was Robert King, who managed his own security company in Sheffield, which employed between five and 15 people during his five years as the director.
"There was serious tension at one point when one member of staff, a smoker, didn't respect the rights of the non-smokers because as part of a group of employees performing a task, he would go out for fag, which was disruptive to the team."
The solidarity of street smokers A clocking-on system would have addressed these kind of problems because it makes smokers accountable to themselves, says the 46-year-old former smoker, who believes too many smokers think only about their next cigarette and not the team.
"It's frustrating as a boss because you are virtually powerless. Everyone has a right, if they choose to smoke, but where that right ends is the issue that is contentious within business."
Clocking off is another example of employers making life as difficult as possible for smokers, says Simon Clark, the director of pro-smoking lobby group Forest. It's unfair to penalise these breaks but not others involving coffee or Facebook.
"Many smokers believe having the occasional cigarette allows them to refocus. It's a moment of contemplation that refreshes them when they get back to their desks.
"Everyone gets through the day in different ways. Some take coffee breaks, others go out for a cigarette."
Breaks of any form are absolutely essential, says Cary Cooper, a professor of organisational psychology and health at Lancaster University Especially for British workers, who he says slog the longest hours in the EU, often in front of a computer, but are among the least productive.
Continue reading the main story
'Smokers have the right idea'
Smokers are doing the right thing by taking breaks People should take breaks every 15-20 minutes while doing intense screen work, because concentration flags But some individuals may take advantage and slack off It can be distracting if a colleague is disappearing every so often, so it's important non-smokers get up and stretch too As long as people maintain a good attitude to work and get the job done, employers shouldn't worry about smoking breaks Clare Evans, time management expert
"People are working longer and harder than ever before. Quite a lot of people are about to lose their jobs in the public sector and this will impact on the private sector also. Fewer people are going to be doing more work. Given this scenario, breaks are more important than ever before."
Fag breaks give smokers the opportunity to chat and socialise, which can help the business, he says.
"If most of us are going to work and are in front of our machines, tending to e-mails and everything, we're not relating to other people. When we take a break we're talking to colleagues and that's ultimately important for teamwork and meeting people's social needs. Breaks aren't just about getting away from the computer but having contact with colleagues, which I think has an indirect benefit on productivity."
Breaks should be for everybody, he says, and unless the clocking-out policy applies to all kinds of breaks, it merely victimises smokers.
A better solution would be giving all staff a 15-minute break in the morning, another in the afternoon, and an hour for lunch. Any additional breaks, for smoking or whatever, can be on the clock.
"It's all about the T-word. The more you trust people the better. And if people undermine that trust then give them feedback."
What are your thoughts on this - smoking only in your own time when at work?