It has been suggested that authoritarian anti smoking campaigners be banned from public places. Proponents are suggesting the ban should cover public houses, public golf courses and sports grounds as well as squares, markets.
Anti smoking views may be allowed to be expressed on pavements outside parks, and car parks in public parks. Areas it is proposed the ban will not cover are the central reservation of motorways, firing ranges and the lion enclosure at Colchester Zoo.
A spokes person from the Essex Independence party stated that “The extreme authoritarian attitudes these individuals express in public, as if they are perfectly acceptable can seriously affect those who don’t think things through properly and are especially harmful children’s developing minds. Before you know it they will accept something like book burning as perfectly acceptable as well”
There has been no formal response to the proposal from ASH, but a random Manic Street Preachers fan who had nothing to do with them ,when approached for a quote, stated “If you tolerate this then your children will be next.”
Showing posts with label Smoking Ban. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Smoking Ban. Show all posts
Monday, 23 May 2011
Monday, 2 July 2007
Official self congratulation at English smoking ban
Don’t tell a small lie, no one will believe you – but tell a big one…
Trade union leaders have applauded the smoking ban in England as a step forward for workplace safety - describing passive smoking as the "third biggest cause of deaths at work".
This is absolute patent drivel. How many work places actually allowed smoking anywhere, other than in very limited smoking rooms? As we can all attest not many.
Most employers effectively banned smoking on various grounds such as fire safety years ago. It has been banned for years on public transport and in most offices. I don’t know of any factories where it is allowed.
So, even if we accept the ever inflating claims of the passive smoking brigade, this ban will have virtually zero impact in reducing so-called passive smoking, except in environments where smoking was still actually allowed like pubs and clubs.
These days? ‘Third biggest cause of deaths at work’? Indeed...
Alan Johnson the UK Health Secretary lauded the smoking ban in England as the: "single most important public health legislation for a generation". Suggesting the ban on smoking in enclosed public places, would improve the health of hundreds of thousands of people.
It is only likely to really improve the health of ‘hundreds of thousands of people” if it makes smoking so much bother that hundreds of thousands of people were to give up smoking as a result of the ban.
He might have done better, with out setting a dubious authoritarian precedent, by offering a substantial cash bounty, as a one off, to those who gave up smoking for over a year. To be paid back with interest if they took it up again.
Anti smoking figs for death by passive smoking in the UK vary between 1,000 and 4,500 pa. Given the amount of pollutants around how can they tell with any certainty if these are due to cigarette smoke, exhaust fumes, or in the case of older people all the muck from coal fires and smog?
Trade union leaders have applauded the smoking ban in England as a step forward for workplace safety - describing passive smoking as the "third biggest cause of deaths at work".
This is absolute patent drivel. How many work places actually allowed smoking anywhere, other than in very limited smoking rooms? As we can all attest not many.
Most employers effectively banned smoking on various grounds such as fire safety years ago. It has been banned for years on public transport and in most offices. I don’t know of any factories where it is allowed.
So, even if we accept the ever inflating claims of the passive smoking brigade, this ban will have virtually zero impact in reducing so-called passive smoking, except in environments where smoking was still actually allowed like pubs and clubs.
These days? ‘Third biggest cause of deaths at work’? Indeed...
Alan Johnson the UK Health Secretary lauded the smoking ban in England as the: "single most important public health legislation for a generation". Suggesting the ban on smoking in enclosed public places, would improve the health of hundreds of thousands of people.
It is only likely to really improve the health of ‘hundreds of thousands of people” if it makes smoking so much bother that hundreds of thousands of people were to give up smoking as a result of the ban.
He might have done better, with out setting a dubious authoritarian precedent, by offering a substantial cash bounty, as a one off, to those who gave up smoking for over a year. To be paid back with interest if they took it up again.
Anti smoking figs for death by passive smoking in the UK vary between 1,000 and 4,500 pa. Given the amount of pollutants around how can they tell with any certainty if these are due to cigarette smoke, exhaust fumes, or in the case of older people all the muck from coal fires and smog?
Monday, 18 June 2007
English Smoking ban an excuse to ban cigarette breaks
A report is warning, that many employers, may be planning to use the July 1 smoking ban in England, as an excuse to crack down on workers taking cigarette breaks.
It was warned that such a move could spark disputes and/or result in desperate employees being forced to secretly smoke in the workplace.
The report, by law advisors Consult GEE, surveyed employers - apparently over a 3rd are planning to use July’s ban on smoking in public places as an excuse to ban cigarette breaks.
Stuart Chamberlain of Consult GEE warned:
"Employees will struggle to fight any bans on their smoking breaks because they are not entitled to them. It could be that they try to claim a breach of the Working Time Regulations, which grants staff working for a minimum of six hours a day 20 minutes break. However, it will prove difficult for an employee to succeed in the employment tribunal with such a claim."
The British Chambers of Commerce (BCC) felt that banning smoke breaks could be regarded as "excessive".
It would seem draconian for an employer to attempt to stop an employee having a smoke in the breaks they are actually entitled to.
Also one has to wonder what the likely resulting impact on customer relations would be when employees become less relaxed when dealing with any customer – let alone a difficult one.
It was warned that such a move could spark disputes and/or result in desperate employees being forced to secretly smoke in the workplace.
The report, by law advisors Consult GEE, surveyed employers - apparently over a 3rd are planning to use July’s ban on smoking in public places as an excuse to ban cigarette breaks.
Stuart Chamberlain of Consult GEE warned:
"Employees will struggle to fight any bans on their smoking breaks because they are not entitled to them. It could be that they try to claim a breach of the Working Time Regulations, which grants staff working for a minimum of six hours a day 20 minutes break. However, it will prove difficult for an employee to succeed in the employment tribunal with such a claim."
The British Chambers of Commerce (BCC) felt that banning smoke breaks could be regarded as "excessive".
It would seem draconian for an employer to attempt to stop an employee having a smoke in the breaks they are actually entitled to.
Also one has to wonder what the likely resulting impact on customer relations would be when employees become less relaxed when dealing with any customer – let alone a difficult one.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
