View Full Version : Now Executive warns: no smoking at home
Tugmistress
22-Dec-05, 12:52
Taken from here ----->
http://news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=2445122005
I used to work with a very close friend of mine for a lot of years in a laboratory. He smoked like a chimney and I was the reformed smoker. I never really nagged him when he filled the corridor with smoke as it blew back through the backdoor entrance, but I did mention it every so often just to make a point. Well nothing was gonna make him give up, he was the most resolute smoker that I had ever met until one day. It was the week after his wife had given birth to a healthy baby boy called Robert. There was a spring in his step that rubbed off on to the rest of us who worked there as we took part in his joy at being a Father for the first time.
At brewtime, I chanced upon an article in a leading newspaper about smoking in the home. I turned to him and pointed out that 80 babies die every year from smoking related diseases. He never said anything, quite unusual for him I thought.
As the weeks past, I finally noticed that Steve had given up the cigarettes. I didn't mention my realisation until he made the first move on the subject over a drink.
He said that if he carried on smoking then he would be making out that his smoking addiction was worth more to him than the health of his son.
He thanked me for my nagging and since we have always been friends :)
Surely they can't make you if it's your own house .:D
Bobinovich
27-Dec-05, 16:16
Surely they can't make you if it's your own house .:D
No, probably not, but any visiting official may have the right to refuse to enter your house and may have to reschedule the appointment - reitterating that you refrain from smoking for an hour beforehand.
Tugmistress,
You have given this article a 'thumbs down' but haven't said why. What is it about this that you disagree with? Don't you think that council/health workers have the right to go about their work without being subjected to other people's smoke?
Tugmistress
28-Dec-05, 00:31
purely and simply because i feel it is an infringement on my rights in my house.
from a personal point yes i smoke, whenever anyone comes around i always say 'if you want to have a cig then please do' but by the same token if that person does not smoke i will either not smoke for the duration of the visit, go into another room or open a window/front door and have mine whilst stood by the opening.
to me this is common courtesy and manners. I do not take kindly to be treated like a child and told what i can and cannot do in my own home.
edited due to crud spelling ;)
SandTiger
28-Dec-05, 00:45
No, probably not, but any visiting official may have the right to refuse to enter your house and may have to reschedule the appointment - reitterating that you refrain from smoking for an hour beforehand.
Presumably the council/health authority will be sending another visitor around for an hour to monitor the situation and make sure that the person requesting a visit has not smoked for at least 60 minutes? Maybe it would just be easier to issue those so called ‘outreach’ workers/visitors with breathing apparatus or even total bio-suits just in case they pick up any nasty germs?
from a personal point yes i smoke, whenever anyone comes around i always say 'if you want to have a cig then please do' but by the same token if that person does not smoke i will either not smoke for the duration of the visit, go into another room or open a window/front door and have mine whilst stood by the opening. Also from a personal perspective, I am (*gasp*) a non-smoker. Whenever I visit a relative or friend who does smoke I come away feeling as though I have a layer of ash stuck to my skin and my clothes always smell like the bottom of a dirty ash tray. Whether or not the person smokes whilst I am in the room seldom makes a difference because they will have been smoking in the time before my visit and the atmosphere in their house is thick with stale smoke. If they stand in an open doorway or beside an open window the smoke is invariably blown back into the room, usually straight at me.
That’s my choice as their visitor. I know that they are smokers before visiting and I can leave whenever I choose.
If I were required to go to their houses as part of my job and could not leave whenever I wanted then I think that I’d look on the damage to my health (not to mention my clothes) a little differently.
So when weighing up the infringement on your right to smoke in your home with the infringement on their right to work in a safe environment I’m afraid I’m going to have to go with the Scottish Executive on this one… besides, if you really do feel like you have to smoke in your home then it’s simple – you just don’t won’t be visited by a health/council worker.
Far from treating you as a child, the Executive are giving you the responsibility to decide which is more important; your cigarette or a visit by a health/council worker.
Maybe it would just be easier to issue those so called ‘outreach’ workers/visitors with breathing apparatus or even total bio-suits just in case they pick up any nasty germs?
That's right, because anybody who is worried about the dangers of passive smoking is just being precious and should get a backbone... :rolleyes:
Tugmistress
28-Dec-05, 01:17
if you are in a job that requires you to visit people at home and you are not prepared to do that in order to be able to undertake your job then you are in the wrong job. Every job has risks attached to it, ask for your job risk assesment. ;)
other than that, we are all entitled to our own opinions, and you asked why i gave the article a thumbs down and i explained why.
SandTiger
28-Dec-05, 01:40
That's right, because anybody who is worried about the dangers of passive smoking is just being precious and should get a backbone... :rolleyes:
And there was me thinking it was honest disagreement - However you are intent on being precious so let me put it like this -
How does one police it first off?
More interestingly, given that the visit could be cancelled purely on the objective view of a health/council visitor whom is not, by nature, a trained smoke detector - What would occur if; as a result of that visitor erroneously deciding that the punter had been smoking and a legally liable mishap were to occur, say for instance causing loss to life and limb, but due to that cancelled visit this could have clearly been prevented had that visit gone ahead, then who’s for the chop? Scottish Exec or the poor so and so that has to take an objective view?
Think about it hard enough and the whole area becomes a fallacy.
Having spent the last 15 years doing a job that routinely brought me into contact with very distressed, damaged and chaotic people whom often had their problems confounded with HIV, Hep A B & C. Tuberculosis etc… etc… Then yes, maybe you do need to get a backbone?
Note the distinct lack of sarcasm.
However, I hope you had a smoke free xmas :rolleyes:
if you are in a job that requires you to visit people at home and you are not prepared to do that in order to be able to undertake your job then you are in the wrong job. Every job has risks attached to it, ask for your job risk assesment. ;)
other than that, we are all entitled to our own opinions, and you asked why i gave the article a thumbs down and i explained why.
To be fair, or at least as I see it, the Scottish Executive are laying down guidelines ahead of the new legislation to come into force in March. But you are right, Tugmistress - At the end of the day, it will be up to the individual - council employee, health worker - whoever - and how they view their own job & how that job is risk assessed. Risk assessment is a great tool - in the real world it is not always practical - I suspect many of these workers would gladly breathe in some "second-hand" smoke once in a while in exchange for some of the real dangers they face in their daily duties.
what people do in their own homes is nothing to do with anyone else, i personally or my partener does not smoke and we dont permit it in our own house, but if i went to some one else's house and they had smoked i go at my own risk knowing the consequnces of second hand smoke but we should not allow smoking to be banned, the government makes a mint of tax's from smoking and allow those who choose to do so, do so, after all if you walk in to a smoky pub and dont like it, then there are other pubs e.g weatherspoons smoke free etc, its all down to choice i say.
if you are in a job that requires you to visit people at home and you are not prepared to do that in order to be able to undertake your job then you are in the wrong job. Every job has risks attached to it, ask for your job risk assesment. ;)
other than that, we are all entitled to our own opinions, and you asked why i gave the article a thumbs down and i explained why.
A job risk assessment is not just about identifying risks, it is about identifying ways to minimise risks. This seems like a reasonable way to minimise the very real risk of passive smoking.
if you are in a job that requires you to visit people at home and you are not prepared to do that in order to be able to undertake your job then you are in the wrong job. But the workers are prepared to visit your home; they just aren’t prepared to put their health at risk in order to do so. That seems perfectly reasonable to me.
Every job has risks attached to it, ask for your job risk assesment. Oh, I’m more than aware of the risks of my job. For example, part of my job requires me to visit unmanned data-centres out of hours. Before I am allowed access to the data centres I have to complete an induction course which details things like the fire-alarm procedures (most of the data centres have fire suppressant systems that use gas to extinguish any fires – and you don’t want to be in the room when that happens). Here’s the thing though; I am responsible for making the decision as to whether a data centre is safe for me to enter. They are filled with millions of pounds worth of kit so if there are a bunch of people hanging around outside then I drive on by and come back later – it’s not worth the risk to my safety to assume that they are simply standing out of the wind. If the external light has been broken then I drive on by and call facilities to fix it – it’s not worth the risk to my safety to assume that it is simply a blown bulb.
In short, I am not expected to put my health and safety at risk to do my job. Why should council workers be expected to put their health at risk just so that you can have a cigarette when you know they are coming?
As for the risk assessment – you understand what they are, right? I mean, a risk assessment isn’t a piece of paper that magically shields you from harm; it’s an assessment of the risks of a job so that the risks can be addressed and removed from the working environment. That’s exactly what the Scottish Executive is doing here – they have identified the risk and are dealing with it.
Tugmistress
28-Dec-05, 14:55
As for the risk assessment – you understand what they are, right? I mean, a risk assessment isn’t a piece of paper that magically shields you from harm; it’s an assessment of the risks of a job so that the risks can be addressed and removed from the working environment. That’s exactly what the Scottish Executive is doing here – they have identified the risk and are dealing with it.
you are nearly correct, it is so that the risks can be assessed and then removed or made as limited as possible in the working environment. You cannot physically remove all risks from all jobs.
the visitor would have a higher percentage of harm from the 'slips, trips and falls' upon entering anyones house.
How does one police it first off? That’s actually a very good question; how does one go about policing this? I dare say that technology being what it is, a portable device is available somewhere that will measure the quality of the air… but whether they are within the budget of local authorities is another question. Failing that, as a non-smoker I find it pretty easy to tell whether or not somebody has been smoking in a room. Faced with the choice of subjecting workers to passive smoking or giving them the authority to decide for themselves whether they believe that somebody has been smoking, I think I’d be inclined to give the employees the responsibility.
What would occur if […] a legally liable mishap were to occur […] who’s for the chop? Scottish Exec or the poor so and so that has to take an objective view? I’d almost guarantee that a procedure would be in place and so long as the person making the objective decision followed that procedure then they’d be covered.
Having spent the last 15 years doing a job that routinely brought me into contact with very distressed, damaged and chaotic people whom often had their problems confounded with HIV, Hep A B & C. Tuberculosis etc… etc… Then yes, maybe you do need to get a backbone? Sorry, so you’re saying that there are more dangerous aspects to jobs than the effects of passive smoking so we should therefore ignore the dangers of passive smoking? That makes no sense at all.
Note the distinct lack of sarcasm. Erm, yes… which only makes your dismissal of passive smoking as a workplace risk all the more worrying.
you are nearly correct, it is so that the risks can be assessed and then removed or made as limited as possible in the working environment. You cannot physically remove all risks from all jobs. No, you can’t… but the Executive can remove the risk of passive smoking so your suggestion that so long as a risk assessment is in place the workers should simply accept the dangers of passive smoking is, by your own words, ludicrous.
the visitor would have a higher percentage of harm from the 'slips, trips and falls' upon entering anyones house. Ah, I see you’ve attended the SandTiger School for the Logically Challenged. ‘The pavement outside is slippery so let's not worry about lung cancer’. Top marks, well done.
Stargazer
28-Dec-05, 15:31
Not lighting up when expecting a public service visitor to come into your house seems to be plain good manners.
The article from the Executive seems to be aimed more at opening up employment opportunities for Tonies cronies to administer this scheme.
Tugmistress
28-Dec-05, 18:31
No, you can’t… but the Executive can remove the risk of passive smoking so your suggestion that so long as a risk assessment is in place the workers should simply accept the dangers of passive smoking is, by your own words, ludicrous.
Ah, I see you’ve attended the SandTiger School for the Logically Challenged. ‘The pavement outside is slippery so let's not worry about lung cancer’. Top marks, well done.
Would you like to go and look up any records of workers injuries due to 'slips, trips and falls as opposed to passive smoking?
And i am not saying accept the dangers of passive smoking, i pointed out earlier that in my own opinion and in my house i have some manners (as has been reiterated below your post) and accept some people do not wish to smell smoke during the course of their work. I still feel that the exec have no right to tell me what i can and cannot do in my own home. they may make suggestions, but until they pay anyones rent/mortgage they do not have this right.
And i am not saying accept the dangers of passive smoking, i pointed out earlier that in my own opinion and in my house i have some manners (as has been reiterated below your post) and accept some people do not wish to smell smoke during the course of their work. I still feel that the exec have no right to tell me what i can and cannot do in my own home. they may make suggestions, but until they pay anyones rent/mortgage they do not have this right.
I am a non smoker but I agree that what you do in your own home is your business.
Would you like to go and look up any records of workers injuries due to 'slips, trips and falls as opposed to passive smoking?
And i am not saying accept the dangers of passive smoking, i pointed out earlier that in my own opinion and in my house i have some manners (as has been reiterated below your post) and accept some people do not wish to smell smoke during the course of their work. I still feel that the exec have no right to tell me what i can and cannot do in my own home. they may make suggestions, but until they pay anyones rent/mortgage they do not have this right.
Well said tugmistress i agree its your house it should be up to you what you do in it.
Bobinovich
28-Dec-05, 19:29
Would you like to go and look up any records of workers injuries due to 'slips, trips and falls as opposed to passive smoking?
As far as I'm aware 'death or injury by passive smoking' isn't a medically recognised cause/symptom so I doubt you'd get much of a comparison in numbers, however it doesn't mean to say they're not substantial though.
Were it possible to calculate the actual deaths or days of work lost from passive smoking or it's effects the toll might surprise many.
Similarly there may be many unwritten instances of unhappy workers who have taken 'sickies' because they have had no choice but to visit smoker's homes for years.
At the end of the day Yes they could change jobs, but that's not always a realistic choice for many.
I am a non smoker but I agree that what you do in your own home is your business.
Hmmm, that is not always the case. HSE has powers relating to entry into folk's homes without the homeowners permission.
landmarker
28-Dec-05, 23:04
This government is far too intrusive and seems to want to wrap everyone up in cotton wool, exposing people to risk, even remote and unlikely risk seems a complete anathema to New Labour. It has all gone too far clearly, when it is suggested people may not smoke in their own homes.
Alan -twenty a day man twenty odd years ago for eight years. Never again, It's the ultimate mugs game.
Would you like to go and look up any records of workers injuries due to 'slips, trips and falls as opposed to passive smoking? Honestly? No, I wouldn’t. Not because I don’t think that they’ll be interesting, but rather because they simply aren’t relevant.
Would And i am not saying accept the dangers of passive smoking, i […] accept some people do not wish to smell smoke during the course of their work. Oh no, you aren’t saying people should accept the dangers of passive smoking, you are equating those dangers to a nasty smell.
I still feel that the exec have no right to tell me what i can and cannot do in my own home. they may make suggestions, but until they pay anyones rent/mortgage they do not have this right. Okay, that’s fine. If you don’t accept that the Executive has the right to tell you not to smoke in your own home, at least have the decency to recognise that council/health workers have the right to a safe working environment and that if you, or anybody, wilfully puts their safety at risk they have every right to refuse to provide you with their services.
Whitewater
29-Dec-05, 00:50
Personally I think this is going too far, we are getting into the realms of 'Big Brother' telling us what we can and can't do. It is absolute nonsense, does nobody have common sense these days ??? or has it been removed by a government which is soon going to tell whether or not we may go the toilet so as to avoid a release of methane or will we only be allowed to release it at certain times on certain days???
Comeon folks, get a grip, start getting real again, you were given brains so that you could make your own mind up and differentiate between right & wrong, good and bad, but it seems that this government has managed to remove it from a few of you.
you were given brains so that you could make your own mind up and differentiate between right & wrong, good and bad, but it seems that this government has managed to remove it from a few of you.
What makes you think that an alternative government would have a different policy?
Whitewater
29-Dec-05, 01:36
What makes you think that an alternative government would have a different policy?
You could be right, perhaps that is the way the modern world is going. Sad really.
Tugmistress
29-Dec-05, 01:37
Tugmistress,
You have given this article a 'thumbs down' but haven't said why. What is it about this that you disagree with? Don't you think that council/health workers have the right to go about their work without being subjected to other people's smoke?
To go back to your original objection, i have explained that until the exec pay the rent/mortgage on peoples homes, they have no right whatsoever to tell people what to do in them IN MY OPINION. That is an infringement of peoples civil liberties and human rights.
To me they are heading towards being a dictatorship and i certainly don't agree with that.
As for H&S yes everyone is entitled to it. That i have never disputed.
As far as I can make out, the guidelines are simply requesting that you don't smoke for an hour before a "public sector worker" visits your home. What's the big deal?
This has little or nothing to do with civil liberties, but more to do with common courtesy. After all, given that the majority of the population doesn't smoke, most of us would probably be unhappy if the aforementioned "public sector worker" lit up during his or her visit to our homes.
But why the obsession with "public sector workers"? Do private sector workers not count? Perhaps the common courtesy should be extended to them too.
To go back to your original objection, i have explained that until the exec pay the rent/mortgage on peoples homes, they have no right whatsoever to tell people what to do in them IN MY OPINION. That is an infringement of peoples civil liberties and human rights.
To me they are heading towards being a dictatorship and i certainly don't agree with that.
As for H&S yes everyone is entitled to it. That i have never disputed.
I do not like this government’s over zealous involvement in peoples lives and I agree with your day to day running of your home you have the right to do as you like and the government should ‘butt’ out. However, if you are inviting a care worker/ council employee into your home to do something for you then they have a right to refuse if your home is unsafe.
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.