Smoking and anti-smoking

[Rhiannon]

Because pub employees have to go in there to clean the room. The smoking ban is about providing a safe working environment as much as anything.

And if it were a condition that the regulars were responsible for keeping the area clean and taking out the empties? Or if employees couldn’t be forced to clean?

What about street cleaners? Refuse collectors? How do we make their workplace free from pollutants?

And I realise that this will sound like whatsboutery but the cocktails of chemicals found in offices and in new build homes are potentially life limiting too. It seems that smoking is singled out because of the social stigma.

Life has risks. Even in the workplace.

[Roses]

I assume your daughter isn't a barmaid, so what's the problem?

 You can't always avoid the idiots who smoke, especially if they are doing it outdoors.

[jeremyp]

And if it were a condition that the regulars were responsible for keeping the area clean and taking out the empties? Or if employees couldn’t be forced to clean?

I don’t suppose anybody seriously considers it a workable solution to rely on the clientele to keep the place clean. And I think there is a worry that it’s almost impossible to police the situation of forcing an employee to clean a smoking area.

What about street cleaners? Refuse collectors? How do we make their workplace free from pollutants?

You can’t, you have to provide them with the equipment they need to do their job safely.

And I realise that this will sound like whatsboutery but the cocktails of chemicals found in offices and in new build homes are potentially life limiting too. It seems that smoking is singled out because of the social stigma.

No it doesn’t sound like what about dry, unless you have evidence for this lethal cocktail of chemicals, it sounds like bullshit.

Life has risks. Even in the workplace.

Some of which are deemed acceptable and some of which are not. Passive smoking in the work place is currently in the latter category.

[Rhiannon]

Jeremy,

I live with a formaldehyde allergy. Medically diagnosed, in hospital. Among thing I have to avoid are fire retardants, easy care clothing, dry cleaning fluid, newsprint, stain retardants, MDF, plasterboard, antifungals, pesticides, fumigant sprays, air fresheners, dry cleaning fluid. Many people with formaldehyde allergy develop it when working in the textile industry or as a dry cleaner. I have done neither and it was regular exposure in regular living that triggered it for me.

https://www.dermnetnz.org/topics/formaldehyde-allergy/

The misery of that aside, it is a probable human carcinogen.

https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/formaldehyde.html

Further,

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3168108/

I think you owe me an apology for your bullshit comment. I'm not holding my breath though.

[Harrowby Hall]

I'm sorry to learn about your problems with formaldehyde. It must be difficult for you.

The misery of that aside, it is a probable human carcinogen.

Have a look at the bar chart associated with this article. It will give you an idea of the seriousness of tobacco as a human carcinogen, hence the need to protect other people from the effects of smokers' behaviour.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-46179118

[Rhiannon]

I'm sorry to learn about your problems with formaldehyde. It must be difficult for you.

Have a look at the bar chart associated with this article. It will give you an idea of the seriousness of tobacco as a human carcinogen, hence the need to protect other people from the effects of smokers' behaviour.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-46179118

Thanks, HH, I'm lucky that I get eczema and not breathing issues and it's at the milder end, I can go about my day to day life relatively normally.

I am aware of that, HH. I just think there needs to be balance. If a way could be found for a pub or bar to include a smoking space (maintained by its users, staffed by smokers, whatever) then it would be nice if it could.

[Maeght]

Thanks, HH, I'm lucky that I get eczema and not breathing issues and it's at the milder end, I can go about my day to day life relatively normally.

I am aware of that, HH. I just think there needs to be balance. If a way could be found for a pub or bar to include a smoking space (maintained by its users, staffed by smokers, whatever) then it would be nice if it could.

H&S legislation doesn't allow an employee to agree to work in an environment where there is a recognised health hazard without the necessary protection, so the 'staffed by smokers' bit isn't really an option. If this approach was allowed then employers could pressurise their employees to do this thereby cutting their overheads. A slippery slope towards the total undermining of H&S legislation.

[Harrowby Hall]

... staffed by smokers, whatever ...

Now you are suggesting that being a smoker should be a necessary qualification for employment. You also appear to be suggesting that smokers should be treated as an oppressed minority and given protection. Surely, the best thing that can happen to a smoker is that he or she is persuaded to give up. Smoking presents a danger - not only to those who practise it but to anyone else in their presence.


According to ASH:
 
Fewer than 1 in 5 (17%) of adults in the United Kingdom now smoke: 19% of men and 15% of women.  This means there are about 9.1 million adult smokers in the UK and 8.7 million in Great Britain.   
 
Smoking rates have more than halved since 1974 when 51% of men and 41% of women smoked. 
 
Smoking prevalence is highest in the 25-34 age group (24%) and lowest amongst those aged 60 and over (10%). 
 
More than half (59%) of all adults report that they have never smoked.
 
Smoking rates are much higher among poorer people.  In 2015, 12% of adults in managerial and professional occupations smoked compared with 28% in routine and manual occupations.

In a typical pub, for every adult that smokes there will be at least four that do not. As I said earlier, for many years I avoided going into pubs because I found the environment so unpleasant. It is only since smoking in pubs was banned that I have used them. Perhaps if your idea of special smoking rooms is to be adopted then perhaps there should be an entry fee for the room of, say, £5 a session, to pay for the constant cleaning, air extraction facilities etc.

[Rhiannon]

No, I'm not, HH. That's a distortion of what I said. But if a smoker is happy to work in a smoking environment, why shouldn't they? If I'm happy to work in a smoking environment, shouldn't I have that choice? If I ran a pub and my locals were happy to clean a smoking room and maintain it why shouldn't that be allowed to happen?

I like your idea of paying a charge for a smoking room in a pub - it'd be a way of finding out whether smokers really wanted it or not.

Just watching refuse collectors on the street full of fumes collecting rubbish with nothing to protect their breathing. Ditto a couple of guys in hi vis with stop go boards controlling traffic.

[jeremyp]

Jeremy,

I live with a formaldehyde allergy. Medically diagnosed, in hospital. Among thing I have to avoid are fire retardants, easy care clothing, dry cleaning fluid, newsprint, stain retardants, MDF, plasterboard, antifungals, pesticides, fumigant sprays, air fresheners, dry cleaning fluid. Many people with formaldehyde allergy develop it when working in the textile industry or as a dry cleaner. I have done neither and it was regular exposure in regular living that triggered it for me.

So there should be reasonable measures put in place so you can avoid formaldehyde just as with nuts (for people with nut allergies) and smoking for everybody.  But houses are hardly considered lethal because of it. Passive smoking is lethal and not just to people with allergies.

The misery of that aside, it is a probable human carcinogen.

At this point I'd be more astonished if something turned out not to be a carcinogen in high enough quantities.

In the right circumstances, pretty much everything is lethal. Water can kill you.

I think you owe me an apology for your bullshit comment. I'm not holding my breath though.

No. Don't hold your breath. It will kill you.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hi Rhi,

No, I'm not, HH. That's a distortion of what I said. But if a smoker is happy to work in a smoking environment, why shouldn't they?

I'm not sure that woks does it? To extend the principle, no matter how much a worker at Sellafield said, "I don't mind working unprotected around radioactive material provided you pay me enough" there's no way that an employer would be permitted to allow it. In principe at least what's the difference - can workers in any environment be allowed to work around harmful substances even if they want to?

Just watching refuse collectors on the street full of fumes collecting rubbish with nothing to protect their breathing. Ditto a couple of guys in hi vis with stop go boards controlling traffic.

But there's a difference between unpleasant fumes and carcinogens I'd have though. If the dustvan was emitting carcinogens I don't think the dustmen would be allowed anywhere near it without suitable protection. The stop/go guys is a bit closer as an analogy I supposes, but again you'd have to show that their exposure to harmful exhaust fumes was materially higher than background levels.

Incidentally I rode through your way earlier - Thaxted/Finchingfield/Gt Bardfield/Dunmow etc. Bit overcast, but lovely nonetheless. Finchingfield full of cars though - something going on?   

[jeremyp]

If a way could be found for a pub or bar to include a smoking space (maintained by its users, staffed by smokers, whatever) then it would be nice if it could.

It would be nice, but the problem is that there is too much scope for abuse. It means you have to have several smokers on staff (one smoker can't do every single shift) in order just to clean one room, and if you don't have enough smokers the room either goes uncleaned or the manager puts pressure on a non smoker to illegally clean the room.

[SusanDoris]

It is interesting to consider whether my father's heavy smoking for the first 13 years of my life; smoking allowed in offices when I worked in London and in trains to and from; also at social events ; quite a few of my friends smoked and I married a smoker.

I wonder how much that was the cause of my cancer 31 yers ago and the present one.

[Rhiannon]

It is interesting to consider whether my father's heavy smoking for the first 13 years of my life; smoking allowed in offices when I worked in London and in trains to and from; also at social events ; quite a few of my friends smoked and I married a smoker.

I wonder how much that was the cause of my cancer 31 yers ago and the present one.

You have cancer, Susan? 

[SusanDoris]

You have cancer, Susan?  :-

Yes, I have breast cancer. Found nearly two years ago. Surgeon thinks that, because it is about level 2, and the risks of anaesthetic are probably, on balance, greater than the risk of not operating, I am taking Letrozole, which is proving to be successful, particularly in old ladies! It has shrunk a bit and when I saw her in  September, she said come back in a year.

[Rhiannon]

Yes, I have breast cancer. Found nearly two years ago. Surgeon thinks that, because it is about level 2, and the risks of anaesthetic are probably, on balance, greater than the risk of not operating, I am taking Letrozole, which is proving to be successful, particularly in old ladies! It has shrunk a bit and when I saw her in  September, she said come back in a year.

I think I remember now, Susan. I'm sorry to hear it, and also not sorry at the same time, as you are doing so well.