smoking and the pub

[Derek]

Originally Posted by Chris T

There really is no grounds for objecting to this, it was a free vote in Parliament and is a truly democratic law.

And if I remember correctly there was a similar objection up here in Scotland under human rights which was thrown out as well as one in Ireland which failed as well.

Still it'll be interesting to see how things pan out if the judges rule it infringes human rights in England but the rest of the UK keep their bans in place.

[cookie_365]

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

This could prove interesting.

Not really as it's they're show proceedings, designed not to win but to win publicity.

ARTICLE 1

Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.


The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties.

ARTICLE 8

1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

Article 1 gives governments a pretty wide scope for limiting the use of possessions so there's no breach there.

Article 8 gives governments far less scope but firstly it shouldn't be difficult for the govt to demonstrate that the ban is necessary for the protection of health or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

That's even assuming that this group can demonstrate that a ban on smoking in public places removes respect for their private and family life, home and correspondence, which I doubt

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by Cobbydaler

But how would they have decided which pubs were required to impose the ban?

I don't think they would. I think the pubs would have to apply to be smoking pubs.

---------- Post added at 17:02 ---------- Previous post was at 17:00 ----------

Originally Posted by Chris T

At the risk of taking this thread right round in a big circle ... this legislation has been brought in as a health and safety at work measure, not a public health measure. It wouldn't make sense to apply it selectively.

There really is no grounds for objecting to this, it was a free vote in Parliament and is a truly democratic law.

It was bought in as a knee jerk reaction to that guy suing that casino over his lung problems IIRC.

The point is that even in a smoking pub, it may be practical to have a deciated "smoking room".

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by cookie_365

Not really as it's they're show proceedings, designed not to win but to win publicity.

ARTICLE 1

Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.


The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties.

ARTICLE 8

1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

Article 1 gives governments a pretty wide scope for limiting the use of possessions so there's no breach there.

Article 8 gives governments far less scope but firstly it shouldn't be difficult for the govt to demonstrate that the ban is necessary for the protection of health or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

That's even assuming that this group can demonstrate that a ban on smoking in public places removes respect for their private and family life, home and correspondence, which I doubt

I can assure you these are not "show proceedings" and they have far greater implications than those which are only immediately apparent to people through articles 1 & 8.

By way of example - when does ones house become someone else's workplace and how is liability / culpability affected?

You see, the Government in it's infinite wisdom (and in the guise of protecting everyones health) has effectively shot itself in the foot whereby it has not delineated either of the above for the purposes of passing into legislation.

In effect a healthcare worker, social worker, benefits advisor, locum GP etc etc etc cannot, by law, call to an address where habitual smoking takes place as that environment, for the purposes of the duration of their visit, is their place of work.

Not the sharpest tools in the box - some MPs.

[cookie_365]

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

I can assure you these are not "show proceedings" and they have far greater implications than those which are only immediately apparent to people through articles 1 & 8.

By way of example - when does ones house become someone else's workplace and how is liability / culpability affected?

You see, the Government in it's infinite wisdom (and in the guise of protecting everyones health) has effectively shot itself in the foot whereby it has not delineated either of the above for the purposes of passing into legislation.

In effect a healthcare worker, social worker, benefits advisor, locum GP etc etc etc cannot, by law, call to an address where habitual smoking takes place as that environment, for the purposes of the duration of their visit, is their place of work.

Not the sharpest tools in the box - some MPs.

The Act doesn't cover people who visit other peoples houses as part of their employment so people won't be criminalised for smoking at home.

Having said that, we've had H&S at work legislation for ages now. If someone has to visit a smokers house for a long period (ie long enough to present a risk to health) then that would already be caught by existing legislation.

Companies already have the right to ask people not to smoke if one of their staff is about to visit in the sense that they can simply decline to provide the service otherwise.

Not sure how it works with public bodies which have statutory obligations to provide services but we don't seem to have an epidemic of elderly chavs dying because social services refused to send someone round because their house was full of smoke. And nothing's changed with the new act.

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by cookie_365

The Act doesn't cover people who visit other peoples houses as part of their employment so people won't be criminalised for smoking at home.

So, in effect, those who visit other peoples houses as part of their work are not covered - or as equally protected - by this so called "smoking ban" which is part of the issue I referenced earlier.

Originally Posted by cookie_365

Having said that, we've had H&S at work legislation for ages now. If someone has to visit a smokers house for a long period (ie long enough to present a risk to health) then that would already be caught by existing legislation.

Not so - there is no "long enough to present a risk to health" benchmark with regards to exposure to tobacco smoke - either first or second hand.

Originally Posted by cookie_365

Companies already have the right to ask people not to smoke if one of their staff is about to visit in the sense that they can simply decline to provide the service otherwise.

They have the right to ask but no legal powers to insist. How many home service business can afford to refuse to service that part of their customer base which constitutes smoking customers?

Originally Posted by cookie_365

Not sure how it works with public bodies which have statutory obligations to provide services

This, I believe, is part of what the "show proceedings" hope to determine.

Originally Posted by cookie_365

....but we don't seem to have an epidemic of elderly chavs dying because social services refused to send someone round because their house was full of smoke.

It's not just "elderly chavs" who die of cancers caused by smoking - but your disdain towards them is touching. Likewise we don't appear to have an epidemic of people dying from diseases directly attributable to passive smoking.

Originally Posted by cookie_365

And nothing's changed with the new act.

Actually, quite a lot will change with the introduction of the ban.

If the Government were truly sincere about the prime motive for this move being health related they would ban tobacco entirely instead of this mealy mouthed quick fix solution.

[bringerofnoise]

if you go for a job in a bar you know there will be smoke same as if you apply to work in a nuclear plant there are obvious risks or a soldier, your gonna get shot at that must surely be the biggest no no in h & s eyes lol

i went for a job dealing with soil samples and was told at the interview there may be times where the soil contains nasty chemicals etc that will be airborne. i was'nt happy with that so i declined the job i'd be willing to bet that someone else took the job because they was happy with the risks.

if you don't like second hand smoke don't go for a job that is renown for it if do gooders get their way then no-one will ever have to make their own decisions.

bottom line is it's going to happen for now but every job has it's environmental issues, it's down to your own discretion if your happy with the risks.

[cookie_365]

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

So, in effect, those who visit other peoples houses as part of their work are not covered - or as equally protected - by this so called "smoking ban" which is part of the issue I referenced earlier.

Yes. Not sure if the NI legislation is the same, but that's the case for England. I think the peoples homes exemption is through regulations rather than in the act itself though it's a while since I read the English act so I may be wrong on that point.

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

Not so - there is no "long enough to present a risk to health" benchmark with regards to exposure to tobacco smoke - either first or second hand.

True - but a court would decide on the facts of the particular case if an employer required an employee to work in conditions that the employee believed were dangerous because of second hand smoke

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

They have the right to ask but no legal powers to insist. How many home service business can afford to refuse to service that part of their customer base which constitutes smoking customers?

Not many - but then, the new act has nothing to do with this, and companies seemed to have managed to create a balance between providing services and protecting their employees health so far, so I don't see what's changed.

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

This, I believe, is part of what the "show proceedings" hope to determine.

But the new act DOESN'T change anything about the law in relation to people whose work entails visiting private homes. So how can a challenge to the new law possibly have anything to do with the application of existing legislation?

That sort of issue would be determined by either a member of public bringing proceedings against a public body that refused to provide statutory services under because of the danger to health of their employee, OR the public body's employee bringing proceedings against their employer for forcing them to provide those services in circumstances they considered dangerous.

In any case, my understanding was that they were challenging under A1 and A8 of ECHR. Which won't address any of those issues.

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

It's not just "elderly chavs" who die of cancers caused by smoking - but your disdain towards them is touching. Likewise we don't appear to have an epidemic of people dying from diseases directly attributable to passive smoking.

I know, I should have put a wink smiley in there. I was being facetious to illustrate a point

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

Actually, quite a lot will change with the introduction of the ban.

Yes, but not in relation to house visits I've no doubt there'll be lots of minor legal wrangles in both the civil and criminal courts over exactly where the edges of the ban are, but you always get that with any kind of legislation. Nothing major's cropped up so far in any of the other bits of the UK that already have similar bans.

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

If the Government were truly sincere about the prime motive for this move being health related they would ban tobacco entirely instead of this mealy mouthed quick fix solution.

Could taxation money possibly be involved here?

I'm not sure you're right on this one; the new law doesn't stop people from smoking but stops them from smoking where it'll cause health problems to people who have to be there because its their job.

Personally I support the workplace ban, but I wouldn't support a ban that stopped people smoking in their own homes, because as far as I'm concerned what they do there where it's not going to harm others is their own business.

[Julian]

Originally Posted by cookie_365

<snipetty snip> Personally I support the workplace ban, but I wouldn't support a ban that stopped people smoking in their own homes, because as far as I'm concerned what they do there where it's not going to harm others is their own business.

What about babies/young children that live there?

[Mr Angry]

Suffice to say we could argue the legal merits of this for weeks but there is little point.

I too agree with the ban. One interesting analogy I would point to is that since the introduction of the law here in NI several months ago I'm unaware of anyone or any business, whatsoever, having been prosecuted for non-compliance.

Optimists and the health conscious might assume that this is because the entire population of NI are law abiding citizens, however cynics will point out that there is no means of enforcement in place nor does the legislative body have any visable / legally viable plan to establish or delegate any such enforcement.

Plus ca change.

[cookie_365]

Originally Posted by Julian

What about babies/young children that live there?

Like I said: where it's not going to harm others

I'm assuming it's not the babies/young children that are the ones smoking, mind you

---------- Post added at 21:22 ---------- Previous post was at 21:19 ----------

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

Suffice to say we could argue the legal merits of this for weeks but there is little point.

I too agree with the ban. One interesting analogy I would point to is that since the introduction of the law here in NI several months ago I'm unaware of anyone or any business, whatsoever, having been prosecuted for non-compliance.

Optimists and the health conscious might assume that this is because the entire population of NI are law abiding citizens, however cynics will point out that there is no means of enforcement in place nor does the legislative body have any visable / legally viable plan to establish or delegate any such enforcement.

Plus ca change.

And pragmatists might say that where the ban is being broken, it's been done in a surreptitious way where no one who's not a smoker is going to be affected, so everyone's happy.

I'm an optimistic pragmatist, see

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by cookie_365

I'm an optimistic pragmatist, see

No bad thing.

[papa smurf]

a little disturbing that tony has latched onto one of hitlers ideas ,for a healthier nation.

[Escapee]

Originally Posted by Stuart C

I don't think they would. I think the pubs would have to apply to be smoking pubs.

---------- Post added at 17:02 ---------- Previous post was at 17:00 ----------




It was bought in as a knee jerk reaction to that guy suing that casino over his lung problems IIRC.

The point is that even in a smoking pub, it may be practical to have a deciated "smoking room".

Through what I have seen here in Wales, I would say the vast majority would apply to be smoking pubs if that were the case. I saw a report on the news last night where they interviewed a few pub landlords in Scotland, it agreed with the situation experienced here in Wales.

The pub trade during the day is now non-existent, if I pop into my local for a daytime meal I can now eat it in the bar because it is a nice smell free, smoke free place. (not that I go in the pub very often during the day) On the other hand it is also a virtually customer free place, so they must be loosing lots of money.

It seems the lower class out of work smokers who sit in the pub between trips to the betting shop are now giving the pub a miss. My local used to be full of that type along with pensioners during the daytime, day and night customers were very different.

The day customers have apparently vanished.

[Angua]

Wonder if you can still smoke in the bookies.

Most of the punters used to smoke when I was working in one and the company actually paid for patches & suchlike to help staff give up cigs.