Smoking on stations

[Butts]

http://www.railforums.co.uk/showpost.php?p=780164&postcount=93

Change that to I will not normally smoke .......

Smoking Hotel rooms should be provided in all hotels and the question would not arise.(they are legal)

 

[Greenback]

It has been wisely left to hotels to decide whether they will provide smoking rooms or not. Some do, but the majority don't. I assume this is because the majority of hotel don't smoke, and even some of those that do don't smoke inside if their partners or children don't smoke at all.

I'm sure that cleaning costs also come into it, along with the wory about housekeeping staff being exposed to the second hand smoke of guests.

 

[Butts]

It has been wisely left to hotels to decide whether they will provide smoking rooms or not. Some do, but the majority don't. I assume this is because the majority of hotel don't smoke, and even some of those that do don't smoke inside if their partners or children don't smoke at all.

I'm sure that cleaning costs also come into it, along with the wory about housekeeping staff being exposed to the second hand smoke of guests.

If you go into a room to clean it after a smoker has been present there is no chance of any danger. Most chambermaids smoke ( sweeping generalisation) any way.

Most importantly the link between passive smoking and lung cancer has not been proven in a court of law - something rarely mentioned - I wonder why

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Most importantly the link between passive smoking and lung cancer has not been proven in a court of law - something rarely mentioned - I wonder why

It has been proven medically, therefore it happens. Whether or not it's been to court is irrelevant.

 

[Butts]

It has been proven medically, therefore it happens. Whether or not it's been to court is irrelevant.

If the medical evidence is irefutable with our accident chasing claim culture that exists today do you not find it strange that no prosecutions have been forthcoming.

I'm sure "ASH" would be at the forefront of any such action.

The fact is the evidence does not stack up !!!

 

[ralphchadkirk]

If the medical evidence is irefutable with our accident chasing claim culture that exists today do you not find it strange that no prosecutions have been forthcoming.

I'm sure "ASH" would be at the forefront of any such action.

The fact is the evidence does not stack up !!!

Please show us what evidence does not stack up?

 

[Butts]

Please show us what evidence does not stack up?

The lack of a succesful prosecution of a Tobacco Company or Employer for allowing exposure to second hand smoke that resulted in the employee suffering lung cancer or any other disease.

Check out asbestos as a useful guideline

 

[bnm]

Smoking harms you, harms those around you, is a filthy habit in the eyes of many and costs too damn much!

I say that as a smoker. I abide by all legislation, be it statute or byelaw. When in open spaces not covered by legislation I try to stay downwind of any non-smoker and if anyone near me complains I will extinguish or move. Even when with a group of fellow fag addicts you'll see me exhaling upward. I don't enjoy having smoke blown in my face so I don't do it to other smokers.

But I do enjoy the nicotine rush....

 

[Butts]

Smoking harms you, harms those around you, is a filthy habit in the eyes of many and costs too damn much!

I say that as a smoker. I abide by all legislation, be it statute or byelaw. When in open spaces not covered by legislation I try to stay downwind of any non-smoker and if anyone near me complains I will extinguish or move. Even when with a group of fellow fag addicts you'll see me exhaling upward. I don't enjoy having smoke blown in my face so I don't do it to other smokers.

But I do enjoy the nicotine rush....

Why do you think there have been no prosecutions in relation to passive smoking if it is as alledged medically proven ?

 

[GB]

The lack of a succesful prosecution of a Tobacco Company or Employer for allowing exposure to second hand smoke that resulted in the employee suffering lung cancer or any other disease.

Check out asbestos as a useful guideline

Thats not really evidence though is it.

 

[Butts]

Thats not really evidence though is it.

Evidence is the whole problem ....there isn't any or enough to substantiate a case to be prosecuted on the link between passive smoking and lung cancer?

 

[All Line Rover]

I want the job I've applied for. I smoke and have no current plans to give up. Should I also not eat garlic, onions, mature cheddar, spicy food etc etc during my meal breaks? Or should I always carry my oral hygiene gubbins with me just in case I may offend some overly sensitive passenger after eating anything that isn't bland?

Bread and water for all customer facing staff is it?

I'm not saying you can't have the job. I'm just saying that people in customer-facing roles - First Class hosts in particular (!) - should not smell or have bad breath (many people such as myself pick up the smell of cigarette smoke very easily).

If Virgin handed out a questionnaire asking: "If a smoker was a First Class host and had breath breath, would you mind, not mind, or not care?" I'm sure a significant majority would say that they do mind. If this was the case, I don't see why Virgin couldn't discriminate against smokers applying for such a job. This "it's against my human rights" malarkey is a step too far. If non-smokers are preferable for the job, Virgin should be able to discriminate against people who smoke. That's my opinion - it would probably be illegal - and you are entitled to your own opinion.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

For asthmatics and people with respiratory illnesses it's not.

And for people who find cigarette smoke disgusting it's not.

I suffer from asthma - although it's rarely serious except when it is "triggered" by severe pollution or cigarette smoke. That's probably a reason why I find both disgusting!

Butts, regardless of whether or not you think second-hand smoke causes health problems, I can barely breath when I inhale it without taking my inhaler afterwards. I support all steps taken to force smokers (who are in the minority) not to smoke near non-smokers. Even non-smokers who do not suffer from asthma usually support these steps.

 

[bnm]

Why do you think there have been no prosecutions in relation to passive smoking if it is as alledged medically proven ?

I believe the medical opinion. That to me is in no way lessened by the lack of prosecutions. Perhaps that lack of prosecutions is down to a lack of legislation allowing such cases to brought before the courts.

 

[Butts]

I'm not saying you can't have the job. I'm just saying that people in customer-facing roles - First Class hosts in particular (!) - should not smell or have bad breath (many people such as myself pick up the smell of cigarette smoke very easily).

If Virgin handed out a questionnaire asking: "If a smoker was a First Class host and had breath breath, would you mind, not mind, or not care?" I'm sure a significant majority would say that they do mind. If this was the case, I don't see why Virgin couldn't discriminate against smokers applying for such a job. This "it's against my human rights" malarkey is a step too far. If non-smokers are preferable for the job, Virgin should be able to discriminate against people who smoke. That's my opinion - it would probably be illegal - and you are entitled to your own opinion.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


I suffer from asthma - although it's rarely serious except when it is "triggered" by severe pollution or cigarette smoke. That's probably a reason why I find both disgusting!

Butts, regardless of whether or not you think second-hand smoke causes health problems, I can barely breath when I inhale it without taking my inhaler afterwards. I support all steps taken to force smokers (who are in the minority) not to smoke near non-smokers. Even non-smokers who do not suffer from asthma usually support these steps.

Alr I would not want to smoke near you to make you ill.

I am only asking for a seperate area where I can indulge WITHOUT it affecting anyone else.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I believe the medical opinion. That to me is in no way lessened by the lack of prosecutions. Perhaps that lack of prosecutions is down to a lack of legislation allowing such cases to brought before the courts.

Which legislation do you think the asbestos prosecutions were under ?

I'm sure H&S springs to mind "providing a safe working environment" .
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I'm so stuck in the haze of smoke....

Can anyone remind me why you are allowed to smoke on a lot of Scottish Railway Station Platforms but not the English and Welsh ones ?

 

[ralphchadkirk]

If only all smokers were like bnm, or Greenback.

 

[Butts]

If only all smokers were like bnm, or Greenback.

That maxim could also be applied to non-smokers

 

[All Line Rover]

Alr I would not want to smoke near you to make you ill.

I am only asking for a seperate area where I can indulge WITHOUT it affecting anyone else.

To create a separate area in railway station/bus stop/hotel where smokers (who are in the minority ) could smoke without affecting non-smokers would COST MONEY! It is much cheaper (and easier) to ban smoking outright in these areas.

While I wouldn't have an issues with smoking areas in a station (providing that they are COMPLETELY separate from non-smokers), I would definitely have an issue with providing "smoking carriages" on trains. There is limited capacity on trains, and it would create the situation where "non-smoking" carriages are full, leaving the only option for non-smokers to either sit in the unpleasant "smoking" carriage or stand. (This scenario could also be applied to sleeper trains and hotels.) It would also make the job of First Class host/Guard/Train Manager unpleasant for those who do not smoke, because they would have to work in an environment where people do smoke. Why should non-smokers have to do that, just to please the minority who can't wait to smoke until they've finished their journey?

 

[Butts]

To create a separate area in railway station/bus stop/hotel where smokers (who are in the minority ) could smoke without affecting non-smokers would COST MONEY! It is much cheaper (and easier) to ban smoking outright in these areas.

While I wouldn't have an issues with smoking areas in a station (providing that they are COMPLETE separate from non-smokers), I would definitely have an issue with providing "smoking carriages" on trains. There is limited capacity on trains, and it would create the situation where "non-smoking" carriages are full, leaving the only option for non-smokers to either sit in the unpleasant "smoking" carriage or stand. (This scenario could also be applied to sleeper trains and hotels.) It would also make the job of First Class host/Guard/Train Manager unpleasant for those who do not smoke, because they would have to work in an environment where people do smoke. Why should non-smokers have to do that, just to please the minority who can't wait to smoke until they've finished their journey?

It wouldn't cost much to paint a line at the end of an outdoor platform. I prefer your idea of having a well ventilated room (like they have at Airports).

With regard to smoking carriages which I didn't mention but as you've strayed into that area.....yes I think one carriage in five to reflect the number of smokers would be fair. Smoking Carriages were well patronised before there withdrawal and on long journeys I believe would be again.

With regard to cleaners and staff who cleans the dog butts littered around the entrance to stations which is even worse. Volunteers could be sought and paid extra via a levy of say £1 on tickets for smoking carriages.

 

[Bon Accord]

For asthmatics and people with respiratory illnesses it's not.

The same applies to urban pollution, for which there is a medical link to respiratory diseases. Shall we ban cars then? After all it will save lives and spare many future pain. Oh I forgot, the majority of the population drive cars, so that's ok then - democracy in action.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I'm not saying you can't have the job. I'm just saying that people in customer-facing roles - First Class hosts in particular (!) - should not smell or have bad breath (many people such as myself pick up the smell of cigarette smoke very easily).

One thing I despise is the smell of stale coffee, particularly on the breath of people - more so than smoke. However I live with it, as there are bound to be aspects of my personal habits other people may not like.
We call this a fact of life, and we make allowances for our fellow human beings.
It never ceases to amaze me that we live in a society which continually bombards us with the message that we're becoming more and more tolerant, when to be quiet honest I find the obverse becoming true - increasingly as a society we're only tolerant of those who agree with us, with those who don't being publicly ostracised in ever more populist ways.

 

[GB]

The same applies to urban pollution, for which there is a medical link to respiratory diseases. Shall we ban cars then? After all it will save lives and spare many future pain. Oh I forgot, the majority of the population drive cars, so that's ok then - democracy in action.

Its true to say that the exhaust fumes contain chemicals that can contribute to cancer...but at the very least motor vehicles serve a very real purpose...unlike smoking.

 

[Butts]

Its true to say that the exhaust fumes contain chemicals that can contribute to cancer...but at the very least motor vehicles serve a very real purpose...unlike smoking.

There speaks a non-smoker unaware of the true sensation of that first Benson and Hedges King Size imbibed each day.

Note to JT International please forward free pack for covert plug

 

[GB]

Indeed I am a non smoker, never really saw the point in it.

 

[Butts]

Indeed I am a non smoker, never really saw the point in it.

Started at 20 in Royal Navy Blue Liners 19p a packet

 

[Bon Accord]

Its true to say that the exhaust fumes contain chemicals that can contribute to cancer...but at the very least motor vehicles serve a very real purpose...unlike smoking.

So we can live with thousands of deaths and perhaps tens/hundreds of thousands of individuals with chronic illnesses because it serves a purpose? That to me is very shaky ground indeed.

We can't logically decry one potentially hazardous activity because we personally don't like it, yet we happy allow another because it makes our lives easier - in that sense, how different are the car drivers to the nicotine addicts?

 

[ralphchadkirk]

potentially hazardous activity

It's not potentially hazardous, it is hazardous.

 

[Bon Accord]

It's not potentially hazardous, it is hazardous.

Potentially is an apt turn of phrase, simply because there is no guarantee that inhaling second hand smoke will lead to health problems.
I wonder if there are figures available comparing the occurrence of health problems though such second hand smoke compared to a city dweller in say London who is exposed to constant urban pollution? It could make illuminating and rather worrying reading - for those that live in cities that is.

 

[Butts]

It's not potentially hazardous, it is hazardous.

I feel potentially would be a more accurate description.

Only half of us kick it from a smoking related disease some prematurely -others like June Brown (Dot Cotton) are still puffing away at 83 as witnessed on BBC 1 in "Who do you think you are" the other week.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Just because only half die does not make it any less hazardous.

Covering your alveoli in thick black tar is hazardous whether you like it or not, and if you don't get COPD or similar then you should consider yourself very lucky.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Potentially is an apt turn of phrase, simply because there is no guarantee that inhaling second hand smoke will lead to health problems.

There is no guarantee that if I run across a motorway tomorrow I will get hit by a car - it will probably happen, but as with everything, there is a chance that I would not get hit. Either way, you wouldn't just run across the M3.

 

[Bon Accord]

Started at 20 in Royal Navy Blue Liners 19p a packet

Being in the Andrew had it's benefits!
Prices have gone up alas - it's now about £8 for 200. Inflation!!!

 

[Butts]

Being in the Andrew had it's benefits!

It had to have some....

ralphchadkirk ..pay attention you'll be in your element when I tell you that when I joined we had a talk on health..

They said drinking was fine (in moderation - some hope at NAFI prices)

Girls...... watch out for crabs (not the aquatic variety)

SMOKING ..... Only a fool would do this

That was 30 years ago !!!!