If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
You'll find almost all type 2 diabetes is diet controlled.
Different levels of fitness around the office is completely different to taking extra breaks over and above those your co workers get.
Poppycock. A smoker is addicted to nicotine and he takes breaks because of it; a fatty take extras time out for all the reasons I cited above. You could argue fatty needs that 4th cream cake break less than a smoker needs his 4th ciggy break.
All I’m trying to illustrate here is chastising smokers, is for some reason, deemed socially acceptable. People sit up in their ivory towers denouncing smokers with their social and moral blinkers on. Staunch anti-smoking critics enjoy a carte-blanche on attacking smokers, whereas participants of other less desirable past-times enjoy a quasi-immunity from scorn.
Personally, i couldn't give a fuck whether you're fat or a smoker at work, but for the people whose craw it sticks in, they should open their eyes to the fact their criticism of smokers doesn't stand in isolation.
I'd agree with that, as I've said before. Except it shouldn't be where possible- if you can't or won't provide a separate smoking room you should have smoking banned in your premises.
She isn't.
CoatHanger, that is probably the stupidest thing I've ever seen on these boards, and I've seen Lukesh. Unless you're arguing that smokers don't eat, of course, which would be one solution to the smoking problem I guess. And as for fitness, well, are you saying that the respiratory functions of smokers are not damaged by tobacco?
Way to miss the point. I could compare you to RichKid for his point missing and tirades, but we both know it'd just be trying to rile you.
I find your overly selective diatribes, ones which have the sole purpose of validating your own opinions to yourself, fairly stupid as well, but i guess we're going to have to agree to disagree on our respective levels of stupidity.
Where as yours evidently aren't. I suppose you would go on to propose that those with arthritis, broken bones are all slow and thus waste their employers time in the same way as smokers do then?
If it is deemed unacceptable to nip out of the office several times a day then fair play it is unacceptable to nip out for a smoke.
Seeing as you didn't answer before, I'll ask again. Are you saying that smokers never eat?
Have you heard a smoker say it was their right?
I think it's got more to do with the fact it's an accepted part of life. People smoke in the pub because they do it, their mates do it, their parents probably do it, their parents probably did and you get my drift.
The furore over this council's action shows a lot.
Smokers do seem to think its their right to go outside and have a smoke. Most employers don't care because its worth it for staff harmony, but paid smoking breaks are only there through grace.
I do get your drift.
But now its being banned all the smokers have got their panties in such a wad. I think the ban is OTT too, but you'd think they were being sent to the gulags with the way they're carrying on. Having to stand outside to have a chuff, its up there with losing the vote :rolleyes:
Too right.
This is of course not true at all as ETS has never been shown to cause lung cancer in non smokers despite what all the politicians and doctors say.
Why should e.g. a council grasscutter be prevented from smoking while cutting grass?
No logic at all. Just another council jumping on the current antismoker bandwagon.
The anti-smoking lobby in California has successfully banned smoking in many parks, beaches and other outdoor public spaces. And in Australia the anti-smokers have won another argument and are forcing their views on smokers by encroaching on private property. (Although, I suppose that is nothing particularly new since bars and cafes are privately owned establishments.)
What will the anti-smoking lobby here do now its getting its way on pubs, bars and cafes? You can bet they'll push to further ostracise smokers - I expect they'll do the same as their Californian and Australian counterparts; whilst also seeking to exploit people's fears and worries by seeking the effective exclusion of smokers from the NHS.
Absurd. Given how much the NHS charges people for the privilege of taking a car on to NHS premises in car park fees it seems a bit of a cheek...What's the reasoning behind it? I seriously wonder how long it is before smoking is banned everywhere except private homes - although, not even that is guaranteed. If someone employs a cleaner or a babysitter it's only a matter of time before their home is declared a 'public' place since its a place of work. (After all, if bar staff get 'protection' from cigarette smoke why shouldn't cleaners get the same protection?)
The NHS can 'ban' smoking on its premises but who's going to enforce it? Are they going to employ people to police car parks and hunt down smokers? I can't see many people paying too much notice to some busybody in a florescent jacket tbh. And if the NHS were to police this ban it would be proof of mismanagement and misdirection of resources.
http://www.pro-choicesmokingdoctor.blogspot.com/
In Belmont in California there is currently a proposal which would ban smoking in all indoor and outdoor areas of the city with the exception of detached, single-family homes.
This is utterly outrageous. There is a good commentary on it here
http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/ By Dr Michael Siegel.
I suppose that it could have something to do with the health issue?
Yes, you do not have the "right" to be on NHS property. Unless you are in a life/limb threatening condition.
The car park people are already there, remember, as are security because too many members of the public have no respect for their clinicians already. So complain, how much sympathy do you think that you will get?
Different law and not relevant.
Someone cannot have a cigarette in their car, on NHS premises because they're harming their health. Is eating KFC on NHS premises going to be banned too?
Lets remember that NHS property is essentially public property. And the entire NHS, the bureaucrats it supports and any busybodies enforcing a smoking ban are paid for by the public - which happens to include smokers. Anyway, few people go on to NHS property for the fun of it - visiting or needing medical treatment...Can't think of any other reason to be there. And making life difficult for smokers by stopping them from lighting up in the car park is just petty and unfair.
It doesn't affect me as I currently and thankfully have no reason to use a hospital car park.
Nope. But KFC isn't as bad for you. COPD is the world no 4 killer. Don't you think it a little ironic that you can currently smoke on the premises which will treat your smoking related condition - indeed you can be a doctor/nurse/patient on such a ward and still pop outside the front door for a crafty one?
It's the message it sends as much as the actual damage aspect.
Not quite so. It belongs to the crown.
Thanks for pointing the finger at those damned buereaucrats.
Perhaps instead of taking the tabloid line, you might like to redirect your complaint to the correct people. You could start with the Chief Medical Officer.
... and if it prevents them "wasting" more NHS resources by quitting, don't you see that as a benefit?
But you have no legislation in place yet in England or Wales so it cannot be enforced by law. The NHS would like you to think that they can ban it but it will not be illegal for anyone to smoke in their car in a hospital car park.
Obesity is catching up though isn't it? Do you have proof that KFC isn't as bad? Would the non-smoker eating McDonalds for breakfast, KFC for lunch and a Pizza Hut for dinner not be damaging their health more so than a smoker who has a couple of cigarettes to get through the day?
So what if it's ironic? If people choose to smoke it's their choice; even if they're a doctor or a nurse.
And how far do you what this 'message' to go?
Well, indirectly you know.
Well who else normally comes up with these ideas?
Guess this is an exception.
But where do you stop? We'd save NHS resources if people didn't drink alcohol, eat unhealthy food, not exercise, etc.
nah, long way off yet.
Don't you think that it detracts from the point of a health building? if not why does it matter about MRSA?
As far as stopping the sale of unhealthy foods in the staff/visitor restaurant.
But you have right "right" to be there and can be removed for any reason...
You'd be surprised, believe me there are many things cmoing out of the NHS which are pushed upon us, rather than chosen by us...
NB Drinking on NHS property is a no-no and has been for some time.
We are talking about NHS property (oh, and it includes company vans etc), and those should be healthy places, non?
Here is a link that admits this point
http://www.thecourier.co.uk/output/2006/03/23/newsstory8152483t0.asp
Interesting though that as smoking rates in Britain and the US in particular have declined obesity has rapidly increased. I've no idea if there is any link, even if there is though I'd suspect eating habits and laziness are more significant.
Doctors and nurses smoking goes back to before MRSA. It does detract from it being a 'health' building but since smoking is a legal and legitimate choice...
Fair enough and totally true I can imagine.
Which seems fair enough. Being under the influence of alcohol for a doctor or nurse stops them from doing their job properly. And the NHS has enough problems with violent patients and visitors without tolerating drinking on the site. Alcohol is a different issue to smoking.
If there's only one person in the van at the time and they happen to be a smoker I can't see any problem with them lighting up. A bit of consideration for other people who might use the van in future, window down, maybe an air freshener - no problem.
Exercise is the key to obesity, not what you eat.
So what if it's legal? That's not relevant.
It's the nuisance value too, of course.
By-laws?
Who said anything about smoking law, again you are linking this to the smoking bans in public places and that isn't relevant at all.
Who to trust more...the pro-smoking lobby or medical experts.
You've really cheered me up with that.
KFC isn't as bad because it doesn't create a serious and real cancer risk in everyone stood in a 20m radius of the person eating it.
Of course, if you wish to show that people get passive obesity from standing too close to a Big Mac or a box of chicken dippers, then I'll happily see eating fatty food in public banned too.