BMA suggesting smoking to be banned in cars..
Discussion
rs1952 said:
So if we ever get to have that meeting we've been talking about since February, I'll have to leave my fags in the car then? 
Around 1995 I had an X-ray that showed I had two rather large lumps where the lungs bit separated from the stomach route. It probably has a specific name. I was told I would have a biopsy a week later. I saw the doctor who would perform the biopsy and asked him the likely outcome.He asked if I smoked and drank alcohol.
When I said I didn't, having not smoked since 1970 and drunk since 1979.
He said that he performed 8 biopsies three times a week for about 30 weeks a year. He said that around 80 or 90% of patients had trachyoptomies (or some illness spelt similarly). He said that in the 20 years he'd been doing them he had never performed one on someone who neither smoked nor drank. That said, there was a first time for everything.
He said that research showed that someone who smoked was something like 10 x more likely to have cancer of the mouth/throat than someone who didn't, and that didn't take into consideration environmental factors, such as working in places that had pollutants. He said that drinking alcohol increased the risk by around 15 times. But the main cause was drinking and smoking, or drinking in a smoky atmosphere at the same time. That's drinking with a fag in your hand, not just generally the same period.
He said that an absolute figure for the increase in risk was hard to come by but he would put it at around 80 times but that he'd not argue with a researcher who put it twice that high.
His explanation was that the throat and mouth has natural protection against contimants but that alcohol scrubs this off allowing all the nasty bits of the smoke, which attacked the lungs, the ability to get in to the tissue.
It was a sobering experience, or would have been had I drunk.
What was upsetting as well was the people I went in with. One woman worked as a telephone ansering service for her husband's firm which was struggling at that time. She lost her voice. There was a 30-something woman who worked in a pub. She was very attractive and was about to get married. She was, I assume, unable to say I do.
One bloke, also a smoker, as all the others were, worked at Gatwick servicing engines. He told me that when kerosene was burnt at high temperatures it too became cancerous. He was a lovely bloke, with a family. He'd been off work for a couple of months. He didn't have his voice box removed but was send home to die as the cancer was too far advanced.
Derek Smith said:
What was upsetting as well was the people I went in with. One woman worked as a telephone ansering service for her husband's firm which was struggling at that time. She lost her voice. There was a 30-something woman who worked in a pub. She was very attractive and was about to get married. She was, I assume, unable to say I do.
One bloke, also a smoker, as all the others were, worked at Gatwick servicing engines. He told me that when kerosene was burnt at high temperatures it too became cancerous. He was a lovely bloke, with a family. He'd been off work for a couple of months. He didn't have his voice box removed but was send home to die as the cancer was too far advanced.
Cancer does the most god-awful damage to the body, it does things beyond the imagination at times. One bloke, also a smoker, as all the others were, worked at Gatwick servicing engines. He told me that when kerosene was burnt at high temperatures it too became cancerous. He was a lovely bloke, with a family. He'd been off work for a couple of months. He didn't have his voice box removed but was send home to die as the cancer was too far advanced.
That's what mystifies me about smoking, because smoking doesn't do *anything*, *at all*, except sate an addiction. It's not like necessarily like alcohol and foods that aren't good for the health, or driving too fast or whatever, all of that can be enjoyed without becoming so addicted that you have indulge numerous times throughout the day.
rs1952 said:
Finally, it is a little patronising to trot out the old line about smokers going out fo fag breaks "while the rest of us work on." I don't know about you, but I can think of many examples of non-smokers who could waste time for England whilst sitting at their desks nattering about football (males) or shopping last weekend (females). Just a couple of examples - there are many more 
(By the way, my reply to your post in no way suggests I endorse your sexual stereotyping.)That all made clear, can I suggest that smokers also talk at their desks?
We once had an 'all hands to the pump' episode and there were two positions abandoned. This on nights so it left around 7 of us. We were ten minutes into it before the two smokers decided to grace us with their presence. I was, naturally I feel, a bit miffed with this at the hot debrief and said that in future we should have only one out of seat at a time, a reasonable request you might think.
It was pointed out that one of my blokes had prostrate problems (young Mr Grace as others called him), then there were the refs breaks for the non smokers (ten mins either side of their lunch), then those who made the tea, relief breaks, and so it went on. I felt that this gave support to my desire to have a no smoking in my time but the agreements with the staff put this out of my control.
In my later research (I can be a bit petty it has to be said, and I didn't want to let this one go) I found that unlike my earlier belief I found that the scheduled 10 min break was taken in addition to their fag breaks. Not after I had words though.
I was in charge of the force control room when we had a failed hijacking at Gatwick, this in 96 I think, on the 23rd December. At the post incident debrief with my sergeant and a rep from the controllers we discovered that five of the staff had not left their seats for the whole of the six or seven hours of the incident - this included me, ah, those days when I had a bladder of adequate size. Those that did go off were . . . , well, I don't want to spoil the surprise. See if you can guess.
When I thanked one of the controllers who stayed on post throughout he replied that he had 'trained his bladder'. A couple of years later we had a three masted schooner run aground at Seaford/Newhaven with 45 kids aboard. There again the only persons to leave their seats throughout the dangerous times (not for them) were the smokers, although not all of them. It left me with a sort of irritation against them so you can say I'm prejudiced I suppose.
heebeegeetee said:
That's what mystifies me about smoking, because smoking doesn't do *anything*, *at all*, except sate an addiction.
Ban smoking completely = more fatties. As no fat tax = increased burden on the NHS. Hence more smoking is necessary.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
I strongly disagree smoking in an enclosed space that also contains children, yes. (I do not disagree with anyone smoking within visual range of an unrelated child in an open space, in case there's any ambiguity on what "in front of children" means).Therefore, I also strongly disagree with a law that is very very likely to have the effect of more people smoking at home in a room with their children present, as opposed to a pub frequented by adults who have made a choice to be there.
Just because I may be angry, as you put it, with the ones that stay at home with a 6 pack and a pack of Embassy and their kids, doesn't mean they won't do it. And unless you also pass a law banning smoking at home where children are present and then start policing it with door-to-door checks, then they aren't likely to be persuaded otherwise.
Derek Smith said:
(By the way, my reply to your post in no way suggests I endorse your sexual stereotyping.)
That's why I added "these are just a couple of examples - there are many more" to avoid such an accusation Ho hum, some you win .....The rest of your post makes interesting reading and puts a new perspective (for me) on fag breaks. It has been many years since I was involved in any sort of job that would be described as an "all hands to the pump" event, and the last time it happened then we all happily worked at our desks in a blue fog because that was how things were done in those days
However, your post also highlights to me a major contra-argument against the workplace smoking ban.
We have to start with the currently inescapable fact that smoking per se is quite legal, but its legality varies depending on where you (as a smoker) want to do it. It could be argued that the anti-smoking legislation has made a rod for the backs of employers in general and senior management in particular because, if workplace smoking had not have been banned, then the issue you describe would not have arisen.
Whilst the likelihood of turning the clock back on this issue is as close to nil as you can get, as a point of principle, which would you rather have?
1. A non-smoking workplace with some of your staff missing on fag breaks
2. A workplace where smoking was permittd where all your staff were there?
A combination of the best bits of both is not allowed - pragmatism Derek, pragmatism ...
As much as I like Dereks ramblings, it's quite obvious to me - if you can't control your staff and stop out of break smoking (if that is what you want) then tough put up with it. Don't blame smokers for being able to get away with it.
Anyway the post is about banning smoking in cars which is a complete arse. It has already been pointed out that the science is junk and based on lies.
Bye the way Derek, I note you are an ex-smoker, and you know what they say about ex-smokers.
Anyway the post is about banning smoking in cars which is a complete arse. It has already been pointed out that the science is junk and based on lies.
Bye the way Derek, I note you are an ex-smoker, and you know what they say about ex-smokers.
dickymint said:
Bye the way Derek, I note you are an ex-smoker, and you know what they say about ex-smokers.
What's that? That they don't smell as if they are impregnated with tobacco smoke? They don't die so much of lung cancer? Or heart disease? Or throat cancer?The problem with smoke breaks was that I was obliged to allow 'sufficient' breaks for them to smoke when the ban on smoking in premises came about. This despite the fact that in the control room you weren't allowed to smoke anyway. There were 'guidelines' issued by the government - I didn't see them but they were referred to. So I was stuck with the accepted procedure.
During the incidents, those that ran for hours, when people asked for a break if I could allow it then I was obliged to. They didn't run off, bent double behind the desks.
Rather childishly, I didn't go because some of my staff hadn't gone for a break. At one time on the boat job I thought I was going to wet myself and was about to go when a unit at scene reported that the boat had caught fire, this when the fire brigade had moved back to the RV point. Whilst the dangerous situation (it wasn't really, it was a massive backfire when they tried to restart the engines which were full of seawater) was running all thought of the loo disappeared.
I was then, er, relieved by the early turn inspector and normally there would have been a 10 minute or so briefing. All I did was tell him to read the serial and I'd be back in a minute or so.
Bliss!
Talking of smoking in cars, we had new computers fitted and I was talking to the engineers as the room wasn't only air conditioned as before but the air was filtered. The chap said that it was because of the exhausts of the air con for the building as a whole plus the exhaust from the other processes in crime scene investigators on the floor below. he said that the worst thing for computers was tobacco smoke. 'You wouldn't believe the muck we have to clear out' he said.
I wonder if smokers' cars have more electronic problems than those of non-smokers.
Probably not. I've got a TVR and the three previous owners were all non-smokers. It is not ultra reliable electric-wise.
munky said:
I strongly disagree smoking in an enclosed space that also contains children, yes. (I do not disagree with anyone smoking within visual range of an unrelated child in an open space, in case there's any ambiguity on what "in front of children" means).
Therefore, I also strongly disagree with a law that is very very likely to have the effect of more people smoking at home in a room with their children present, as opposed to a pub frequented by adults who have made a choice to be there.
Just because I may be angry, as you put it, with the ones that stay at home with a 6 pack and a pack of Embassy and their kids, doesn't mean they won't do it. And unless you also pass a law banning smoking at home where children are present and then start policing it with door-to-door checks, then they aren't likely to be persuaded otherwise.
To be fair someone else pointed out to you that 'these people' would smoke at home anyway outside pub hours. One can only hope they'd value their family's health more than the barlady's. Therefore, I also strongly disagree with a law that is very very likely to have the effect of more people smoking at home in a room with their children present, as opposed to a pub frequented by adults who have made a choice to be there.
Just because I may be angry, as you put it, with the ones that stay at home with a 6 pack and a pack of Embassy and their kids, doesn't mean they won't do it. And unless you also pass a law banning smoking at home where children are present and then start policing it with door-to-door checks, then they aren't likely to be persuaded otherwise.
dickymint said:
Derek - I'm a calibration engineer and have had cause to strip repair and test thousands of sensitive electronic gadgetry. Never have I seen anything that your IT man describes. Dirty fans/filters yes but nothing that had caused damage. Maybe he worked for NASA
Perhaps that's what the chap meant by: you wouldn't believe the muck we have to clear out'.I don't know whether the damage was potential or real although he did mention the fact that filters had to be much more sophisticated given the demands for purity. The bit about smokers' cars was meant as a joke. Sorry if it wasn't obvious.
Derek Smith said:
I ran a department with about 70 people
We had 12,000 employees globally. We didn't find any link between those that smoked and those that didn't as far as days off are concerned.The Japanese had almost no time off work - even for holidays. And they smoked like Beagles.
Derek Smith said:
dickymint said:
Bye the way Derek, I note you are an ex-smoker, and you know what they say about ex-smokers.
What's that? That they don't smell as if they are impregnated with tobacco smoke? They don't die so much of lung cancer? Or heart disease? Or throat cancer?The problem with smoke breaks was that I was obliged to allow 'sufficient' breaks for them to smoke when the ban on smoking in premises came about. This despite the fact that in the control room you weren't allowed to smoke anyway. There were 'guidelines' issued by the government - I didn't see them but they were referred to. So I was stuck with the accepted procedure.
During the incidents, those that ran for hours, when people asked for a break if I could allow it then I was obliged to. They didn't run off, bent double behind the desks.
Rather childishly, I didn't go because some of my staff hadn't gone for a break. At one time on the boat job I thought I was going to wet myself and was about to go when a unit at scene reported that the boat had caught fire, this when the fire brigade had moved back to the RV point. Whilst the dangerous situation (it wasn't really, it was a massive backfire when they tried to restart the engines which were full of seawater) was running all thought of the loo disappeared.
I was then, er, relieved by the early turn inspector and normally there would have been a 10 minute or so briefing. All I did was tell him to read the serial and I'd be back in a minute or so.
Bliss!
Talking of smoking in cars, we had new computers fitted and I was talking to the engineers as the room wasn't only air conditioned as before but the air was filtered. The chap said that it was because of the exhausts of the air con for the building as a whole plus the exhaust from the other processes in crime scene investigators on the floor below. he said that the worst thing for computers was tobacco smoke. 'You wouldn't believe the muck we have to clear out' he said.
I wonder if smokers' cars have more electronic problems than those of non-smokers.
Probably not. I've got a TVR and the three previous owners were all non-smokers. It is not ultra reliable electric-wise.
This however has f
k all to do with banning smoking in cars NDA said:
We had 12,000 employees globally. We didn't find any link between those that smoked and those that didn't as far as days off are concerned.
The Japanese had almost no time off work - even for holidays. And they smoked like Beagles.
I think the Japanese social requirements is more to do with the fact that they don't take sick leave rather than them not being ill. Also I remember reading something about their propensity to cancer.The Japanese had almost no time off work - even for holidays. And they smoked like Beagles.
I'm surprised at your firm's experience but can't comment on it. Did you do a survey on sick leave/smokers in this country?
Derek Smith said:
dickymint said:
Derek - I'm a calibration engineer and have had cause to strip repair and test thousands of sensitive electronic gadgetry. Never have I seen anything that your IT man describes. Dirty fans/filters yes but nothing that had caused damage. Maybe he worked for NASA
Perhaps that's what the chap meant by: you wouldn't believe the muck we have to clear out'.I don't know whether the damage was potential or real although he did mention the fact that filters had to be much more sophisticated given the demands for purity. The bit about smokers' cars was meant as a joke. Sorry if it wasn't obvious.
NDA said:
Derek Smith said:
I ran a department with about 70 people
We had 12,000 employees globally. We didn't find any link between those that smoked and those that didn't as far as days off are concerned.The Japanese had almost no time off work - even for holidays. And they smoked like Beagles.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
What if the barlady smokes? The proportion of bar staff that smoke is rather high. If bar staff didn't like smoke, why didn't they go and work in a non-smoking pub? They existed before the ban,I remember the interesting case of a bar owner in San Francisco that flouted the state smoking ban and allowed anyone to smoke in his bar. He owned a small bar, he was a smoker and had no staff. He argues that the California state ban was to protect staff, yet he was the only member of staff and he smoked. He was never prosecuted. There are still bars and pubs in London that allow smoking indoors, if you know where they are.
The unimaginitive anti-smoking fascists seem to think there are only two possible outcomes: ban or no ban. They are unable to come up with any other answer, despite there being several.
I don't and have never smoked, but this is typical of the Britain we now live in.
Madness.
Use of mobiles in cars is banned - how many did you see today using them, let alone this week, let alone last month?
So, not only madness, but pointless because it won't/can't be enforced.
Nanny State.
Nanny BMA.
Why don't the BMA just suggest a ban on living?
Hmm, for some elderly in hospital and (couldn't) care (less) homes it seems that is already a reality.
But then that doesn't need a ban nor have to be enforced, we just allow it.
What a sad, pitiful country this has become.
Madness.
Use of mobiles in cars is banned - how many did you see today using them, let alone this week, let alone last month?
So, not only madness, but pointless because it won't/can't be enforced.
Nanny State.
Nanny BMA.
Why don't the BMA just suggest a ban on living?
Hmm, for some elderly in hospital and (couldn't) care (less) homes it seems that is already a reality.
But then that doesn't need a ban nor have to be enforced, we just allow it.
What a sad, pitiful country this has become.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff