Smoking Ban - No Smoking on entire industrial estate?

[Rose Chap]

Like many companies up and down England I'm sure, we recently had a presentation where the smoking ban was explained. We were informed that smoking would not be allowed in the building, would only be allowed in the partially uncovered shelter outside, and that there would be fines for non-adherence etc etc.

We were also told however that the owners of the industrial estate (a well known company I won't name for obvious reasons) have decided to prohibit smoking on the estate. Given that most of the area is by definition uncovered, can they really do this? If this true then you could hypothetically be (legally) smoking in the shelter outside, but should you walk the 5 metres to your car whilst smoking you'll be breaking the rules.

Now, aside from an odd cigar on special occasions I don't smoke at all. Nor do I have any interest in starting, however I do hate these petty interfering laws and small armies of council appointed anti-smoking patrols spying on their fellow man, therefore I don't plan to take this lying down.

Anyone able to give any legal advice around this?

 

[Rory]

How would they enforce it, and what would the penalty for non-compliance be?

The only thing I would think they could do is to try to get an injunction banning any offenders from the estate. That would be an interesting court case.

 

[fuzzer]

How would they enforce it, and what would the penalty for non-compliance be?

The only thing I would think they could do is to try to get an injunction banning any offenders from the estate. That would be an interesting court case.

easilly enforce it in complaining to your company about you and watching where you go on cctv.

I suppose its up to them if they decide to make their property no smoking, as far as the law is concerned im not 100% sure but we have had it for a while and ive not heard of that one.

 

[Alfie]

We have just had our courtyard designated as being covered by the ban even though it is uncovered. Fantastic.

It appears that employers can ban smoking on the entire property. I for one will be helping them enforce it by grassing up anyone I see smoking anywhere near the office. I hate the filthy habit and dont see why I should have to breathe the filth.

Even bus shelters are to be designated no smoking!

I will be in the pub Monday 2nd July buying a round of drinks for the whole office in celebration:bannana:

 

[Sp!ke]

I hear there is also talk of local authority housing being made non smoking.

Made me chuckle thinking of all those council tennants having to go outside to smoke their dope.

I am a smoker and although I'm sure this will be rather frustrating at first, I know it will reduce the opportunity I have to smoke and therefore ultimately it will make it a lot easier to give up.

I dont smoke in my own house and found that by doing this it halved my intake. Bring it on I say.

 

[dougal74]

In part the law is designed to protect the employee from secondary smoke and therefore the employer can designate whatever areas it likes as being no smoking.

 

[BTB 500]

I'm sure the owners of private land can apply whatever conditions they like to people who are on it. Legally I guess they can simply ask you to leave if you don't comply.

Railway stations, shopping centres, etc. have been doing this for ages.

 

[Benzowner]

There is a rather large hospital near us and they have banned smoking on their premisses for some time, I mean within the curtalage of their property, car parks, roads etc etc. If a patient want a drag, he must walk approx half a mile to leave their property for his pleasure. Roll on Sunday

 

[shadowninja]

We have just had our courtyard designated as being covered by the ban even though it is uncovered. Fantastic.

Now if you could kindly send any smokers to me who are looking for a therapist to help them quit smoking...

 

[glojo]

I've not really taken an interest in this legislation, but I would be very surprised if they ban smoking in Her Majesty's Prisons?

I stopped smoking a good few years ago, but I'm surprised at the amount of legislation regtarding an act which is still legal?

Regards
John the non puffer

 

[Rose Chap]

Well, based on initial feedback it looks as they legally its okay for these sorts of rules to exist.

To all those who are pro smoking ban, that's fine. All I'd gently remind these folks about is that rather than smoking next time it could be performance cars, or beer.

Yet more new laws restricting our freedoms are normally (rightly in my opinion) met with severe distrust on this forum. A free society will always include activities some like and others dislike. Tolerance and consistency are the words I'm looking for here.

 

[GSBellew]

Smoking in enclosed workplaces was banned in Ireland over 3 years ago (first european country to bring a ban in).

There were / are a few places exempted from the legislation, such as hotel bedrooms, prisions, nursing homes and so on, but, and here is the importsnat bit all employers (even those who are exempt) still have the right to enforce the legislation. In other words, even though the above organisations and institutions are not obliged to enforce the ban, they are free to do so if they wish.

I assume something similar will probably apply in the UK, so I presume the landowner would be well within his rights to ban smoking completely if he felt like doing so.

 

[portzy]

I hear there is also talk of local authority housing being made non smoking.

Made me chuckle thinking of all those council tennants having to go outside to smoke their dope.

Ours is one of those very housing associations. Although we're not banning tenants from smoking in their own homes, we are requesting that they have their ''last cigarette'' half an hour before one of our employees is due to visit. If they dont or they light up while we are there, our employees are entitled to leave.

Also we cannot smoke in company cars, (fair do's), we can in our cars but only when we have exited the car park but we cant in our cars if we have a non smoking passenger.

I'm no advocate of all of this btw.

Portzy.

 

[Rory]

There is a rather large hospital near us and they have banned smoking on their premisses for some time, I mean within the curtalage of their property, car parks, roads etc etc. If a patient want a drag, he must walk approx half a mile to leave their property for his pleasure. Roll on Sunday

A Nurse was murdered recently nipping off-site for a quick fag.

 

[Dieselman]

To all those who are pro smoking ban, that's fine. All I'd gently remind these folks about is that rather than smoking next time it could be performance cars, or beer.

And how exactly might me having a pint directly cause a health issue to an innocent party that is not partaking of a drink?

This law isn't about freedom of choice..well actually it is..it's freedom of choice for the non smoker, to be able to go about their daily life without the risk of contracting an illness due to someone else's habit.

This will be rigorously enforced by employers due to the liability issue..

 

[kikkthecat]

Well it's certainly become an emotive subject.

Over the last 30 or 40 years smoking has gone from "it's good for you" to what will be a criminal act in public places.

I smoke, but like Spike, not in my home (or anyone elses) and certainly not in the Viano.

My main concerns are with the policing of this kind of law and I'm still troubled by making it illegal to smoke cigarettes but still legal to buy them. I cant think of anything else that is legal to buy but illegal to use.
And I have serious concerns about how it is going to be policed because as has been seen before with wheel clampers and traffic wardens, you give someone power and it will almost certainly be abused as all common sense is suspended. I seriously believe that someone will end up in jail for sparking up a fag. Of course it wont be for smoking, it will be for non payment of fines or something similar. I hope you're all happy with the jobsworths that will be doing this because you're all paying for it.
And like Rose Chap I'd like to add my warnings about infringement of freedoms. Who's to say that in 5 or 10 years owning a car bigger than say 1 litre or something capable of more than 70 Mph wont be seen in the same terms as smoking has been for the last few years and then legislated against. It's easy, you drip feed information (speed kills, cars are causing global warming etc) until what you are aiming at becomes socially unacceptable then legislating against it becomes easy.

The smoking ban is not going to trouble me one way or the other and can understand it in the workplace but I'd have prefered something that allowed the individual pubs and eating places to choose because I then think you would have a good mix of smoking and non smoking places to choose from rather than everywhere having to accomodate the non smokers and the smokers getting no choice.

 

[Dieselman]

Well it's certainly become an emotive subject.

Who's to say that in 5 or 10 years owning a car bigger than say 1 litre or something capable of more than 70 Mph wont be seen in the same terms as smoking has been for the last few years and then legislated against. It's easy, you drip feed information (speed kills, cars are causing global warming etc) until what you are aiming at becomes socially unacceptable then legislating against it becomes easy.

I could live with that if the 'evidence' was as clear cut as the evidence of smoking causing illness.

The smoking ban is not going to trouble me one way or the other and can understand it in the workplace but I'd have prefered something that allowed the individual pubs and eating places to choose because I then think you would have a good mix of smoking and non smoking places to choose from rather than everywhere having to accomodate the non smokers and the smokers getting no choice.

So how would a non smoker chose to not inhale your smoke in an establishment that allowed smoking? Don't forget an employer couldn't only employ smokers as that would be discrimination against non smokers.

Smokers are certainly a minority now, so surely they should adopt the wishes of the majority. Oh, they are going to eventually, but it's taken a law to create that situation.
Why do smokers feel it is their right to smoke, even when requested not to?

I'm not being emotive here, just asking how you justify your position?

 

[kikkthecat]

So how would a non smoker chose to not inhale your smoke in an establishment that allowed smoking? Don't forget an employer couldn't only employ smokers as that would be discrimination against non smokers.

Smokers are certainly a minority now, so surely they should adopt the wishes of the majority. Oh, they are going to eventually, but it's taken a law to create that situation.
Why do smokers feel it is their right to smoke, even when requested not to?

I'm not being emotive here, just asking how you justify your position?

Non smokers would choose not to inhale others smoke by not choosing an establishment that allows smoking. I still think that if you have 6 pubs on a road and 3 allowed smoking and 3 didn't then everyone would get a choice. If out on my own or with a group of friends we would probably choose a smoking establishment and if out with my wife and other couples we would choose non smoking. As it is, non smokers get everywhere and smokers get nowhere. Why should only the non smokers get a choice ?

As for the comment that everyone should follow the wishes of the majority I think that is a dangerous road to go down. I live in a city with more Muslims than Christians and more rugby fans than football fans. So we all follow the wishes of the majority ? I have friends in the Yorkshire dales who still go rabbit hunting on a Sunday, something most people find repulsive but who am I, or anyone else to tell them they cant ?

Legislation is not the answer, it alienates people. Education is a much better way forward.

And I dont feel it is my right to smoke even when requested not to but then not everyone is considerate of others.

 

[Dieselman]

Your opinion fits in exactly the reverse order, with one caveat. At present smokers are the ones with the choice, but their actions could actually be harmful to the health of others. A non smoker cannot damage the health of another passively, it just can't happen.

And how would a non smoking employee get a choice if the establishment they worked in is a smoking one.? It's these people the law is designed to protect.

No one is saying smokers will be banned from establishments, just that they will be required to go outside when they wish to smoke. They are perfectly welcome inside when not smoking.

Maybe smokers should be forced to take out insurance to cover the possible risk to others, a bit like the legal requirement to have car insurance.
The risk of a claim is small, but the payout could be huge.

As far as education, we have had 40 years of anti smoking education and people still smoke, so obviously that method doesn't work.

Unfortunately many smokers are not as accomodating as you are Ray and will continue to smoke when it causes distress to others and thay have been requested to not smoke.

As far as your other comparisons, they are not really relevant as the majority of the Country doesn't fit the examples you have used, so indeed we are following the majority.
I'm sure that the local variations already has some influence in your local community.

 

[Ian B Walker]

I am an employer of one, me. They can stuff the no smoking rule where the sun does not shine. My premises has a sign on the door forbidding unauthorized entry. Easy, you don't want me smoking then stay outside. As for the Anti Smoking Police who will no doubt wander where they like, come to my place and ring the bell before entry.

Ok Rant over, it just makes me mad that I cannot do what I want in a premises paid though the nose by me.