Weather: Hi 4°C / Lo 2°C
Smoking debate sparks new row
Sunday, 25 October 2009
enlarge
Print
Email
Smokers are being told to stub it out in their OWN homes before any visit by council staff. The move by Moyle District Council is designed to protect employees from exposure to second-hand smoke.
But it was slammed as “ludicrous” last night by lobby group Forest, who warned other local authorities across Northern Ireland were likely to follow suit.
The smoking ban, introduced in May 2006, covers all enclosed public places as well as the workplace.
But the legislation did not include any reference to extending it to people’s homes.
The new policy in Moyle, which covers areas including Ballycastle, Cushendun and Bushmills, stipulates:
“Where council employees are required to work or visit other premises that are not entirely smoke-free, all reasonable arrangements will be made to minimise exposure to second-hand smoke.
“These may include, where practicable, informing our customers and clients of the council’s policy in advance and requesting the environment is kept smoke free whilst council staff are visiting a clients premises.”
One council source told Sunday Life: “We’re not attempting to ban people from smoking in their own homes.
“All we’re asking is that people respect the views and health of visiting council staff.
“As employers the council has a legal duty to protect the interests and health of staff.”
Smoking is not permitted in any part of any Moyle council building and also banned at all times in council vehicles.
The guidelines raise the prospect of home visits or repairs being refused to those who defy the ‘smoke-free’ request.
A spokesman for Forest-Freedom Organisation for the Right to Enjoy Tobacco said: “This is ludicrous and all commonsense has now gone out the window.
“No doubt other councils will follow this lead which is further aimed at marginalising those who smoke.”
Post a comment
Limit: 500 characters
View all comments that have been posted about this article
Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP address logged and may be used to prevent further submissions. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by BelfastTelegraph.co.uk's Terms of Use.
Posts submitted in UPPERCASE letters will be rejected.
Also in this section
- Online feast for culture vultures
- Test Drive The Arts
Margaret/Tery/U92,
I wonder do yous drive cars releasing HIGHLY toxic fumes into the air that all of us breath? I wonder if yous use a substance called plastic that is very toxic to produce, is made of fossil fuels, is non bio-degradable and is in many cases non-recyclable?... Could go on and on and we'd prob find you use all of these passively dangerous things but never complain about them... Your hypocrites...
BTW I wonder how the health of 1000s of bankrupt ex-publicans and ex-staff is?
Posted by Non-hypocritical Non-Smoker | 20.12.09, 14:19 GMT
Teri, there is NO evidence that second-hand smoke has any effect whatsoever. the supposed safe level (occupational health and safety administration, USA) is 500 microgrammes per cubic metre, secondhand smoke is typically between 0.01 and 5 micrograms.
Posted by richard | 20.12.09, 13:43 GMT
I recently visited germany and they are now smoking in some bars what is happening here we should have the same rights as the rest of europe get out and fight for your rights
Posted by stevie | 15.11.09, 15:08 GMT
Perhaps Moyle Council could explain their views on privacy and the Data Protection Act as well?
What about the legal obligations towards ratepayers?
Though it's fair to assume that not too many homeowners will have to stub out waiting on a visit from council officials.
I would email them with a complaint but you just never know who they might copy it in full to...
Posted by MoleMutters | 31.10.09, 14:08 GMT
There is a vast body of evidence that tobacco smoke DOES harm non-smokers. The council is simply trying to protect its' workers from this harm. You wouldn't expect people to work around asbestos dust without protective equipment. I don't smoke, but I don't care if others do, as long as it is not damaging my health through passive smoking. Look at how the health of Irish bar staff has improved with the changes around smoking in pubs.
Posted by Teri | 27.10.09, 02:11 GMT
It's no different than expecting people to keep unruly dogs under control or ensure that there are no other hazards in their OWN homes when someone must come into them on official business.
Neither SHS exposure nor any other kind of health hazard should ever be a job requirement for anyone, regardless of the job site.
As far as SHS being safe because people don't die in bloody convulsions within 10 seconds of exposure to more than two molecules of it is simply stupid. Billions of people around the world have survived wars and famines. That does not make living in a war zone or starvation "safe."
SHS is a health hazard; only die-hard smokers, the tobacco industry, and tobacco industry puppets, the same people who insisted for 30 years that smoking was safe and non-addictive, still dispute that.
Posted by U92 | 27.10.09, 01:41 GMT
Smokers may have the right to use a legally available product but not where it affects others.
Smokers' rights stop at their own lips.
Clean water, clean air - every body's basic rights - smokers would sure start complaining if someone put poisons in their drinking water, wouldn't they.
Employees who enter private homes have every right to the same safe working conditions as in every other workplace and, as such, can expect smokers to refrain from smoking whilst they are in their premises.
Advice from a leading thoracic surgeon - "if you can smell the smoke, it's (i.e.the poisons are) going into your lungs."
Posted by Margaret Hogge | 26.10.09, 23:49 GMT
Second hand smoke has never harmed anybody. Billions of people around the world have been exposed to SHS and are still alive and well.
Posted by chas | 25.10.09, 19:45 GMT
Do these idiots really believe that a wisp of smoke can kill stone dead. Nobody and I repeat NOBODY in this world has ever been documented as dying from so called 'second hand smoke'
It is a myth perpetrated by the giant pharmaceutical companies in order to make billions of dollars profit on their totally useless nicotine replacement therapy (NRT)
There is already suggestion that the NHS should pay for this expensive NRT and keep people on it for LIFE.
Imagine the gains to the drug companies and the fact that even non smokers will have to pay for this through their taxes should be enough incentive to keep these rabid anti smokers quiet.
Posted by Brenda | 25.10.09, 18:37 GMT