Hospital does smoking shelter U-turn (From Swindon Advertiser)
Get involved! Send photos, video, news & views. Text SWINDON NEWS to 80360 or email us
Hospital does smoking shelter U-turn
9:20am Wednesday 30th September 2009 in News
HOSPITAL bosses have performed an amazing U-turn on Great Western Hospital’s no smoking policy – all in the name of staff safety.
Site management company Carillion will resurrect two of the hospital’s dismantled smoking shelters by the middle of October in a bid to stop staff from sheltering under bus stops along the busy A4259.
The site off Marlborough Road has been non-smoking since the launch of GWH’s ‘Smoke Free’ status in January this year.
But with more staff trekking out to the outskirts of the site at all hours to get their nicotine fix, Carillion managers are concerned that it might not just be their health they are putting at risk.
Mark Bagnall, Carillion’s director of estates and facilities management, said: “Anecdotally we have heard that Wiltshire police have approached staff standing alongside the road and asked them to move further back onto the hospital site for safety reasons.
“We are, of course, constantly reviewing staff and patient safety and don’t want anyone being put at risk from passing vehicles”
Mr Bagnall said that because of the nature of the work the hospital does, staff are often standing off site to smoke at all hours of the night and day.
“For this reason we have decided to re-erect two smoking shelters toward the boundary area of the hospital site,” he said.
The shelters will be built within the gravel car park on the west side of the hospital. Both shelters will be under cover and protected by security cameras although Mr Bagnall said this is for the safety of smokers and not to monitor them.
“A risk assessment identified certain safety issues arising from staff and patients congregating at the entrance of the hospital,” he said.
“Especially with many staff working through the night there is no guarantee they would be safe standing at the side of the main road either from passing vehicles or other people.”
Mr Bagnall confessed that feedback from visitors also suggests that the sight of smokers at GWH’s entrance is damaging the hospital’s reputation.
He said: “Naturally we are concerned about how people outside of GWH perceive the hospital and with little else outside the main entrance other than a group of smokers, it doesn’t give the right impression.”
The hospital is still investigating the cost of resurrecting the shelters but they are expected to be ready for use in the next few weeks.
Although the shelters will be the only exception to the hospital’s Smoke Free status, hospital management is looking into possible adjustments to the roles of its two smoking officers who monitor smokers on site.
“There are a number of things to consider,” added Mr Bagnall. “In an ideal world we would not have to make these changes but staff and public safety comes first and I feel we have made the appropriate choice here.”
Comments(54)
Bobfm
says...
10:10am Wed 30 Sep 09
If that is not the case then I think the HSE need to call on the hospital to review their policies. Before any action is taken affecting staff, a full risk assessment must be carried out. Had GHW done this prior to removing the shelters they would have concluded that members of staff leaving hospital grounds at night and in the dark would have been at serious RISK. To do such a RS after the event is a clear breach of HSE rules and should be investigated.
Old Town
says...
10:12am Wed 30 Sep 09
.
What is it with all the non smokers out there ? Why do you get everything you want and us smokers get nothing ?
.
Why should I be pushed from pillar to post as an adult who is doing something perfectly legal and legitamite becasue you don't happen to like it ?
.
Outside in the open air - getting in no-ones way, it's just ridiculous and petty...
.
Smokers have compromised beyond belief in this country - I cannot see the non-smokers compromising here ?
.
I might not like the way you dress or the way you smell, but should I be able to push you around because of it ? Of course not - so why do you feel it is OK the other way round ?
mr_fix_it
says...
10:12am Wed 30 Sep 09
Bobfm
says...
10:13am Wed 30 Sep 09
Casual Observer
says...
10:24am Wed 30 Sep 09
Bobfm wrote:Indeed Bob, it's a petty argument, and as you said the other day...
legally enforceable action could not be taken . Of Course.
"The priority in tobacco control should be on extending protections from the severe hazards of secondhand smoke in workplaces to all workers throughout the country"
Couldn't agree more. It's great though that the smoking ban in general is proving good for the nations health...
http://tinyurl.com/l
tqmfe
Bobfm
says...
10:25am Wed 30 Sep 09
Bobfm
says...
10:31am Wed 30 Sep 09
As for the link, no data has been published to assess this study and the 10% study in the article from England hasn't even been conducted yet as ASH had to admit.
'
Correction: Heart attacks plummet after smoking ban, ASH Daily News 14th September 2009
We have heard that the figures reported in the Sunday Times yesterday (and now circulating elsewhere) are not based on any research conducted to date.
The impact of the smokefree legislation on heart attacks is being analysed by Anna Gilmore and team at Bath but they have no final results yet.
Their findings will be available next year in time for the three year review of the legislation.'
Casual Observer
says...
10:40am Wed 30 Sep 09
: "CO that wasn't me, as I think you well know, that person, using that login has not posted since, at least under that name, so one assumes they have been stopped from doing so."
I have no idea what you are talking about Bob but here's a bit more of what you posted the other day...
"In the long run, the extension of the smoke-free agenda to the wide open outdoors is going to harm our efforts to protect people from secondhand smoke in the places where they really need protection - workplaces, bars, casinos, and restaurants."
Did you or did you not post this?
Bobfm
says...
11:01am Wed 30 Sep 09
But I guess would ruin your perverse fun.
Casual Observer
says...
11:16am Wed 30 Sep 09
Your selective memory has obviously taken over your fuzzy little mind Bob if you can't even remember what you posted on, and now you have to fall back on the old "nothing to contribute" card.
No wonder you were booted out of the force, as an investigator you are about as much use as Anne Franke's drumkit.
Janais is back
says...
11:18am Wed 30 Sep 09
Let the smokers continue I say & Let them pay the taxes as well- at least their taxes offset other government taxes that would increase if nobody smoked anymore.
But just don't smoke anywhere near me ....................
..
Janais is back
says...
11:18am Wed 30 Sep 09
Let the smokers continue I say & Let them pay the taxes as well- at least their taxes offset other government taxes that would increase if nobody smoked anymore.
But just don't smoke anywhere near me ....................
..
Even Angrier Monkey
says...
11:46am Wed 30 Sep 09
So far they have built then removed then built again 2 smoking shelters and employed 2 full time jobsworths to bother smokers. This is taxpayers money that should have been directed at patient care. Heads should roll for this.
Even Angrier Monkey
says...
11:51am Wed 30 Sep 09
Happily the Smoke police didnt "catch" me, although if they had I dont see what exactly it is they are supposed to do given that it is not illeagal.
Even Angrier Monkey
says...
11:52am Wed 30 Sep 09
Happily the Smoke police didnt "catch" me, although if they had I dont see what exactly it is they are supposed to do given that it is not illeagal.
PaulD
says...
12:02pm Wed 30 Sep 09
all the staff in there huddled like tramps on their cardboard box seats.
I don't really care much about teh smokoing at the GWH site, as long as its nowhere near the entrance like it used to be.
If smokers want to pollute and poison themselves, then that is up to them, as long as nobody else has to put up with their foul odour.
I just wish some of the supermarket chains would get tough on those that think its OK to light up directly outside the entrances to the shops which forces you to have to walk through the stench in and out. To me that's as antisocial as letting your dog crap everywhere and not cleaning it up.
In fact I wonder how much of a union there is between the set of smokers and the set of dog foulers. I bet its similar.
PaulD
says...
2:11pm Wed 30 Sep 09
Typical selfish smoker attitude.
If only smkers could actually smell how bad their odour is then many would stop smoking instantly.
csw swindon
says...
2:14pm Wed 30 Sep 09
PaulD
says...
2:17pm Wed 30 Sep 09
read the rest for yourself...
http://snipurl.com/s
8gl3
Even Angrier Monkey
says...
2:53pm Wed 30 Sep 09
PaulD wrote:I'm not bothered if some people dont like the way I smell. I dont like some peoples perfume or aftershave or the smell of certain foods - but unlike you I dont make a fuss about it
Even Angrier Monkey - lets just hope that all the poisons including carbon monoxide which you chose to cover yourself, your clothes and your hair with managed to fully disperse off you before you contaminated anyone else you came into contact with at the hospital then eh. Typical selfish smoker attitude. If only smkers could actually smell how bad their odour is then many would stop smoking instantly.
If you seriously think a whiff of someones coat that smells of cigarette smoke is going to kill you then I think you need some help for paranoia. I assume that you wear a face mask to protect yourself from car fumes in town / city centres?
Typical anti smoking health facist comments - choose to ignore any other threat to your health and focus on smoking (mostly because you dont like the smell)
PaulD
says...
3:09pm Wed 30 Sep 09
Ammonia: Household cleaner
Angelica root extract: Known to cause cancer in animals
Arsenic: Used in rat poisons
Benzene: Used in making dyes, synthetic rubber
Butane: Gas; used in lighter fluid
Carbon monoxide: Poisonous gas
Cadmium: Used in batteries
Cyanide: Deadly poison
DDT: A banned insecticide
Ethyl Furoate: Causes liver damage in animals
Lead: Poisonous in high doses
Formaldehiyde: Used to preserve dead specimens
Methoprene: Insecticide
Megastigmatrienone: Chemical naturally found in grapefruit juice
Maltitol: Sweetener for diabetics
Napthalene: Ingredient in mothballs
Methyl isocyanate: Its accidental release killed 2000 people in Bhopal, India in 1984
Polonium: Cancer-causing radioactive element
then yes I am.
If by 'health facist' I would prefer that vulnerable people in a hospital were protected from people who happily spread these poisons around in the name of 'free will' then yes I am.
and no it it is not mostly 'because I do not like the smell' I am capable of understanding that the reason my brain recoils from the smell is because it is poison.
Support_British_Manufacturing
says...
3:29pm Wed 30 Sep 09
The person who came up with policy needs sacking for wasting time, money and resource, but in my experience of such things they normally get promoted!
itsamess
says...
5:52pm Wed 30 Sep 09
Your research capabilities are or have been very limited. I would suggest you actually look at where all these dangerous elements come from which end up in tobacco. A big clue being tobacco is grown and breathe the air and feed off the soil and rainfall. Perhaps you have heard of the ozone layer and how that has been damaged? Everyday foods like veges--meats--fish carry many of these elements because man has put all of them into our atmosphere and is brought down by rain--acid rain. Take a look at all the poisons in a car--its seats--carpets--cont
rols--electrics fuels--oils and additives-and of course the emissions. In your house is the same there are so many poisons--your gas boiler for example--your carpets be they nylon or wool--fridge--cleane
rs--water even--woods for furnishings--even your telly gives off fumes and rays. So my friend we all have to eat drink and walk out in the air and breathe all the elements you describe and eat them in our food and in our drinks--or is not coffee and tea grown? So tell me mastermind--why doesnt your brain recoil from all these poisons then--the truth is you are just climbing on the bandwagon that is slowly eroding everyones right to a freedom of choice. Do you drink?--do you like the smell of puke--or do you like to see drunkards fighting due to drink--or falling over from its affects--do you see a smoker doing any of these things after a smoke--no. So please do not deny smokers the right to smoke in the open--and i am a non smoker like you but i have the common sense to know there are greater dangers than smoking.
Even Angrier Monkey
says...
9:47am Thu 1 Oct 09
Bobfm
says...
10:05am Thu 1 Oct 09
CO, can't understand why my piece of fun was removed, did you request it. It did not contain bad language of the sort some post. Perhaps our two resident !!!!!, soon to be unemployed MP's objected. We know how the Adver like to spare their blushes.
By the way I take it you now know that what you posted were penned by another not me, as the comments clearly show.
Kineasy
says...
10:35am Thu 1 Oct 09
PaulD
says...
10:45am Thu 1 Oct 09
Most of the chemicals in cigarettes is added by the manufacturer in order to keep the smoker hooked. They are not contained in natural tobacco leaves. Nicotine levels have been adjusted to insure addiction. How many smokers do you think there would be if it were not addivtive?
The point about toxins in food is that I can controll what and how much I eat. I choose how much fat, sugar, salt and protein I eat. I can decide how much fish I eat in order to balance essential nutirents against pollutants such as heavy metals. Smokers force other people to ingest those chemicals because of their selfish addicition to this drug.
Your aguments about drunkards and puke are bizzare - of course I don't like those things. who does? What exactly is your point in regard to the passive poisoning people by smokers?
If you have such a problem over this yourself then I suggest you campaign for them to be banned or controlled more.
as for your claims about freedom of choice - I expect you only allow your staff to smoke is that they have threatened to walk out and cost you money if you didn't. You free will argument is just like RFMs - based on your pocket.
Ore you going to tell us all that cigarettes are harmless next?
ifuwantblood
says...
1:05pm Thu 1 Oct 09
Bobfm
says...
1:43pm Thu 1 Oct 09
And yes with regard to my business the loss of revenue as a result of the smoking ban is a major consideration, why shouldn't it be.
If you were a news agents and the Government suddenly said, you could no longer sell the Sun (wonder why that would happen !!!!) you would rightly be cheesed off because it was a legal paper.
sunflowerliz
says...
1:46pm Thu 1 Oct 09
Even Angrier Monkey
says...
2:42pm Thu 1 Oct 09
PaulD wrote:If we lived in a perfect pure and clean environment you might have a point.
itsamess you are right about VOCs - I understand them quite well but am no expert. This is why I tend not to breathe in the fumes from burning TVs and cars. Most of the chemicals in cigarettes is added by the manufacturer in order to keep the smoker hooked. They are not contained in natural tobacco leaves. Nicotine levels have been adjusted to insure addiction. How many smokers do you think there would be if it were not addivtive? The point about toxins in food is that I can controll what and how much I eat. I choose how much fat, sugar, salt and protein I eat. I can decide how much fish I eat in order to balance essential nutirents against pollutants such as heavy metals. Smokers force other people to ingest those chemicals because of their selfish addicition to this drug. Your aguments about drunkards and puke are bizzare - of course I don't like those things. who does? What exactly is your point in regard to the passive poisoning people by smokers? If you have such a problem over this yourself then I suggest you campaign for them to be banned or controlled more. as for your claims about freedom of choice - I expect you only allow your staff to smoke is that they have threatened to walk out and cost you money if you didn't. You free will argument is just like RFMs - based on your pocket. Ore you going to tell us all that cigarettes are harmless next?
But we dont.
You've not answered the point regarding evironmental pollution beacasue you dont have an answer. Walking through a crowd of smokers will not have any affect on your health. Standing next to someone who smoked a cigatrette an hour ago will not damage your health. You do understand the concept of passive smoking is that it will damage your health IF EXPOSED TO SMOKE ON A REGULAR AND PROLONGED BASIS right?
If you are that precious about your health you should worry a whole lot more about the air in busy traffic areas or the pollution created by your own car than you should walking past a man in the street with a fag in his mouth.
itsamess
says...
3:14pm Thu 1 Oct 09
Sorry my friend--passive smoking is hardly an issue--i have pointed out quite adequately that we are all subjected to passive breathing in of all the available toxins given out by foods-vehicles and most products that are spewed out from a variety of sources which we have no choice in-my point is very simply that we choose to drive cars despite all the dangers and the toxins in the products used to make them. Maybe you do not consider just how many toxins a car produces in addition to engine emissions--brake dust--true asbestos was prohibited years ago but even modern systems produce poisons--electrical systems produce carbons too and batteries acid gasses. Even the claimed environmentally friendly electric or gas vehicles produce toxins. I would suggest in higher volumes than toxins from cigarettes and more damaging. On that basis should cars be banned? Food again does not warn us of all the toxins that could have been ingested in the growing process--and realitically cannot control your food to avoid these toxins as there are no details of what could be in these products. My position on passive smoking is the same as breathing in our "fresh" air--if people want to poison the air with toxins i see it as unfair to discriminate against one form of air pollution and not the rest. We can choose to drive a car--we can choose to smoke or drink--if we drink and drive we become a danger--if we smoke and drive--not. I choose not to drink or smoke-- drive knowing my vehicle produces toxins and eat what i like. I will not tell others what they should choose to do nor influence them. Do not make assumptions as to my decision to permit smoking as all my staff were with me prior to the ban and i did conform at the time--it became noticeable that work standards fell after this was introduced which affected all the workers income due to bonus payments dropping. A few changes allowed a loophole to be used and independently my workers 100% agreed smoking should be permitted. How ridiculous to suggest staff would walk out either way as they have worked together for 20+years smokers and non. Its called working in harmony. Now you know how terrorists evolve--they try to force others to follow their belief.
PaulD
says...
3:24pm Thu 1 Oct 09
"Now you know how terrorists evolve--they try to force others to follow their belief." - well that was the end of the flimsy credibility you had.
Even Angrier Monkey
says...
4:16pm Thu 1 Oct 09
Just admit it - you dont like the smell of tobbacco smoke and are a deeply intollerant person.
Kineasy
says...
4:26pm Thu 1 Oct 09
ifuwantblood
says...
4:33pm Thu 1 Oct 09
Kineasy
says...
4:55pm Thu 1 Oct 09
itsamess
says...
5:43pm Thu 1 Oct 09
Oh are you saying i paid my lawyer loads of money for incorrect advice? Do accept we are not all complete idiots. Do accept that we all have different views and most are prepared to tolerate others ways. Do accept a terrorist is someone that believes their way is the only way. You dear fellow cannot accept facts and try to amplify claims that have no credibility whilst ignoring facts--simply because you do not agree with smoking--yet you cannot smell exhaust fumes--how strange. End of debate!!!
ifuwantblood
says...
9:37pm Thu 1 Oct 09
.
Of course everything you have said makes sense - but don't expect the smokers themselves to take logic and fact on board. Because they cannot justify their pathological and anti-social behaviour with logic, they have to pursue illogical arguments in order to allow themselves to conclude that their weakness is in fact justifiable.
.
To do otherwise would force them to admit to themselves that they are in fact foul smelling morons who are happy to spend around £1500 a year slowly poisoning themselves to death and, worse, putting both adults and children around them at risk.
.
Hence the term, 'smoker's logic'. Its what keeps them all on the treadmill.
undercoverbrother
says...
9:57pm Thu 1 Oct 09
PaulD
says...
8:41am Fri 2 Oct 09
I am never forced to stand within a couple of feet of a running exhaust and breathe in the fumes, but often have no choice with smokers.
If you accept even the slightest fact that smoking is poisonous then your own admission that you smoke at the hospital simply labels you an obnoxious, selfish cretin.
itsamess - if indeed you have a legal loophole which allows smoking within the workplace then share it here - I have asked you before to do that. After all you leep bleating about freedom to choose and people's rights. Let everyone know how it can be done and to prtoect their 'freedoms'. Tell us all, we'd all love to hear how, especially RFM.
and as for the 'freedom' to smoke - drug addicts don't have much freedom to choose - that is the nature of addiction. If you do allow smoking then you are perpetuating your workers addictions. How many of them secretely would rather give up and had hoped the ban would help them (as it has with many other people), but you have taken that away. You can't pick and choose the laws you want to obey and the laws you want to break.
But go on - prove me wrong. Tell us the loophole. Tell us the name of your firm if you are so proud of your 'employee rights' I'm sure plenty of skilled people would love to work for you given the enlightened employee freedoms you have in place. It would be beneficial to you.
Even Angrier Monkey
says...
9:47am Fri 2 Oct 09
If we are going to start throwing insults around I'd like to take a minute to point out that you are a deeply intollerant health facist whos paranoid fears about your health are deeply illogical and ignore basic common sense.
Do you seriously think that you need to be sat in an inclosed space with a running engine to be exposed to engine pollution? are you really that thick? And you think thats the same as sitting next to someone who had a fag an hour ago?
Anyway I look forward to sharing a lift with you at the hospital, no doubt you'll be reduced to some sort of gibbering wreck and accuse me of attempted murder for smoking an hour earlier or something
Bobfm
says...
12:16pm Fri 2 Oct 09
Then we can see which person walks out. I've challenged both Amanda Sandford and Deborah Arnott of ASH but oddly they don't want to. Wonder why.
itsamess
says...
12:54pm Fri 2 Oct 09
Unfortunately you do not get the point--which is quite simply there are dangers lurking everywhere--created by man. We cannot avoid them!! To suggest you can walk in the streets without ingesting toxins is ludicrous. If you travel in a car with all the windows closed and sat in traffic pray tell me about the fresh air that is inducted into your vehicle is free of all the toxins being drawn in from other vehicles exhausts. You listed numerous toxic elements manufacturers of cigarettes put in to them to create an addiction.--well on that basis there is a clear case to ban all manufacture of the product--as well as cars and just about every other product including foods as everything derives originally from the land and atmosphere. As i have said--we have had these choices for years and i do not agree that smokers should be isolated in removing the fundamental right to smoke if they so choose. Why should business be affected by such bans--is it a fact that so many pubs have closed due to the ban. You must have a short memory as hospitals permitted smoking as the norm--PMH had day rooms where patients and visitors could smoke if they chose to. Clearly common sense tells us that smoking is not suitable in certain workplaces on hygeine or fire risks etc. However i would feel happier in a car with a smoker than someone who had been drinking. Likewise i would rather walk down the street with a smoker that someone bladdered. I dont want to breathe in the fumes from more cars than smokers--cars produce in minutes more toxins than any smoker gives out in a lifetime. Get real its a free world and we have all these crosses to bear whether we like it or not--and no i do not give personal information nor legal advice-you are clever--study the legislation--use your brain and you will see the law is not absolute. Do not try to deprive folk of any pleasure they derive from whatever habits they adopt just because you dont like it. Your petty attitude and claims have little or no credibility.
PaulD
says...
1:43pm Fri 2 Oct 09
RFM - there is no 'them' I am not part of a 'brigade' or 'movement' I am not a member of ASH or any other group. I am simply someone who agrees with the current ban on smoking. I would like to see a total eradication of tobacco (as I would of heroin, cocaine and other harmful drugs). As for your test, that is utterly bizarre. Would you sit in a room with exhaust fumes being pumped in?
Monkey - believe me I am no gibbering wreck. And as for a 'fag an hour ago' that is fine - the odious poisons you have shrouded yourself with will have dissipated by then.
itsamess - I can only coclude that your are either a fantasist or a total liar. Any 'loophole' in the law that you can buy would be being used everywhere. your accusations that those who oppose passive smoking are 'terrorists' go to show that you have a loose grip on reality.
As for hospitals having smoking rooms in the past - well so what? It's a bizzare argumant as are your claims of preferring to be in a car with a smoker than a drinker (I assume you mean a drink driver) - again - a bizzare argument.
The bottom line is - the law is in existance. Smokers are in the minority.
itsamess
says...
1:50pm Fri 2 Oct 09
I raised this issue before--and the same rule would apply to many a wide variety of products that produce fumes--toxic fumes. Even the humble electric car--despite the move away from lead/acid batteries. The LPG cars and current development of hydrogen cell fuels. No matter what we think we all produce toxins in our day to day life--no complaints from the public there--just the purely social habit of smoking. I am surprised so few actually realise that all these toxins derive from mother earth and ultimately return to mother earth--science is such a wonderful subject. I can find far better issues than this--but the anti-smoking brigade do not appreciate how this legislation has affected business and social life in general. Consider this Bob "If your workplace is your business and your home-what is the law" If it is your home and you invite guests--would you allow them to smoke" Think about it!!
itsamess
says...
2:18pm Fri 2 Oct 09
Do get a life--the only certainly in life is death. By all means enjoy your life--but do allow others to lead their lives as they choose. "Oh ye without sin cast the first stone"-"Live and let live the world will be a better place. Remember also that one day you may end up seriously injured and the medic in attendance just may be a smoker--good god how unthinkable that a smoker could one day save your life. Are you sure you have a heart?
ifuwantblood
says...
4:42pm Fri 2 Oct 09
itsamess
says...
6:24pm Fri 2 Oct 09
Ha ha the fanatical posts on here are enough to drive anyone to drink--and no--never been a drinker either. However i do have above average knowledge of chemicals and toxins and merely point out that apparently harmless items can contain more core chemicals and toxins and affect all of us --smokers or not--i suspect that if you have a car and was told you must not use it because it throws toxins out you would be shouting. Yet a single car can produce more toxins in mins that cigarettes can in a year. You are entitled to your opinion and condone a ban on smoking calling smokers foul smelling morons putting adults and children at risk. With your strong sense of smell you cannot smell the fumes from cars? Being the poisons and particulates are directly emitted from the exhaust along roads that adults and childen breath in--that does not bother you. Just cigarettes. Add to this when it rains all the toxins and particulates are washed down the drains to be cleaned up and effluents sent to the rivers and sea or back onto the land into the food chain. You just do not have a legitimate argument. So face it the humble cigarette does less damage than the car--should the car be banned?
Kineasy
says...
8:16pm Fri 2 Oct 09
Ha ha the fanatical posts on here are enough to drive anyone to drink.
Indeed yes!
I think I shall have an organic muesli bar and a swig of spring water. This will enable me to live my boring, totally useless, risk free life for ever.
On the other hand I could have a couple of bottles of good wine, a sirloin steak, Rasberries and cream, some stilton cheese, finishing with a glass or two of port and a good cigar. And so to bed with a not so good woman. If I am spared, I could do the same tomorrow and the day after maybe.
Heaven on earth!
ifuwantblood
says...
9:46pm Fri 2 Oct 09
Sounds like a great night, and I would not for a moment wish to stand in your way. Just take the cigar (and the prossie) somewhere else please as I would not wish to be tainted by either.
.
itsamess,
smokers logic..
Kineasy
says...
11:01pm Fri 2 Oct 09
ifuwantblood wrote:You are very unlikely to get the opportunity, far too risky. Got to go.
Kineasy, Sounds like a great night, and I would not for a moment wish to stand in your way. Just take the cigar (and the prossie) somewhere else please as I would not wish to be tainted by either. . itsamess, smokers logic..
Bobfm
says...
8:52am Sat 3 Oct 09
Has Eureka landed. You are absolutely correct, however the anti smoking lobby would have you believe that in 30 minutes in a well ventilated pub, you could die of a heart attack, from a previously healthy position from inhaling passive smoke.
My point is a simple one, in a room with passive smoke, I will survive, the other person wouldn't.
Janais is back says...
10:05am Wed 30 Sep 09
How much has the fiasco of dismantling the shelters & now making them again actually cost us?
.... and even making them security friendly with a camera as well - who actually believes that it is for their security? More like seeing who is spending most time there!
What about the patients having to smell the smoker's nicotine clothes & breath - especially those diagnosed with cancer.
If an employer makes a decision then they should stick with it - if their staff get run over by cars when going off site for a cigarette that is their own problem - not the responsibility of the Hospital.
....... and if they do get run over there is a Hospital near by!
Silly me for thinking that this could have something to do with the smoking ban being labeled unlawful by some people!