A Smoking "Ban" too Far?

spen666

Firstly, let me admit to being anti - smoking. I personally would ban smoking anywhere if it was up to me


Now, as I commuted to work today ( hence the post in this section ) I walked down Chancery Lane and passed an office block whose doorway led directly onto the pavement. Attached to the doorway was a sing saying "Smoking is prohibited within 20 meters of this doorway"

Given that 20 meters from the doorway takes you across the street and indeed into the rear of premises opposite.

I wonder on what basis the building owners thing they can ban people smoking in a public place. (Clearly the government/ local council can pass appropriate laws/ by-laws)


If I was a smoker, I'd be tempted to organise flasgh mobs to smoke outside the building at regular intervals to p*ss the building owners off until they stop trying to control peoples lives outside of the building

asprilla

It's probably just to stop their employees from hanging around the doorway when they nip out for a crafty fag.

greg66_tri_v2.0

This suggests that the sign is bobbins.

If it isn't, then isn't the effect of the sign to prevent (or try to) anyone who is smoking and walking from travelling along Chancery Lane? Seems implausible.

asprilla

Edit: wrong thread, how did that happen?

alfablue

It is really annoying to have to hold one's breath when entering or leaving many buildings in order to avoid inhaling the second hand smoke of those that frequent these doorways. I think a ban from doorways is fine, however some enforcement would be appropriate!

asprilla

alfablue wrote:

It is really annoying to have to hold one's breath when entering or leaving many buildings in order to avoid inhaling the second hand smoke of those that frequent these doorways. I think a ban from doorways is fine, however some enforcement would be appropriate!

Problem is that on a street like Chacery Lane if you are having a fag you'll always be in front of someone's doorway. This just moves the problem.

Soul Boy

In around the City of London, West End etc, you're never more than 20m from someones doorway, so effectively a blanket ban?

Would be interesting to see exactly how it would be enforced.

MadammeMarie

spen666 wrote:

Firstly, let me admit to being anti - smoking. I personally would ban smoking anywhere if it was up to me


Now, as I commuted to work today ( hence the post in this section ) I walked down Chancery Lane and passed an office block whose doorway led directly onto the pavement. Attached to the doorway was a sing saying "Smoking is prohibited within 20 meters of this doorway"

Given that 20 meters from the doorway takes you across the street and indeed into the rear of premises opposite.

I wonder on what basis the building owners thing they can ban people smoking in a public place. (Clearly the government/ local council can pass appropriate laws/ by-laws)


If I was a smoker, I'd be tempted to organise flasgh mobs to smoke outside the building at regular intervals to p*ss the building owners off until they stop trying to control peoples lives outside of the building

Here in Canary Wharf, smoking is not allowed on Canada Square, a completely open space. I always wondered about the legality of that.

alfablue

Asprilla wrote:

alfablue wrote:

It is really annoying to have to hold one's breath when entering or leaving many buildings in order to avoid inhaling the second hand smoke of those that frequent these doorways. I think a ban from doorways is fine, however some enforcement would be appropriate!

Problem is that on a street like Chacery Lane if you are having a fag you'll always be in front of someone's doorway. This just moves the problem.

Yes, maybe a ban should relate to congregation of smokers, maybe make it illegal for 3 or more smokers to gather :evil:

amnezia

MadammeMarie wrote:

Here in Canary Wharf, smoking is not allowed on Canada Square, a completely open space. I always wondered about the legality of that.

Canary Wharf is private property so it is legal.

tailwindhome

I refer the gentleman to the previous smoking ban thread.


Thought you had an issue with posters confusing 'cake stop' and 'commuting'?

spen666

I

TailWindHome wrote:

I refer the gentleman to the previous smoking ban thread.


Thought you had an issue with posters confusing 'cake stop' and 'commuting'?

I would referyou to my opening post.

This was an incident that occurred on my commute - hence it goes in commuting


In any event, smoking around the cakes is not appropriate




Many of you in this thread seem to be missing the point that this sign is put there by a private company purporting to ban people from a lawful ( if disgusting habit) in a public place over which the company have no powers

alfablue

I get the point Spen, I can't blame them for trying it on, not that these sorts of signs have much impact on smokers (and I doubt that is because they are familiar with the legal situation).

tailwindhome

spen666 wrote:

I

TailWindHome wrote:

I refer the gentleman to the previous smoking ban thread.


Thought you had an issue with posters confusing 'cake stop' and 'commuting'?

I would referyou to my opening post.

This was an incident that occurred on my commute - hence it goes in commuting


In any event, smoking around the cakes is not appropriate

Surely if you were walking when you observed the sign (as per your OP) you should be posting in WalkingRadar

Furthermore by your logic any thought, however irrelevant which popped into your head while commuting would have a home here.

Or is it one rule for you and another for everyone else?

spen666

alfablue wrote:

I get the point Spen, I can't blame them for trying it on, not that these sorts of signs have much impact on smokers (and I doubt that is because they are familiar with the legal situation).

I think what struck me most was not the sign itself, but the purported ban distance of 20 meters - a huge distance and far more than the width of the whole street.

If sign had said for example 2 meters, I wouldn't have given it a 2nd thought even though the sign has no legal standing.

Eau Rouge

TailWindHome wrote:

I refer the gentleman to the previous smoking ban thread.


Thought you had an issue with posters confusing 'cake stop' and 'commuting'?

I was waiting for spenn to tell us all that there is a difference between a law from government/local authority that is legally binding and a notice on a building, that is not when I realized who had started the thread. I reckon someone has hacked his account

The notice means nothing, it's entirely unenforceable.

rjsterry

Having had to wade through ankle deep fag butts and squeeze between the smokers who insist on standing RIGHT in front of the main entrance door to our office building, I can very much see why they might have put it up, unenforceable as it might be. Mind you, as was discussed the other day, it seems ASLs are pretty much unenforceable as well, so where does that leave us?

EDIT: On second thoughts, if the sign is aimed at employees within the building, I'm sure they could write a clause into their contracts forbidding smoking within a 20m radius of the office, so maybe it is enforceable.

asprilla

Eau Rouge wrote:

The notice means nothing, it's entirely unenforceable.

In law yes, but not as far as the 'employee handbook' goes. It just means that HR can disciplin people they have told not to smoke in front of the building and can point to the fact theat they were given fair warning and that signage was in position.

AndyManc

Asprilla wrote:

It's probably just to stop their employees from hanging around the doorway when they nip out for a crafty fag.

+1

It is , many companies do the same, no organisation wants a load of people puffing away outside their premises, it's not the image they want to be associated with.


.

Sailorchick

I have on occasion told smokers to move away from the doors of our building. Its downright rude in my mind to smoke next to an entranceway.

When it rains they all huddle by the doors for some shelter. This means the automatic doors are open all the time and their smoke gets drawn into the building. My office is some distance away from the entrance but still gets effected. I have the right to not have to work in a smoky office.

tarquin_foxglove

A mate used to work for BAT (approx very late 90's), his desk had an ashtray built into it and the tea lady that came round would dish out packets of fags.

He left after a short period there & we've always wondered how they coped with the smoking ban.

greg66_tri_v2.0

Sailorchick wrote:

I have the right to not have to work in a smoky office.

Ah. But smokers have the right to shelter in the rain. Otherwise their fags get extinguished... :P

tailwindhome

Asprilla wrote:

Eau Rouge wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

The notice means nothing, it's entirely unenforceable.

In law yes, but not as far as the 'employee handbook' goes. It just means that HR can disciplin people they have told not to smoke in front of the building and can point to the fact theat they were given fair warning and that signage was in position.

I said no such thing

Though I do get confused easily

Eau Rouge has already noticed that the notice Spen previously noticed was a notice not worth noticing.

Pay no notice

bearfraser

remember;- If you are not part of the solution then you are part of the problem

greg66_tri_v2.0

bearfraser wrote:

remember;- If you are not part of the solution then you are part of the problem

Yes.

And make no mistake, too many cooks spoil the broth.

But never forget: many hands make light work.

holybinch

Holy f**k

Wouldn't it be simpler to just make fags illegal?
Seriously, they're, as we say in French, buggering flies here.

Either you sell the things, and allow people to smoke them, or you ban them altogether.
You can't have the best of both worlds.

As a repentant smoker, I'm amazed at the length people would go to "cure people from that disgustng habit".
Get started by cleaning our street from all those car fumes, ciggies can wait a bit.

roger_merriman

It's just one of the many signs and rules that people put up in the hope one will blindly follow them.

lost_in_thought

roger merriman wrote:

It's just one of the many signs and rules that people put up in the hope one will blindly follow them.

Exactly. And it gives security guards in the relevant building something to tap when they move smokers on, or try to.

cee

Yay me..

I stopped again...

One month, two weeks, one day, 17 hours, 21 minutes and 6 seconds ago to be precise!

Oddjob62

Asprilla wrote:

Eau Rouge wrote:

The notice means nothing, it's entirely unenforceable.

In law yes, but not as far as the 'employee handbook' goes. It just means that HR can disciplin people they have told not to smoke in front of the building and can point to the fact theat they were given fair warning and that signage was in position.

My company has a very public anti smoking stance, and iirc there is a section in the employee handbook about smoking, in so much that you must be very subtle if you are smoking in public. There is often a crowd of smokers from other companies in the building outside our front door but never anyone from mine.

cee

oh...sorry...i yayed myself without posting on topic.

yip...for employees (for disciplinary reasons)

and just to have the appearance of authority for other folks who do what they are told.

agree with banning smoking in establishments which serve food.
disagree with blanket ban in pubs. I want to see an extra licence (with cluases of issue including appropriate ventilation etc) so that pubs can pay extra to allow smoking, and giving people a choice.

Then people who have to

hold their breath

when passing a smoker at a doorway can go to completeley smoke free establishments, while people who don't feel as strongly can still have a choice.

As I said above, I stopped again about 6 weeks ago and can tell you that when I go the pub with a bunch of smoking friends...i end up sitting on my own while they smoke, or end up sitting outside in the beer garden with all the smokers anyway. I would like to be able to choose to sit in a pub with smoking friends.

even if I do feel secretley superior for having stopped