Rebecca
Staff are still allowed a smoking break - they have a lunch break, like everyone else. Previously the smokers in my office would have their lunch break, come back and clock in and *then* go outside to have a fag on work time while the rest of us dealt with their calls.
Re: having a smoking room, there are no break facilities for any staff in the Town Hall due to the lack of space - they got rid of the canteen to make way for more offices so we are all out in the cold and have to go elsewhere at lunchtime, not just the smokers. If there's no room for a canteen/break area (which would benefit all staff), there can't be space for a special room just for the smokers.
Paul
I want to see smoking banned in at least one pub per village & non smoking rooms in the rest. Not only does secondary smoke damage your health but also makes your clothes stink.
charlie
the law states that you are entitled to have a break of ten minutes for every two hours of work so why cant people smoke on that break as long as it dont interfere with other employees as on that time it is your own time not the companys time because you dont get payed for that time. some people drink coffee on that time some people smoke, that is what smokers mean by having "right of a cigarette break" if you want to say it polictically correct "coffee break" so stop hunting smokers!
charlie
Not long ago non-smokers requested to change the law so percentage of bars and restaurants ect.. to be non smoking using thier rights as non-smokers thats fair enough.And that was accepted by smokers with no problems, so what now are the rights of smokers? this is becoming a witch hunt for smokers without the option of compermise like was given to non-smokers. this country is becoming a nanny state that is silently revoking the personal rights of people. I guess it is just like the saying " you give an inch and they take a mile" that is what is starting to happen.
chen
people should be ban of the smoking in public building
Ace Riley
Having just being diagnosed with a cigarette related desease that i have never heard of, i should think people need educating on the dangers of smoking passive or actual .COPD is a desease of the lungs that will never be cured people need to understand that its not just cancer that cigarettes cause its other killer deseases that you give yourself and others around you .i gave up smoking imediately i found that i had COPD .
Andy
I've never smoked, but this government is making me think about taking it up! Don't smack, don't hunt, don't eat 'bad' food, don't own a gun, don't use your car, don't think racist thoughts... what next - don't criticise the government?
Phil
I support a ban on smoking in public places. Smoking is an addiction. Alcoholism is addiction. Drugs are an addiction. Why should employers be forced to provide 'facilities' for staff with an addiction?
What about providing a bar at work so alcoholics can get their fix? Why don't employers provide a quiet room for employees to 'shoot up' drugs to feed that addiction? Why then should nicotine addicts get special priveleges?
Alcoholics who drink are not allowed to drive motor vehicles because they could harm other people by doing so. Smokers should not be allowed to pollute the environment with toxic chemicals if it forces other people to inhale their smoke. We had the right to breathe clean air long before anyone invented smoking.
Jemima
I find the whole thing ridiculous.Will the Council, in its infinite wisdom, sack workers who take a smoking break? How will they police this ban on smoking breaks? Will they employ people to follow other people around to make sure they really are going to the toilet and not nipping outside for a quick drag? Banning smoking in some areas of pubs and restuarants is a good idea, have rooms set aside for smokers, or as some one else already suggested, strong extractor fans, but banning smoking completely? Thats madness. The Government need to think about all the revenue they'll lose.The effects of too much alchohol are well known too but no one wants to ban that, even though its responsible for alot of youth crime today. No one ever fought anyone from being too high on nicotine, but every weekend night there's a fight outside some pub or other. The list of diseases that alchohol cause is longer than that of nicotine, and more frightening. It can cause all the cancers, impotence, infertility, alzeheimers and thats just to name a few. So while everyone's busy banging on about smoking, what about alchohol?
Tony Sloan - Manchester
Smokers will never do as much damage to this city as the council have done in a million year. Why don't they concentrate on doing the job they are elected to instead of nannying the staff to the point of politically correct oblivion. Clean the streets, educate the kids, look after the old folk, etc. etc. etc.
Geof - AUL
I was on a train with a smoking carriage. It was full, with the only seats in the smoker, which was almost empty. The whole 2hour journey was spent with a constant steam of smokers coming for a smoke then going because of the foul smell. I smokers cannot stand the stink, why should I as a non-smoker have to endure it. If smokers cannot be considerate, then ban it.
Lawrence Salvoni
Smoke fee Manchester? I'd love it. Myself and nearly everybody I know avoid doing anything social in Manchester as everywhere leaves you smelling like an ashtray at the end of your evening.
To all the folks who say it'd be the death of the pub etc.. I say "Fear not, there are lots more folks who're looking forward to going out once your establishments are smoke free" By smoke free I mean - no smoking at all - not the age old ridulous situation of a smoke free dining area. There are always joks about it, but nobody takes it seriously, Smoke is not stopped by a wooden trellis with some ivy on it!
I wonder, has anybody got the %'age of the population who actually do smoke? I'd be curious to know what it is. In any event theire monopoly on pubs, clubs and restraunts should be brought to an end.
Peter Clifford
I would most assuredly look elsewhere. This is unarguably a breach of human rights. If I were to have the misfortune of working for the city council I would be quite prepared to risk dismissal to uphold my right to smoke & would then have them up infront of a tribunal for unfair dismissal. It's about time the 13 million smokers in this country started standing up for our rights for this is little better than outright prejudice & discrimination against a pretty significant percentage of the population. New Labour?, more like New Fascists!!
anon
Stopping smoking on breaks seems a tad unreasonable. I'm not sure how you police this either. I appreciate not everyone likes it but I think this might be a step too far.
Angela - Trafford
If smokers were more considerate, maybe non smokers would be more tolerant. Smokers litter the pavements with cigarette ends, they flirt them out of car windows and throw then on the ground outside work places making the entrance look an awful mess. If you go into a pub or restaurant, they have no regard for you if you don't smoke and persist in smoking where people are eating. These are the problems I have so if they didn't do it I might be more tolerant.
Paul Carlyle
I am an ex-smoker but I believe in free choice and facilities for smoking as well as non-smoking facilities. Providing no facilities at all for a smoker and implementing draconian rules is nothing short of cruely and is viciously inhuman. The proposal would certainly make me bar the public buildings in search of fascist free areas.
John Lewis
Some simple facts that the anti-smokers should realise. Smoking is legal while smokers in this country contribute 拢19,000 per second to the economy, they should be allowed to smoke. For every 拢1 smokers cost the NHS they contribute 拢3.60 and a ban would be undemocratic. 11.7 million voted for blair, 15 million people smoke in the uk. Smoking in certain places would be good, but there has to be choice!!!
Manc in Canada
Here in Ottawa a Non Smoking ban has been in force for the last 2 years. this includes pubs and resturants. It took time to adjust.Profits were down at first due to the smokers refusing to accept the ban. Now pubs are full again. some bars have built rooms for smokers only. I think its a step forward for Manchester. Maybe have designated smoking areas outside
RM
Jack from Bolton: I don't smoke. I don't have kids (molly-coddled or otherwise). I don't own a car, let alone a 4-wheel drive.
If we're going to remove poisons from our environment, why not start with a ban on offensive people who make ill-informed sweeping statements about the 75% of the population who choose not to deliberately harm themselves and others.
Rachael
Good on Pat Karney and co! It's a very positive step in the right direction. Smokers can whine on and on about their rights as much as they like, but ultimately, they don't have the right to adversely affect the health of others around them in places they share with non-smokers. What they do in their own homes is up to them, but keep them out of the airspace of everyone else.
Last night my friends and I visited The Hillary Step bar on Upper Chorlton Road, Whalley Range. It's Manchester's first smoke-free pub, and it was literally a breath of fresh air. It was also packed to the rafters, so any smokers or landlords wittering on about how a smoking ban would be bad for business, should look at the Hillary Step, and also try to comprehend the maths involved behind the statistics stating that 75% of the population are NON-smokers.
Jake
It should be completely banned. It is like a poison stick that leats to cancer,death and debt.
from:jake, age 14
Alistair - Manchester
Spot On - Other Employers should follow suit.
Especially BT
Richard Williams
This whole policy seems very draconian, and lacks basic common sense. Smoking is a personal choice, we cannot pretend that people do not smoke. Treating employees with such little respect is obviously a bad idea. Banning staff from taking 鈥渟moking breaks鈥 surely during a break staff should be allowed to do what they like! I know plenty of non-smokers who take more breaks than non-smokers, or are so addicted to caffeine they spend the whole day making coffee. What next, employers banning staff from drinking coffee because of the amount of time wasted, or perhaps they will ban staff from eating high fat food because of the heath risks and the increase of flatulence. I support 鈥渘o smoking policies鈥 within the work environment 鈥 but I do not understand why a vocal minority dictates that people can not smoke within a designated smoking area or outside a building. And for the line: 鈥渘o facilities will be provided for smokers inside or outside the buildings鈥 I presume that will mean the removal of ashtrays. This is just going to cause extra litter, and increase the amount of fires in bins. I can see no reason why smokers and non-smokers cannot both be accommodated for. Manchester City Councils actions are clearly nothing to do with the theoretical risks of passive smoking (why ban employees from taking smoking breaks), nor is it the place of an employer to dictate whether or not an employee should smoke.
Jack, Bolton
Same old, same old,.. The anti amoking zealots have a go at the smokers whilst polluting children's lungs with diesel particulates when they pick up their mollycoddled offspring from school in their gas guzzling, totally unneccesary except for posing, 4 wheel drive silly wagons.. Tell you what, so that we none of us pollute each other in any way, let's ban cars, aircraft, power stations, the whole damned lot.....
Caroline, Bury
I am sick of hearing smokers moaning on about their rights. This isn't an issie of rights, it's about consideration for other people who, for health or other reasons, would like to be able to sit in a pub and socialise without coming out smelling like an ashtray, or contracting emphysema, lung cancer, or even throat cancer. Newsflash: passive smoking is just as bad for you as direct smoking! The answer, however, is not to force smokers out into the sub-zero Mancunian nights, but to encourage separate rooms with proper extractor fans, etc., preferably funded my the council, as smaller businesses will find this too costly by themselves.
Simon Nadler
I think it's absolutely right what the council has done. For me, people should have a choice as to whether or not they want to breathe other people's smoke. What's more, the council will want to keep and improve a good image and to be seen doing something about this problem is a step in the right direction
Dearg O'Bartuin
This is the first stage of an outright ban. My home country (Ireland) introduced a complete ban on smoking in all business establishments, this included the local pub. At present you can smoke in the streets or if you are having a drink, you can stand with one hand in the doorway holding your pint and the other out of the doorway holding your smokes. The MCR council I feel have taken this a step further, banning smoking completely inside and out could be a step too far. However my personal view (as a smoker) if i am not allowed to smoke by law it will certainly help me to quit. Ireland has seen some 40% increase towards kicking the habit. Lets see how this works for council employees.
david simons
The sooner smoking is banned in all public places, including the great outdoors, the better.
Stephen Fitzgerald
Let鈥檚 have a bit of common sense here, being a none smoker I think that there should be areas outside were people could smoke at appointed times.
If we start banning people from smoking everywhere it will be taking away peoples rights, if people want to smoke it鈥檚 up to them, I personally wouldn鈥檛 like someone who I don鈥檛 now making decisions for me, where鈥檚 it all going to stop!!!!
G O'Flynn
The council are quite right to ban smoking in their buildings.
They know very well they should not smoke in any case, yet they still do it
idots.
So ban them and enforce it with dismissal.
HLM, Manchester
Smokers haven't banged on about their rights for years, as one person below says, its non-smokers that have! I think this is an appalling decision. It's a person's right to smoke and no extra hours are lost to smokers, I myself get into work early to make sure its not perceived that I am "being paid to smoke". I'd like to see if they do actually sack someone for smoking outside the building... that could be an interesting tribunal...
LG
Quite right. Smokers have been banging on for years about their rights. No-one has the right to inflict their smoke on anyone. There is also the issue of time. A smoker who takes a break to light up every hour has an extra 1 hour a day that they are not working. Whereas non-smokers don't have this privilege!
George Guite
won't be able to use the toilet next,smokers need help not this,it is an addiction and not a HABIT
june lander
Smokers think it is their right to have smoking breaks during the working day. Therefore accruing many hours standing about whilst being paid for smoking. Non smokers are funding this habit by staying at their post. I think this ban is justified. I applaud a non-smoking enviroment in all public buildings.
Derek Hamilton-Knght
Given the sorry state of public services at the moment, I would have thought Mancheter's top priority would be to attract and retain high calibre staff whether they smoke or not.
All the ban is going to do is to further alienate some of the key workers Manchester needs to attract. At a stroke, the Council has effectively banned the many millions of highly qualified people in this country who choose to smoke from applying for a job.
Please try and get your priorities right. What matters is delivery of good public services not a witch hunt of smokers.
Paul Quinn
I think it is a barbaric act on the part of the council.
Rather than banning people from smoking outside they should be providing
proper smoking facilities inside so their staff do not have to go outside for a smoke.
I Hotchkies
Well done that council! Now, could they please turn their attentions to the region's hospitals? All entrances to every hospital I've visited in recent years have been littered with discarded cigarette ends. Quite disgusting.
philip, Toronto from Manchester
The same law came over here and people just quit. NO harm done
Bernard Ekbery
I welcome smoke free environments but, if council employees who smoke can't have smoking breaks, surely they're going to at least get very stressted and possibly become unwell and take time off sick while they cope with going 'cold turkey'?
