Workers at Enfield Borough Council ordered to smoke a minimum of 25 metres away from any council building

First published in News
Last updated
by

Workers at Enfield Borough Council have been left fuming after they were ordered to smoke a minimum of 25 metres away from any council building.

An email sent to staff, seen by the Enfield Independent, states that employees can only smoke during authorised breaks.

The move is intended to ensure a smoke-free working environment, but has left a sour taste in the mouths of some staff.

One council worker, who asked to remain anonymous, said: "This is completely authoritarian by the council against those who want to smoke. I do not understand why they have decided to run with this."

Another said: "The totalitarian stance taken on this is wrong. More than 25m is quite excessive in my opinion and unfair on workers."

The email, sent to staff on January 10, reads: "The council is committed to ensuring that all our workplaces are smoke-free, and all employees and workers have a right to work in a smoke-free environment.

"All employees and workers are required to minimise the effects of their smoke on others whilst at work. Therefore, are not allowed to smoke within a minimum distance of 25m from any council building and are requested to extinguish their cigarettes and dispose of them appropriately."

The email also states that smoking is only permitted when workers are going "to and from work" and during authorised breaks.

It added: "We would like to remind all employees’ and workers that smoking is not permitted during working hours. This applies to all staff irrespective of where they work (in a council building or outdoors, or when driving a vehicle during working hours). Staff wishing to smoke can only do so on the way to and from work and during authorised breaks."

The email concludes by giving website links and phone numbers to stop smoking companies.

An Enfield Council spokesman said:  "We are absolutely committed to minimising the impact of tobacco smoke on our staff and visitors to our buildings and the communication sent to staff was designed to inform them of our policy with respect to our no smoking at work policy.

"While staff are prohibited from smoking during work hours, we do allow them to smoke, if they wish, during their authorised breaks. Our policy is proportionate, sensible and designed to protect public health."

Comments (6)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

9:39pm Tue 21 Jan 14

Parmenion says...

Welcome to North Korea.
Welcome to North Korea. Parmenion
  • Score: 4

9:52pm Tue 21 Jan 14

harleyrider1777 says...

Council you don't allow anyone to do anything,they allow you to exist!

This is fitting to this council read and heed!
Hitler's Anti-Tobacco Campaign

One particularly vile individual, Karl Astel -- upstanding president of Jena University, poisonous anti-Semite, euthanasia fanatic, SS officer, war criminal and tobacco-free Germany enthusiast -- liked to walk up to smokers and tear cigarettes from their unsuspecting mouths. (He committed suicide when the war ended, more through disappointment than fear of hanging.) It comes as little surprise to discover that the phrase "passive smoking" (Passivrauchen) was coined not by contemporary American admen, but by Fritz Lickint, the author of the magisterial 1100-page Tabak und Organismus ("Tobacco and the Organism"), which was produced in collaboration with the German AntiTobacco League.

http://constitutiona
listnc.tripod.com/hi
tler-leftist/id1.htm
l
Council you don't allow anyone to do anything,they allow you to exist! This is fitting to this council read and heed! Hitler's Anti-Tobacco Campaign One particularly vile individual, Karl Astel -- upstanding president of Jena University, poisonous anti-Semite, euthanasia fanatic, SS officer, war criminal and tobacco-free Germany enthusiast -- liked to walk up to smokers and tear cigarettes from their unsuspecting mouths. (He committed suicide when the war ended, more through disappointment than fear of hanging.) It comes as little surprise to discover that the phrase "passive smoking" (Passivrauchen) was coined not by contemporary American admen, but by Fritz Lickint, the author of the magisterial 1100-page Tabak und Organismus ("Tobacco and the Organism"), which was produced in collaboration with the German AntiTobacco League. http://constitutiona listnc.tripod.com/hi tler-leftist/id1.htm l harleyrider1777
  • Score: 3

9:52pm Tue 21 Jan 14

harleyrider1777 says...

Council you don't allow anyone to do anything,they allow you to exist!

This is fitting to this council read and heed!
Hitler's Anti-Tobacco Campaign

One particularly vile individual, Karl Astel -- upstanding president of Jena University, poisonous anti-Semite, euthanasia fanatic, SS officer, war criminal and tobacco-free Germany enthusiast -- liked to walk up to smokers and tear cigarettes from their unsuspecting mouths. (He committed suicide when the war ended, more through disappointment than fear of hanging.) It comes as little surprise to discover that the phrase "passive smoking" (Passivrauchen) was coined not by contemporary American admen, but by Fritz Lickint, the author of the magisterial 1100-page Tabak und Organismus ("Tobacco and the Organism"), which was produced in collaboration with the German AntiTobacco League.

http://constitutiona
listnc.tripod.com/hi
tler-leftist/id1.htm
l
Council you don't allow anyone to do anything,they allow you to exist! This is fitting to this council read and heed! Hitler's Anti-Tobacco Campaign One particularly vile individual, Karl Astel -- upstanding president of Jena University, poisonous anti-Semite, euthanasia fanatic, SS officer, war criminal and tobacco-free Germany enthusiast -- liked to walk up to smokers and tear cigarettes from their unsuspecting mouths. (He committed suicide when the war ended, more through disappointment than fear of hanging.) It comes as little surprise to discover that the phrase "passive smoking" (Passivrauchen) was coined not by contemporary American admen, but by Fritz Lickint, the author of the magisterial 1100-page Tabak und Organismus ("Tobacco and the Organism"), which was produced in collaboration with the German AntiTobacco League. http://constitutiona listnc.tripod.com/hi tler-leftist/id1.htm l harleyrider1777
  • Score: 1

9:53pm Tue 21 Jan 14

harleyrider1777 says...

This pretty well destroys the Myth of second hand smoke:

http://vitals.nbcnew
s.com/_news/2013/01/
28/16741714-lungs-fr
om-pack-a-day-smoker
s-safe-for-transplan
t-study-finds?lite

Lungs from pack-a-day smokers safe for transplant, study finds.

By JoNel Aleccia, Staff Writer, NBC News.

Using lung transplants from heavy smokers may sound like a cruel joke, but a new study finds that organs taken from people who puffed a pack a day for more than 20 years are likely safe.

What’s more, the analysis of lung transplant data from the U.S. between 2005 and 2011 confirms what transplant experts say they already know: For some patients on a crowded organ waiting list, lungs from smokers are better than none.

“I think people are grateful just to have a shot at getting lungs,” said Dr. Sharven Taghavi, a cardiovascular surgical resident at Temple University Hospital in Philadelphia, who led the new study...............
............

Ive done the math here and this is how it works out with second ahnd smoke and people inhaling it!

The 16 cities study conducted by the U.S. DEPT OF ENERGY and later by Oakridge National laboratories discovered:

Cigarette smoke, bartenders annual exposure to smoke rises, at most, to the equivalent of 6 cigarettes/year.

146,000 CIGARETTES SMOKED IN 20 YEARS AT 1 PACK A DAY.

A bartender would have to work in second hand smoke for 2433 years to get an equivalent dose.

Then the average non-smoker in a ventilated restaurant for an hour would have to go back and forth each day for 119,000 years to get an equivalent 20 years of smoking a pack a day! Pretty well impossible ehh!
This pretty well destroys the Myth of second hand smoke: http://vitals.nbcnew s.com/_news/2013/01/ 28/16741714-lungs-fr om-pack-a-day-smoker s-safe-for-transplan t-study-finds?lite Lungs from pack-a-day smokers safe for transplant, study finds. By JoNel Aleccia, Staff Writer, NBC News. Using lung transplants from heavy smokers may sound like a cruel joke, but a new study finds that organs taken from people who puffed a pack a day for more than 20 years are likely safe. What’s more, the analysis of lung transplant data from the U.S. between 2005 and 2011 confirms what transplant experts say they already know: For some patients on a crowded organ waiting list, lungs from smokers are better than none. “I think people are grateful just to have a shot at getting lungs,” said Dr. Sharven Taghavi, a cardiovascular surgical resident at Temple University Hospital in Philadelphia, who led the new study............... ............ Ive done the math here and this is how it works out with second ahnd smoke and people inhaling it! The 16 cities study conducted by the U.S. DEPT OF ENERGY and later by Oakridge National laboratories discovered: Cigarette smoke, bartenders annual exposure to smoke rises, at most, to the equivalent of 6 cigarettes/year. 146,000 CIGARETTES SMOKED IN 20 YEARS AT 1 PACK A DAY. A bartender would have to work in second hand smoke for 2433 years to get an equivalent dose. Then the average non-smoker in a ventilated restaurant for an hour would have to go back and forth each day for 119,000 years to get an equivalent 20 years of smoking a pack a day! Pretty well impossible ehh! harleyrider1777
  • Score: 1

8:39am Wed 22 Jan 14

Enfieldian14 says...

Regardless of whether it damages my lungs or not, I do not want to walk through clouds of smelly cigarette smoke.

The rules are not draconian - employees can puff away to their heart's content in their own time, i.e., to and from work and in their lunch break. I've seen smokers disappearing for crafty AM and PM fag breaks - and they are generally gone for 10 minutes each time - that is 20 minutes per day, or 100 minutes per week. The ban is not so unreasonable when it is put into context.
Regardless of whether it damages my lungs or not, I do not want to walk through clouds of smelly cigarette smoke. The rules are not draconian - employees can puff away to their heart's content in their own time, i.e., to and from work and in their lunch break. I've seen smokers disappearing for crafty AM and PM fag breaks - and they are generally gone for 10 minutes each time - that is 20 minutes per day, or 100 minutes per week. The ban is not so unreasonable when it is put into context. Enfieldian14
  • Score: -3

8:18pm Wed 22 Jan 14

ponderman says...

Somehow I think that my Grandfather, who died at the hands of the SS fighting for our freedom was wasting his time, we now have a British SS that is encroching on all aspects of our lives.
Somehow I think that my Grandfather, who died at the hands of the SS fighting for our freedom was wasting his time, we now have a British SS that is encroching on all aspects of our lives. ponderman
  • Score: 4

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree