Not strictly, but . . .
I had an email from someone at the University Hospital of South Manchester NHS Foundation Trust. (Whatever that is.)

Guess what was at the bottom of the email?

A reminder not to print unless necessary? Nope.

A message of greeting and christmas cheer? Get real.

It said, and I quote:

"Please note the Trust has a smoke free environment policy for staff, patients and visitors. This includes buildings, grounds and car parks."

That's it. There's no other warnings or reminders, just this guff about smoking. I'm not even visiting the place. I hadn't even heard of the place until today. Why do they feel the need to mention this in ALL of their emails?

And, while we're on the subject, WHY can't I smoke on the "grounds"? It's really coming to something when smoking outdoors isn't enough, you have to smoke "off the grounds". I can't even smoke in the fucking car park? Puh-leese.

It just goes to show what too much reliance on political correctness gets you. People (by which I mean nasty, corporate, jobsworth, middle-management droids) spend so much of their time in a lather about what they can't say and do in case they offend someone, that when they get the chance to be nasty they really embrace it! Smokers, unfortunately, fit the ever dwindling profile of "people it's ok to victimise".

Sorry, this is rant. And it's not funny.

Fuck it, i'm going for a fag.

*mumble, mumble*
(MrC. Having the most boring username on b3ta since 2004, Mon 26 Nov 2007, 14:44, 12 replies)

UHSMFT...
Smoking was banned in carparks and other outside spaces because in crappy weather (it is Manchester, afterall), people would (and still do) congregate in and around entrances to smoke, meaning that everyone who walked in or out of any of the buildings would have to walk through a cloud of second hand smoke.

Plus NHS trust are encouraged to "actively promote stopping smoking", since prevention is cheaper than treating the results, so can not have designated smoking areas.
(ScousersPet, Mon 26 Nov 2007, 15:06, closed)

This isn't political correctness.

( Zuowan, Mon 26 Nov 2007, 15:10, closed)

Hmm, ok
My point was really to ask why they find it necessary to highlight this in all of their emails. Point taken about the weather, though!

But I think my final point about PC stands - which is to that when people find a sub-section of society that they can impose draconian rules upon, they REALLY go to town!

I'll be quiet now.
(MrC. Having the most boring username on b3ta since 2004, Mon 26 Nov 2007, 15:29, closed)

I love it
when you're smoking at the side of a busy road and people walk past you waving the smoke away and turning there nose up at you.

Sorry, but the fumes from those nasty exhaust pipes are dfoing much more damage to you than the brief moment you walk past me smoking
( Joe Scaramanga with a G-double-O-D vibration, Mon 26 Nov 2007, 15:43, closed)

I disagree
In 2004, the government raised £12bn in revenue from tobacco, but spent only £8bn on treating smoking-related illnesses.
( sandettie light vessel automatic New Twitter - @bollocksreally, Mon 26 Nov 2007, 15:43, closed)

So what you're trying to say is
that we should all take up smoking to save the country's finances? ;-)
(Reverend Fister "a disciplined fuckwit", Mon 26 Nov 2007, 15:48, closed)

What's wrong with actively trying to dissuade people from smoking?
You shouldn't be allowed to smoke anywhere in public IMO.
Yeah, sure, it's great that you can go inside a pub or wherever and you no longer walk into a cloud of smoke but, as has been touched upon already, to get in and out of anywhere you still have to walk through a cloud of stinking carcinogens.

Then how about driving - you're not allowed to use a phone, fiddle with the stereo, put on make-up or do pretty much anything whilst driving but you are allowed to smoke.
Lighting a cigarette is a distraction and God help you if you drop the damned thing on your lap.
Why should people be allowed to do that when it's just as likely to be the cause of a lapse in concentration as any number of other, illegal, activities?


You choose to smoke, so you deal with the consequences. Same as everything else in life.
Yes, the consequences are somewhat stricter with smoking but given the detrimental effect to your health and that of everyone else around you, it seems only fair.
(Pope Jamiroquai III, Mon 26 Nov 2007, 19:43, closed)

Walking through a cloud of smoke...
... may be unpleasant, but it won't do you any harm. It smells no worse than sitting near someone painting their nails on the train. And if the hospital is trying to protect people's health, why aren't the banning the eating of crisps in the hospital grounds?
(lolwhites, Mon 26 Nov 2007, 20:06, closed)

Could be worse...
...I've heard of some that are banned from smoking to and from work and others that are banned even in their own personal time.
(Wize, Mon 26 Nov 2007, 21:02, closed)

I'm not a fan of the smoking ban
But people that say "Hur Hurr, I smoke on the street and poncy types wave it out of their face and raise their nose at me but they don't about the evil exhaust fumes doing damage to them" are using an inherently flawed argument.

Let us examine the argument closer. Firstly, the argument claims exhaust fumes to be more dangerous than second-hand smoke in both volume and carcinogens. This is demonstrably true.

However, saying that because of this, it is wrong and somehow pompous to not wish to inhale second-hand smoke that is less dangerous from a smoker, is downright nonsensical. This is because you would be inhaling the toxic fumes of exhausts IN ADDITION to the smoke from the smoker.

Therefore, the initial argument is moot as it would still be healthier to not breathe in the smoker's smoke at all even with all the evil exhuast fumes of doom as the removal of a potential harm incurs a smaller health risk.
(John_Anon_Prince I have no heart and soul, Tue 27 Nov 2007, 12:24, closed)

John Anon Prince
There is a link between being exposed to second-hand smoke ON A REGULAR BASIS and developing lung cancer. That's all it is - a link. And you would need to be exposed to a lot of it (ie. working in a pub for a long time) for it to be a possibility.

Inhaling someone's fag smoke as you walk past them in the street will do you no harm whatsoever. However, if you walk, drive or cycle to work along a busy, congested road EVERY DAY, then that is much more likely to do you harm.
(MrC. Having the most boring username on b3ta since 2004, Tue 27 Nov 2007, 15:17, closed)

nhs workers
I work in operating-theatres and so become involved in highly emotional scenarios! I cant leave the premises in "scrubs" and so would need to change into "mufty" to go for a fag. There is not time, I am addicted to a nicoregenic drug and feel drops in levels of such drug acutely, especially when under aformentioned stress.
What do the management suggest? The sack, the cunts!
(grumpynurse ,is playing minigolf on, Tue 27 Nov 2007, 15:51, closed)