# How close can you smoke to an office entrance?



## Mucker Man (8 Oct 2008)

Hi, we have a situation at work where the smokers insist on smoking directly outside the entrance of the office. As you can imagine this isn't very pleasant, but I heard somewhere that you couldn't smoke within 6 metre of an entrance, is this true? And if yes, is it supported by legislation?


----------



## susie1 (8 Oct 2008)

*Re: How close can you smoke to a office entrance?*

i thought if you were outside of the building you could smoke.


----------



## ubiquitous (8 Oct 2008)

*Re: How close can you smoke to a office entrance?*

Lucky you're not like me, with a bus stop about 6 feet from my window


----------



## Caveat (8 Oct 2008)

*Re: How close can you smoke to a office entrance?*



susie1 said:


> i thought if you were outside of the building you could smoke.


 
I thought it was as simple as that also.  Be interested to hear if it's any different.  If it is as the OP suggests, practically every smoker in the country is in breach of this I'd say -particularly outside pubs.


----------



## FutureProof (8 Oct 2008)

*Re: How close can you smoke to a office entrance?*



susie1 said:


> i thought if you were outside of the building you could smoke.



I'm sure your correct, or places like balcony's etc would all be forbidden.


----------



## Lorrie (8 Oct 2008)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2006/jun/21/smoking.samjones


----------



## susie1 (8 Oct 2008)

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/c...ty/ban_on_smoking_in_the_workplace_in_ireland

*Since 29 March 2004 the Irish Government has implemented a ban on smoking in the workplace in Ireland. This means that with effect from that date smoking is forbidden in enclosed places of work in Ireland. This includes office blocks, various buildings, public houses/bars, restaurants and company vehicles (cars and vans). The ban is being introduced as part of the Public Health (Tobacco) Act, 2002 (Section 47) Regulations 2003. 
*


----------



## ClubMan (9 Oct 2008)

> *How close can you smoke to an office entrance?*


I managed 6 inches before security chase me away. Can anybody better than that?


----------



## Caveat (9 Oct 2008)

ClubMan said:


> I managed 6 inches before security chase me away. Can anybody better than that?


 
 Excellent!


----------



## ontour (9 Oct 2008)

Employers can encourage employees not to smoke close to the entrance.  Citi offices in the IFSC in Dublin appear to have requested this as all the staff cross the road and line up on a path that is less than 2 feet wide.

I do find it entertaining in the current 'climate' seeing a row of bankers lined up against a wall looking nervous and frantically smoking !


----------



## gebbel (9 Oct 2008)

Mucker Man said:


> Hi, we have a situation at work where the smokers insist on smoking directly outside the entrance of the office. As you can imagine this isn't very pleasant.



So what? They are outside the building and therefore obeying the law. What's unpleasant about that?


----------



## TarfHead (9 Oct 2008)

I think 5 miles is about right .

The IT Crowd did a good parody about this in season 2.



gebbel said:


> So what? They are outside the building and therefore obeying the law. What's unpleasant about that?


 
The smell of the area, the haze of smoke, the discarded ash and butts.
If you have to ask ..  ?


----------



## gebbel (9 Oct 2008)

TarfHead said:


> The smell of the area, the haze of smoke, the discarded ash and butts.
> If you have to ask ..  ?



It's outside the building. The OP said nothing about discarded ash and butts so you are making an assumption there. As for the haze of smoke, well it should quickly dissipate in our weather. If not, then you can hold your breath for half a second as you enter or exit the building so you don't have to inhale the toxic fumes.
To the OP: take it up with the management. Ask them to provide a sheltered designated area for the smokers if it bothers you so much.


----------



## Mucker Man (9 Oct 2008)

Thank you all for your replies, there is a bin provided but it doesn't seem to be used!!! Personally I think it creates a poor first impression of a company. Thanks again.


----------



## mathepac (9 Oct 2008)

I have recently been visiting my grand-son in Our Lady's Childrens' Hospital in Crumlin and I wish "someone" (yeah, I know, him again) would implement the smoking regulations.

There is a perfectly good smokers area opposite the main entrances with ash-trays, litter containers, seating, etc provided by the HSE. Outside the buliding, presumably to stop smoke blowing in the doors and windows and to avoid congestion around the entrances, they have placed big no smoking signs which are of course being ignored. Yesterday the roadway, footpath, flower-beds and drains were littered with fag-butts, card-board coffee-cups, matches and empty fag-packets.

While I was using the smokers area for a fag and a coffee, an ambulance arrived and a child on a trolley was admitted via a smokers "guard of honour" huddled around the main entrance.

Presumably as the outside of the building is still on HSE property, they are perfectly entitled to post the no smoking signs and to attempt to restrict smoking to the designated area. That being the case, I wish "someone" would implement the rule as the place looks disgraceful.


----------



## TarfHead (9 Oct 2008)

mathepac said:


> I have recently been visiting my grand-son in Our Lady's Childrens' Hospital in Crumlin and I wish "someone" (yeah, I know, him again) would implement the smoking regulations.


 
SNAP, for Beaumount Hospital.


----------



## The_Banker (9 Oct 2008)

Snap... The South Infirmary/Victoria in Cork.


----------



## truthseeker (9 Oct 2008)

SNAP - for Tallaght Hospital


----------



## Flexible (10 Oct 2008)

TarfHead said:


> I think 5 miles is about right .
> 
> The IT Crowd did a good parody about this in season 2.




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jx_JylCPXrU

About 3mins long it starts off slow and gets better.

Very good show.


----------



## Complainer (10 Oct 2008)

If they are littering butts on a public pathway, get onto the local litter warden who should be able to put some pressure on the company to get it sorted. Start talking to your HR people, and/or PR people and/or customer service people about the terrible impression this creates for visitors.


----------



## podgerodge (11 Oct 2008)

Complainer said:


> If they are littering butts on a public pathway, get onto the local litter warden who should be able to put some pressure on the company to get it sorted. Start talking to your HR people, and/or PR people and/or customer service people about the terrible impression this creates for visitors.



I assume you mean the butts on the ground create a terrible impression and not people smoking outside the building?


----------



## rmelly (11 Oct 2008)

podgerodge said:


> I assume you mean the butts on the ground create a terrible impression and not people smoking outside the building?


 
I think BOTH do.


----------



## podgerodge (11 Oct 2008)

why?  People are smoking a cigarette - it's legal and some people enjoy it.  Why do people think that the act of smoking a cigarette reflects on the reputation of a company? Let's not forget that the only reason they are smoking outside is to protect the health of non smokers inside.  The " I'm not satisfied enough that I no longer have to put up with passive smoking, I dislike smoking itself and want to force my preferences on others" attitude ****es me off.


----------



## rmelly (11 Oct 2008)

podgerodge said:


> why? People are smoking a cigarette - it's legal and some people enjoy it. Why do people think that the act of smoking a cigarette reflects on the reputation of a company? Let's not forget that the only reason they are smoking outside is to protect the health of non smokers inside. The " I'm not satisfied enough that I no longer have to put up with passive smoking, I dislike smoking itself and want to force my preferences on others" attitude ****es me off.


 
Just to clarify - the question I responded to was whether seeing smokers outside a building created 'a terrible impression' - I wasn't commenting on smoking itself.

Employers should be discouraging smoking - and not be seen to support it in any way.

Smokers are more prone to certain illnesses and can take longer to recover. They are more likely to take more breaks so the employee is away from desk/job more. It's also a filthy habit, who want's to stink because of having to walk through someone elses smoke, or even interact with someone smelling of smoke?

On smoking itself, you appear to think that smokers rights should continue to take precendence over non-smokers rights, as they have done up to this legislation. What we have now is a fair system where a smoker doesn't enforce his decision on others.


----------



## podgerodge (11 Oct 2008)

rmelly said:


> Employers should be discouraging smoking - and not be seen to support it in any way.



Letting people smoke outside the office is not supporting smoking itself, it's just allowing employees choose to smoke.




rmelly said:


> They are more likely to take more breaks so the employee is away from desk/job more. It's also a filthy habit, who want's to stink because of having to walk through someone elses smoke, or even interact with someone smelling of smoke?



As a smoker, the necessity to get my fix means that I ensure that I get 60 minutes work done in 55 minutes.  I work harder while at my desk than non smokers because they have no need to make that 5 minute saving.  But I have noticed some non smokers on personal phone calls when I go out for a smoke and they are still on it when I get back. 

The assumption that one will stink by simply walking through someone elses smoke is bordering on the paranoid.



rmelly said:


> On smoking itself, you appear to think that smokers rights should continue to take precendence over non-smokers rights, as they have done up to this legislation.



I don't see how I suggested that.  The only smokers rights I alluded to were the right to smoke outside.  But I certainly would not support non smokers requesting the right to prevent smokers smoking outside!


----------



## ButtermilkJa (11 Oct 2008)

Come on. You're missing the point. Having a build up of discarded cigarette butts and packets on the ground at the entrance to a company's office looks bad. There's no point in arguing this. It's a fact.

The OP, and everyone else I suspect, is not arguing that people look bad when they're smoking, they're arguing that the mess left behind looks bad. That's why the OP would prefer people don't smoke right outside the entrance.

Surely this is a very reasonable request?


----------



## Complainer (11 Oct 2008)

podgerodge said:


> I assume you mean the butts on the ground create a terrible impression and not people smoking outside the building?


It's not so much the smoking itself that creates the terrible impression, as the side effects. Littered butts is the most common problem, often within arm's reach of a dedicated bin. Having to 'walk the gauntlet' of smokers to get into the building (check out Holles St hospital) is extremely unpleasant for many non-smokers.


podgerodge said:


> As a smoker, the necessity to get my fix means that I ensure that I get 60 minutes work done in 55 minutes.  I work harder while at my desk than non smokers because they have no need to make that 5 minute saving.  But I have noticed some non smokers on personal phone calls when I go out for a smoke and they are still on it when I get back.


Is there any possibility that those personal call-makers have discovered the mystical art of time compression that allows them to get 60 minutes work done in 50 minutes, or is this art solely limited to smokers? I presume you do have solid data that backs up your claim that you are 8% approx more efficient than non-smokers (taking into account the increased rates of sick leave usually found with smokers of course)?


podgerodge said:


> The assumption that one will stink by simply walking through someone elses smoke is bordering on the paranoid.



If you airway is coated with a tar covering, you are unlikely to understand the impact of second-hand smoke on non-smokers. My wife will smell smoke off my clothes even from the briefest of encounters (e.g. ATM queue, Luas platform, walking past an entrance) with second hand smoke.


----------



## SlurrySlump (15 Oct 2008)

ClubMan said:


> I managed 6 inches before security chase me away. Can anybody better than that?


 
Mine is about 9".


----------



## Pique318 (16 Oct 2008)

rmelly said:


> What we have now is a fair system where a smoker doesn't enforce his decision on others.


...but non-smokers enforce their decision on smokers.
We can't smoke indoors, and now when people are smoking on the streets there're still complaints...geez, some people....



SlurrySlump said:


> Mine is about 9".


Your wife must be a happy lady


----------



## The_Banker (16 Oct 2008)

Complainer said:


> If you airway is coated with a tar covering, you are unlikely to understand the impact of second-hand smoke on non-smokers. My wife will smell smoke off my clothes even from the briefest of encounters (e.g. ATM queue, Luas platform, walking past an entrance) with second hand smoke.


 
Very good point. Smokers sense of smell is so poor they assume everyone elses is. 

It sickens me to have to walk the gauntlet of smokers getting there fix everytime I have to enter a public building or hospital.


----------



## Celtwytch (16 Oct 2008)

Pique318 said:


> ...but non-smokers enforce their decision on smokers.


 
At least a non-smoker's decision doesn't have a negative impact on the health of the smoker.


----------



## Pique318 (16 Oct 2008)

Celtwytch said:


> At least a non-smoker's decision doesn't have a negative impact on the health of the smoker.


I beg to differ, having to stand outside in the rain/snow/cold to smoke can definitely affect the health of a smoker. Colds & Flu etc.

At least if we did the smoking ban to please everybody, not just the Nazi Anti-Smokers, ASH Ireland etc, there'd be far less objections to it, and people wouldn't be standing out side pubs stinking the clothes of the people who walk past


----------



## Celtwytch (16 Oct 2008)

Pique318 said:


> I beg to differ, having to stand outside in the rain/snow/cold to smoke can definitely affect the health of a smoker. Colds & Flu etc.


 
I had a feeling you'd come back at me with that ...    But the simple solution is to give up smoking   No more standing around in the rain/snow/cold to smoke, and no more being blamed for non-smokers smelling like ashtrays


----------



## Caveat (16 Oct 2008)

Celtwytch said:


> I had a feeling you'd come back at me with that ...  But the simple solution is to give up smoking  No more standing around in the rain/snow/cold to smoke, and no more being blamed for non-smokers smelling like ashtrays


 

 Come on! That's the equivalent of saying "if you don't like the way the country is being run - get out"


----------



## nai (16 Oct 2008)

personally I do form a slightly negative opinion of a company if I have to run the gauntlet of smokers to enter but I have a much bigger issue if I am getting into the lift and 2 or 3 of these same smokers pile in as well with the fresh reek of stale rothmans/jp blue or whatever on their breath/clothes - that is just disgusting.

Then if the people you're meeting have just been out for a quick smoke/coffee that's just the final nail for me - seriously bad breath which I link to personal hygiene and simple courtesy - for me this leaves a worse impression than a bad presentation / business idea.


----------



## DavyJones (16 Oct 2008)

nai said:


> Then if the people you're meeting have just been out for a quick smoke/coffee that's just the final nail for me - seriously bad breath which I link to personal hygiene and simple courtesy - for me this leaves a worse impression than a bad presentation / business idea.




You could nearly say the same about a man or woman who over do it on the aftershave/perfeum. I find it awful and struggle to breathe.


----------



## TarfHead (16 Oct 2008)

Pique318 said:


> We can't smoke indoors, and now when people are smoking on the streets there're still complaints...geez, some people....


 
Smoking is a choice, nicotine addiction is a by-product of that choice.

Smoking has no redeeming virtues.

Smoking is anti-social; it has an adverse impact upon those in society who do not smoke, as well as those that do.

I would have no qualms with smokers being treated like pariahs. None.


----------



## podgerodge (16 Oct 2008)

TarfHead said:


> Smoking is a choice, nicotine addiction is a by-product of that choice.
> 
> Smoking has no redeeming virtues.
> 
> ...



Yes, smoking is a choice, and choice is a great thing.  People like you would remove choices that you personally don't approve of.  Bear in mind that this thread is about smoking OUTSIDE and those of you who find it hard to put up with a few seconds of smelly breath in a lift or going through an entrance must have little else to be worrying about.  

Smoking does have redeeming virtues - if you are a smoker.  It's quite enjoyable.  There are people who are anti drink who don't like drinkers.  Actually they are probably the only visitors to websites like "drinkaware dot ie" where they can get off on all that rubbish tittle tattle. These are more examples of people who aren't satisfied that THEY don't have a habit, they don't want OTHERS to have one either

Smoking is not anti-social.  I would gladly socialise with someone while smoking.  If they want me to go outside to smoke to avoid any "possible" passive smoking threats to their health and I do go outside, well then I'm a nice guy who obeys the law.  Forgive my bad breath.

As for you having no qualms with smokers being treated like pariahs - how anti social of you.


----------



## Pique318 (17 Oct 2008)

TarfHead said:


> Smoking has no redeeming virtues.


Spoken like a true anti-smoker.
Obviously you've not heard of (or dismiss) the calming qualities that a smoke has.



TarfHead said:


> I would have no qualms with smokers being treated like pariahs. None.


I would have no qualms with you being treated like one either, because as podgerodge said, you're the anti-social one here.


----------



## Complainer (17 Oct 2008)

Pique318 said:


> I beg to differ, having to stand outside in the rain/snow/cold to smoke can definitely affect the health of a smoker. Colds & Flu etc.


Newsflash: The cause of your respiratory problems may not be the rain/snow/cold.


----------



## Brianne (17 Oct 2008)

Non Smokers, cheer up and think of this. Of course, smokers, not all, mind,but some, are a dirty disgusting lot with their smelly hair and clothes and their propensity to litter.
 However in these hard times console yourselves with the amount of taxes they pay for the dreaded weed. In fact , you would do well to encourage them to smoke more. They will die about 7 to 10 years ahead of you and they won't be around to compete with you for the nursing home bed or the trolley( very few 75 year old plus smokers are around). By dying younger, they won't  be drawing down their pensions so there will be more around for you healthy types as you languish on with healthy lungs( demented maybe but you can't have everything). 
So, maybe instead of giving out about the entrance to the office, instead petition HR to have a proper smoking area , in which the addicts can indulge to their lung's content and in the rarefied office air , think of the long term benefits of their addiction!!!!!!


----------



## Caveat (18 Oct 2008)

Brianne said:


> Non Smokers, cheer up and think of this. Of course, smokers, not all, mind,but some, are a dirty disgusting lot with their smelly hair and clothes and their propensity to litter.
> However in these hard times console yourselves with the amount of taxes they pay for the dreaded weed. In fact , you would do well to encourage them to smoke more. They will die about 7 to 10 years ahead of you and they won't be around to compete with you for the nursing home bed or the trolley( very few 75 year old plus smokers are around). By dying younger, they won't be drawing down their pensions so there will be more around for you healthy types as you languish on with healthy lungs( demented maybe but you can't have everything).
> So, maybe instead of giving out about the entrance to the office, instead petition HR to have a proper smoking area , in which the addicts can indulge to their lung's content and in the rarefied office air , think of the long term benefits of their addiction!!!!!!


 
That's nice.

Why does smoking seem to bring out this risibly self righteous and nasty attitude in non-smokers? 

It's unreal. 

If you don't like smoke, avoid smokers: simple. Passing a few smokers at a hospital entrance for 2 seconds is hardly going to kill you on the spot. There are plenty of more dangerous elements to the air we breathe anyway.

Smokers know it's bad for them. It's an addiction. Health risks are not exactly news.

Is every non-smoker the picture of health? Do people post about overweight people with their disgusting fat faces, their laziness, and point out the calorific value of cakes? 

BTW I actually do think that smokers huddled around office (and definitely hospital) entrances doesn't look good but it's still legal and where are they supposed to go?

Lots of lazy inconsiderate people litter too - it's certainly not confined to smokers.

A dedicated smoking room that 'the clean' don't have to go near would have helped but it hasn't worked out that way. But I suppose they would all still 'smell' anyway.

I'm away for a fag.


----------



## truthseeker (18 Oct 2008)

TarfHead said:


> Smoking is anti-social; it has an adverse impact upon those in society who do not smoke, as well as those that do.



Ive always noticed on courses Im sent to from work or conferences - its the smokers who bond and end up socialising together.

Since the smoking ban has come in the smoking areas in bars have become the new pick up areas, you cant move in the smoking areas packed with the non smokers at the end of the night.

What adverse impact exactly does smoking have upon those in society who do not smoke now that smokers have to go outside to smoke?

As for treating smokers like pariahs - well its refreshing to hear someone suggest that ANY sector of society should be treated as a pariah, who shall we treat as a pariah after the smokers? The alcoholics? The junkies? Yes, I dont like their habits either, so lets treat them as pariahs. You know something, its not just peoples habits, its their belief systems. I dont like that that family down the road have a different belief system to me, treat them like pariahs! Oh, unmarried mothers - I dont agree with that either, pariah time. Tax evaders - yep, pariah. You know something, you might not know someone has a particular habit or belief that we dont like, so lets get them to wear a badge of some sort, so its visible to every one. Then we can all get treating the pariahs like pariahs cos now we all know who they are right! Hmmm, this pariah treatment is ok, but really Id like to get them all into one big place where I wont have to keep seeing them and their disgusting habits/belief systems/other behaviours I dont like. Why dont we build a ghetto and get them in there? Then they wont be able to infect the rest of society with their awful ways. 
You know we will really need to come up with some kind of Final Solution for all these pariahs out there.............


----------



## Brianne (18 Oct 2008)

Caveat , Caveat, ever heard of irony!!!!!
I too am a smoker !!!!!


----------



## Caveat (19 Oct 2008)

Brianne said:


> Caveat , Caveat, ever heard of irony!!!!!
> I too am a smoker !!!!!


 
Oh


----------



## Pique318 (19 Oct 2008)

Complainer said:


> Newsflash: The cause of your respiratory problems may not be the rain/snow/cold.


 
Yeah, the runny nose, sneezing & shivering are all side-effects of smoking


----------



## mathepac (19 Oct 2008)

Pique318 said:


> Yeah, the runny nose, sneezing & shivering are all side-effects of smoking


... and maybe the use of other substances...


----------



## Pique318 (19 Oct 2008)

mathepac said:


> ... and maybe the use of other substances...


 shhhh


----------

