hibs.net Messageboard

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 94
  1. #1

    The slippery slope of not wanting smokers outside

    We had a thread a while back about a poster complaining about being in a pub gaarden and a smoker sitting next to them and lighting up. Although they had a valid point there is always the chance that the people that want to run (or should that be ruin) our lives to the way they would want others to live.

    They are always there to take advantage and never let a good opporunity go to waste because of the way the law has gone in their favour oveer the last two decades and it seems that they have gotten so bold that they are now lobbying to have a ban on people who rent from council and housing assiciation properties, from smoking in their own homes and anywhere in the personal or communal grounds of those properties.

    I try not to smoke in my living room (but still do now and again) but If I rented with the coucil et al know what I would be telling these idiots.

    Here is where I saw what I am talking about....

    https://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.c...home-1-4759885
    Last edited by andybev1; 01-07-2018 at 10:56 PM.


  2. Log in to remove the advert

  3. #2
    @hibs.net private member Steve-O's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Age
    36
    Posts
    20,152
    Quote Originally Posted by andybev1 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    We had a thread a while back about a poster complaining about being in a pub gaarden and a smoker sitting next to them and lighting up. Although they had a valid point there is always the chance that the people that want to run (or should that be ruin) our lives to the way they would want others to live.

    They are always there to take advantage and never let a good opporunity go to waste because of the way the law has gone in their favour oveer the last two decades and it seems that they have gotten so bold that they are now lobbying to have a ban on people who rent from council and housing assiciation properties, from smoking in their own homes and anywhere in the personal or communal grounds of those properties.

    I try not to smoke in my living room (but still do now and again) but If I rented with the coucil et al know what I would be telling these idiots.

    Here is where I saw what I am talking about....

    https://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.c...home-1-4759885
    Surely if you don't own the property, then the landlord, whomever that may be, has the right to state whether smoking is allowed in the home?

    I have been in houses where people have smoked and the places absolutely stink of stale smoke. Given this type of house could be passed onto other future tenants, why should they have to put up with that foul stench in their new home?

    If it's outside on the property (i.e. in the garden) then I'd agree that is a step too far.

  4. #3
    @hibs.net private member calumhibee1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    6,053
    Banning it in the garden is probably a step too far, but banning it in the stairwell and houses isnít IMO. Itís not your house, youíre just renting it. The disgusting smell will linger in the house long after your gone if you allow smoking in it.

  5. #4
    Private Members Prediction League Winner Hibrandenburg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Brandenburg
    Age
    53
    Posts
    10,251
    You can only truly understand how minging stale smoke in a building is if you don't smoke. As a smoker I understood that some people found it absolutely disgusting but now as a non smoker I can appreciate why.

  6. #5
    Left by mutual consent!
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    A perpetual situation comedy.
    Posts
    763
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve-O View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Surely if you don't own the property, then the landlord, whomever that may be, has the right to state whether smoking is allowed in the home?

    I have been in houses where people have smoked and the places absolutely stink of stale smoke. Given this type of house could be passed onto other future tenants, why should they have to put up with that foul stench in their new home?

    If it's outside on the property (i.e. in the garden) then I'd agree that is a step too far.
    I thought the purpose of the smoking ban was to cut down on the risk of secondary smoking (whether there was one or not.) it hasn't taken it long for people to think it extends to them not liking the smell.

    Dangerous road, next it will be objecting to what people smell like, what they wear, what they eat, what they say, what they think, etc.

    One small step at a time.

  7. #6
    Coaching Staff Sylar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Lanark/Palo Alto
    Age
    32
    Posts
    14,565
    Gamer IDs

    Gamertag: sjmcg1304
    Landlord's are well within their right to ban smoking.

    Just like they're well within their rights to ban hammering nails into the walls for pictures, pets etc...

    At the end of the day, the landlord would be left with a stinking house to try and sell once the person decides to move on. In such an instance, if that happens and the house is otherwise in fine condition, the landlord should be able to retain the security deposit.

  8. #7
    @hibs.net private member Hibbyradge's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    1000's of people's Barcelona
    Posts
    35,973
    Quote Originally Posted by Chic Murray View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I thought the purpose of the smoking ban was to cut down on the risk of secondary smoking (whether there was one or not.) it hasn't taken it long for people to think it extends to them not liking the smell.

    Dangerous road, next it will be objecting to what people smell like, what they wear, what they eat, what they say, what they think, etc.

    One small step at a time.
    I'd happily ban people from wearing Lynx.

    Seriously though, the smell of smoke is pervasive and very difficult to get rid of. Not only that, it discolours pretty much everything so it's no wonder landlords ban it.

    Is it really excessive to ask tenants to respect your property and go outside for your fix?

    I stopped smoking 15 years ago, but I used to go outside my own flat to smoke.

  9. #8
    Coaching Staff Future17's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    "Galactidos!"
    Age
    34
    Posts
    5,365
    Quote Originally Posted by Chic Murray View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I thought the purpose of the smoking ban was to cut down on the risk of secondary smoking (whether there was one or not.) it hasn't taken it long for people to think it extends to them not liking the smell.

    Dangerous road, next it will be objecting to what people smell like, what they wear, what they eat, what they say, what they think, etc.

    One small step at a time.
    The smoking ban isn't relevant if the OP is referring to people smoking on property belonging to other people (i.e landlord and tenant).

  10. #9
    @hibs.net private member Hibbyradge's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    1000's of people's Barcelona
    Posts
    35,973
    Quote Originally Posted by Future17 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    The smoking ban isn't relevant if the OP is referring to people smoking on property belonging to other people (i.e landlord and tenant).
    Good point.

    If smokers come to visit me, they don't even think about smoking in the house.

    Even though they pay to have sole use of a property, doesn't change common courtesy.
    Buy nothing online unless you check for free cashback here first. I've already earned £1,789.68!



  11. #10
    @hibs.net private member oldbutdim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,883
    Itís pretty ridiculous really.
    Even if a social landlord wanted to ban smoking in their properties, itís entirely unenforceable. Would repeat offenders be evicted?
    Iím sure social landlords have plenty other things to keep them busy Ė dealing with Universal Credit, and investing in property improvements may be just a little further up their to-do lists than checking to see if one of their thousands of tenants has just lit up a fag in the living room.

  12. #11
    @hibs.net private member Hibbyradge's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    1000's of people's Barcelona
    Posts
    35,973
    Quote Originally Posted by oldbutdim View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Itís pretty ridiculous really.
    Even if a social landlord wanted to ban smoking in their properties, itís entirely unenforceable. Would repeat offenders be evicted?
    Iím sure social landlords have plenty other things to keep them busy Ė dealing with Universal Credit, and investing in property improvements may be just a little further up their to-do lists than checking to see if one of their thousands of tenants has just lit up a fag in the living room.
    I'd take the cost of deep cleaning the flat out of their deposits.

    I don't think the social pay the deposit.
    Buy nothing online unless you check for free cashback here first. I've already earned £1,789.68!



  13. #12
    @hibs.net private member oldbutdim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,883
    Quote Originally Posted by Hibbyradge View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I'd take the cost of deep cleaning the flat out of their deposits.

    I don't think the social pay the deposit.
    I don't think Councils and Housing Associations take deposits of rent.
    As I undestand the OP the suggestion is that it is these landlords that will be the ones to (possibly) apply the ban.

  14. #13
    @hibs.net private member speedy_gonzales's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Edinburgh
    Age
    44
    Posts
    1,645
    Quote Originally Posted by oldbutdim View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Even if a social landlord wanted to ban smoking in their properties, itís entirely unenforceable.
    Would it be though? If it's in the lease agreement and signed for then the tenant would be putting their tenancy at risk.
    There are already rules that must be followed, lodgers/sub-lets/pets/DIY,,,, what's one more rule to abide by,,,,

  15. #14
    @hibs.net private member oldbutdim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,883
    Quote Originally Posted by speedy_gonzales View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Would it be though? If it's in the lease agreement and signed for then the tenant would be putting their tenancy at risk.
    There are already rules that must be followed, lodgers/sub-lets/pets/DIY,,,, what's one more rule to abide by,,,,
    I can't see a Sheriff granting an eviction order to boot out a family because dad is a compulsive smoker for instance.................

    Nor can I imagine hard pressed staff 'checking up' to see if their tenants are having a fag on the sly.
    It can be stuck in a tenancy agreement, and maybe whole estates/streets designated 'no smoking' but the management and enforceability of such draconian rules would be extremely expensive - and no doubt have the cost added onto the rent paid by the tenants.

    Just seems a complete waste of time to me.


    (I'm an ex-smoker, so normally I rail against the filthy smelly fag sooking miscreants, but this proposal is a bit too far!)

  16. #15
    @hibs.net private member NORTHERNHIBBY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Last Train to Skaville
    Age
    53
    Posts
    10,087
    Don't think that there is common ground on this one. I grew up in a smoking family and the smell of stale smoke is always disgusting IMO. That said, I would not dream of ever telling someone that they can't. I like the odd pint and dram now and again and if I was told to stop that, the reply would be GTF.

  17. #16
    Left by mutual consent!
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    A perpetual situation comedy.
    Posts
    763
    Quote Originally Posted by Hibbyradge View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I'd happily ban people from wearing Lynx.

    Seriously though, the smell of smoke is pervasive and very difficult to get rid of. Not only that, it discolours pretty much everything so it's no wonder landlords ban it.

    Is it really excessive to ask tenants to respect your property and go outside for your fix?

    I stopped smoking 15 years ago, but I used to go outside my own flat to smoke.
    Wrong end of the stick here. I thought they were talking about pub landlords, and the growing trend of people objecting to smoking in beer gardens.

    No problem with a landlord protecting their property.

  18. #17
    @hibs.net private member Hibbyradge's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    1000's of people's Barcelona
    Posts
    35,973
    Quote Originally Posted by NORTHERNHIBBY View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Don't think that there is common ground on this one. I grew up in a smoking family and the smell of stale smoke is always disgusting IMO. That said, I would not dream of ever telling someone that they can't. I like the odd pint and dram now and again and if I was told to stop that, the reply would be GTF.
    I've had my fair share of bad beer, but I've never had an odd pint.

    Where would I get one of those?
    Buy nothing online unless you check for free cashback here first. I've already earned £1,789.68!



  19. #18
    Testimonial Due
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Edinburgh
    Age
    37
    Posts
    4,041
    Quote Originally Posted by Chic Murray View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I thought the purpose of the smoking ban was to cut down on the risk of secondary smoking (whether there was one or not.) it hasn't taken it long for people to think it extends to them not liking the smell.

    Dangerous road, next it will be objecting to what people smell like, what they wear, what they eat, what they say, what they think, etc.

    One small step at a time.
    What they eat (and drink) is well underway- but these are legitimate public health issues, and as long as people expect society to pay for their healthcare, they will have to accept that public health campaigns like this are not only a good thing, but a necessity.

    Likewise council houses, it's not your house, so suck it up or pay for your own place that you can use or abuse as much as you wish.

  20. #19
    Left by mutual consent!
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    A perpetual situation comedy.
    Posts
    763
    Quote Originally Posted by SouthsideHarp_Bhoy View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    What they eat (and drink) is well underway- but these are legitimate public health issues, and as long as people expect society to pay for their healthcare, they will have to accept that public health campaigns like this are not only a good thing, but a necessity.

    Likewise council houses, it's not your house, so suck it up or pay for your own place that you can use or abuse as much as you wish.
    Agree about the houses, but controlling what people eat is a step too far.

    Legitimate public health issues tend to be the preserve of different vested interests. We are moving from a period where Cannabis use was considered detrimental to health, to one where it will be promoted as being beneficial to health.

    In the meantime, people have been persecuted, and jailed, because they made a choice which didn't fit in with the wishes of the people in control.

    It's a short step to controlling what they think after that.

  21. #20
    @hibs.net private member speedy_gonzales's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Edinburgh
    Age
    44
    Posts
    1,645
    Quote Originally Posted by Chic Murray View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    We are moving from a period where Cannabis use was considered detrimental to health, to one where it will be promoted as being beneficial to health.
    Whoa there tiger, whilst some medical types are advocating the use of medicinal cannabis and in particular the CBD element to treat & alleviate symptoms, thereís still a healthy element of medical professionals against the recreational use of cannabis and the psychoactive THC within.

  22. #21
    Left by mutual consent!
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    A perpetual situation comedy.
    Posts
    763
    Quote Originally Posted by speedy_gonzales View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Whoa there tiger, whilst some medical types are advocating the use of medicinal cannabis and in particular the CBD element to treat & alleviate symptoms, thereís still a healthy element of medical professionals against the recreational use of cannabis and the psychoactive THC within.
    Precisely, in much the same way that some medical experts advocate a diet lower in cholesterol, whilst others say that sugar is the real culprit. Medical experts are often sponsored, and their evidence should be taken with a pinch of salt (ouch).

    For that reason, it is very dangerous to be proscriptive about people's lifestyle choices. The best thing is that people are educated to make their own decisions.

    However, it is perfectly OK for someone to restrict their property to non smokers. Not on health grounds, but on the basis of what smoking does to the fabric of the house.

  23. #22
    We're probably only 2 or 3 decades from a post smoking developed world anyway.

    The generation who were addicted before the full effects of tobacco smoking were known are dying out as most are or would be in their 70s or 80s now, over 60s are now actually the generation least likely to regularly smoke. Smoking amongst children (under 16) has dropped by 66% since the 80s, smoking amongst all age groups and genders has halved since 1970.

    There's viable alternatives and the public health campaigns have worked. Re the OP I don't think I've ever stayed in a rented property that permitted smoking; whether it was enforced is irrelevant as the rule was in place. I've no issue with banning smoking on health grounds either, unlike other examples given the evidence around smoking and ill health is irrefutable.

  24. #23
    Coaching Staff heretoday's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Corstorphine
    Posts
    10,514
    Smoking in the stairway is bad. The smoke goes into other people's flats. That's not fair. Cooking smells are bad enough.

  25. #24
    Testimonial Due
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Edinburgh
    Age
    37
    Posts
    4,041
    Quote Originally Posted by Chic Murray View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Precisely, in much the same way that some medical experts advocate a diet lower in cholesterol, whilst others say that sugar is the real culprit. Medical experts are often sponsored, and their evidence should be taken with a pinch of salt (ouch).

    For that reason, it is very dangerous to be proscriptive about people's lifestyle choices. The best thing is that people are educated to make their own decisions.

    However, it is perfectly OK for someone to restrict their property to non smokers. Not on health grounds, but on the basis of what smoking does to the fabric of the house.
    I do see what you mean to an extent, but ultimately those lifestyle choices are putting an unsustainable strain on the public health system.

    Whether it's sugar or fat or anything else is moot, unhealthy fat people are a huge risk to themselves, but more than that are helping to bankrupt the NHS. The govt simply had no choice but to act.

  26. #25
    @hibs.net private member CropleyWasGod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    22,718
    Quote Originally Posted by SouthsideHarp_Bhoy View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I do see what you mean to an extent, but ultimately those lifestyle choices are putting an unsustainable strain on the public health system.

    Whether it's sugar or fat or anything else is moot, unhealthy fat people are a huge risk to themselves, but more than that are helping to bankrupt the NHS. The govt simply had no choice but to act.
    Have to agree.

    A generation ago, it would have been unthinkable to have the controls over alcohol and tobacco that we have now. On the back of those, it's not a great leap to imagine similar controls over food.

    All for the benefit of the individual and society.

    Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

  27. #26
    Left by mutual consent!
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    A perpetual situation comedy.
    Posts
    763
    [QUOTE=SouthsideHarp_Bhoy;5450410]I do see what you mean to an extent, but ultimately those lifestyle choices are putting an unsustainable strain on the public health system.

    Whether it's sugar or fat or anything else is moot, unhealthy fat people are a huge risk to themselves, but more than that are helping to bankrupt the NHS. The govt simply had no choice but to act.[/QUOTE

    Agreed, but people climb mountains, they drive their car too fast, they take risks every day that ultimately impact on the NHS.

    What risks do we allow people to take, and which do we forbid?

    Could be argued that the risks of dangerous behaviour are much more clearly defined.

  28. #27
    Left by mutual consent!
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    A perpetual situation comedy.
    Posts
    763
    Quote Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Have to agree.

    A generation ago, it would have been unthinkable to have the controls over alcohol and tobacco that we have now. On the back of those, it's not a great leap to imagine similar controls over food.

    All for the benefit of the individual and society.

    Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk
    Depending on who controls health policy. A generation ago, cholesterol was the big danger, now it's sugar. Can we trust the "experts"?

  29. #28
    @hibs.net private member CropleyWasGod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    22,718
    Quote Originally Posted by Chic Murray View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Depending on who controls health policy. A generation ago, cholesterol was the big danger, now it's sugar. Can we trust the "experts"?
    Cholesterol is still a big issue, and we've made great progress in making people aware of it. Whether that's enough remains to be seen, but I wouldn't have a problem with pricing policies that encourage people to change their diet accordingly.

    I would rather trust the experts than individuals.

    Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

  30. #29
    Left by mutual consent!
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    A perpetual situation comedy.
    Posts
    763
    Quote Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Cholesterol is still a big issue, and we've made great progress in making people aware of it. Whether that's enough remains to be seen, but I wouldn't have a problem with pricing policies that encourage people to change their diet accordingly.

    I would rather trust the experts than individuals.

    Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk
    I agree with the pricing too.

    As I said before, what do we do when experts disagree?

  31. #30
    @hibs.net private member Peevemor's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Saint-Malo, Brittany
    Age
    51
    Posts
    17,701
    At 37 I was relatively young when I moved to France.

    After a couple of months I went to the GP as I had the beginnings of tonsillitis. During my appointment the doctor asked me when was the last time I'd had my blood tested (when I was about 5 was the answer). He immediately gave me a prescription for a full set of blood tests). A mobile nurse took the samples in my house before I went to work and whisked them off to the laboratory, with the results arriving in the post a couple of days later with a copy going to the GP.

    "Everything" was there. Sedimentation results, different sugar levels, cholesterol (good and bad) levels - you name it.

    It's standard for adults to have this done once a year. It's not expensive and is reimbursed by your health insurance (which practically everyone has).

    It's definitely a game changer when you can see what's fine and what's a bit iffy and, unless you have an underlying problem, it's easy enough to adjust your diet a wee bit to stay within the recommended levels.

    I also spoke to the GP about my persistent problem with indigestion /heartburn. I'd already spoken to my GP in Edinburgh about this when I was in my early 20s. I can't remember what he said but it didn't fix anything. It was murder and I was constantly munching rennies or settlers. Across here I was sent for an endoscopy which showed that I have a hiatus hernia, probably caused by my playing bagpipes as a teenager. One wee tablet per day now means that I have no discomfort whatsoever. The endoscopy is repeated every 2-3 years to keep an eye on what's going on.

    What I'm basically getting at is that, although the NHS is a wonderful principle/institution, the level of healthcare on offer to the majority of people is miles behind other European countries.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
hibs.net ©2012 All Rights Reserved