Smoaking not permitted
Aug. 9th, 2007 10:56 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
king_pellinorSomebody raised the question: if we have a load of tents at Summerfest, which people can wander in and out of freely, are we affected by the Health Act 2006 and all the stuff about non-smoking areas.
The answer seems to be yes. Although the idea is that we hire a remote campsite, so the public will not be in evidence, the law is written such that if there is an enclosed space to which a member of the public could possibly manage to gain access, it must have a "no smoking" sign on it. That is even if the member of the public is not invited, not welcome, and would indeed be thrown out on discovery. One has to assume a general public intent on poking their collective noses in where the are least wanted, in order to sniff out not just smoking, but the absence of banned smoking.
This seems to be the key point: Smoking is Bad, therefore Not Banning Smoking is Just As Bad.
Which is stupid.
From reading the legislation, I find that my garden shed needs a "no smoking" sign on. This is because it its enclosed, and because the public could obtain access (by going through the closed-but-not-locked garden gate and into the closed-but-not-locked shed door), and it is not a dwelling place or a vehicle, it is subject to the law.
This is stupid. I do not intend to comply with this bit of the legislation.
Anyway, as far as Summerfest goes I have simply invited the local smoking enforcement officer to wander round and have a look. As he is the chap who would prosecute any transgressions, I am assuming that keeping him happy will be fine.
Can we not turn it around? The legislation clearly says that smoking in enclosed places is normally prohibited. Why is it therefore necessary to say "no smoking", when this is the default? Why not signpost the very few enclosed areas in which smoking is permitted? The current way of doing it merely makes offenders of people who hadn't imagined that they should have to ban something they weren't intending to do.
Do we have to put up "no murdering" signs, too?
The answer seems to be yes. Although the idea is that we hire a remote campsite, so the public will not be in evidence, the law is written such that if there is an enclosed space to which a member of the public could possibly manage to gain access, it must have a "no smoking" sign on it. That is even if the member of the public is not invited, not welcome, and would indeed be thrown out on discovery. One has to assume a general public intent on poking their collective noses in where the are least wanted, in order to sniff out not just smoking, but the absence of banned smoking.
This seems to be the key point: Smoking is Bad, therefore Not Banning Smoking is Just As Bad.
Which is stupid.
From reading the legislation, I find that my garden shed needs a "no smoking" sign on. This is because it its enclosed, and because the public could obtain access (by going through the closed-but-not-locked garden gate and into the closed-but-not-locked shed door), and it is not a dwelling place or a vehicle, it is subject to the law.
This is stupid. I do not intend to comply with this bit of the legislation.
Anyway, as far as Summerfest goes I have simply invited the local smoking enforcement officer to wander round and have a look. As he is the chap who would prosecute any transgressions, I am assuming that keeping him happy will be fine.
Can we not turn it around? The legislation clearly says that smoking in enclosed places is normally prohibited. Why is it therefore necessary to say "no smoking", when this is the default? Why not signpost the very few enclosed areas in which smoking is permitted? The current way of doing it merely makes offenders of people who hadn't imagined that they should have to ban something they weren't intending to do.
Do we have to put up "no murdering" signs, too?
