| Following the fatal stabbing of a New York bouncer last
month, allegedly as he tried to enforce the city's new ban
on smoking in the workplace, opponents of the controversial
policy have been quick to blame his "senseless"
death on the new law. Mayor Michael Bloomberg introduced the
smoking ban in late March to protect workers from the harmful
effects of second-hand smoke.
It would seem that the victim, a 32-year-old male, was assaulted
after a fight broke out when he tried to stop two brothers
from smoking inside Manhattan's Guernica nightclub. The police,
however, have played down the connection between the death
and the so-called "anti-smoking law", saying that
while events began over the issue of smoking, the murder itself
was an escalation of events over the issue of ejection from
the bar.
Whatever the truth of the matter, the international media
firmly planted the seed that a law introduced to protect staff
from ill-health and unnecessary death had in fact been a major
contributory factor in the killing of an innocent person.
There is little doubt that this tragedy, and fears of future
public disturbances caused by people smoking on the streets
"en masse", will be seized upon by pro-smokers both
here and across the Atlantic, to help in their campaigns to
stop, or indeed reverse, such smoking bans in public places.
Surely a PR calamity for those public health organisations
working hard to champion the rights to a safer working environment?
As Julie Barrett argues in this month’s legal column,
there is no doubt that we live in increasingly violent times,
with disputes being resolved not with discussion but by violence
or threats of it. Even in the UK, gun crime has increased
to alarming levels – with serious consequences for environmental
health practitioners carrying out their duties under health
and safety regulations etc.
Bearing all these issues in mind, and following on from last
month’s “Don’t choke on the smoke”
campaign conference, Nick Warburton looks at the slow progression
of the UK's draft approved code of practice on smoking in
the workplace . Having weighed up both sides of the debate,
he argues that the benefits of a smoking ban far outweigh
any negatives.
Still on the topic of public nuisances, mention the word
“seagull” in some parts of the country and you
will hear groans, the gnashing of teeth and not a little colourful
language! According to Peter Rock, somehow, and mostly unnoticed
in the first instance, roof-nesting gulls have become something
of an issue for environmental health departments in the UK.
He argues that, unless some real research is done into breeding
and feeding habits, the situation is set to get a whole lot
worse. As Alfred Hitchcock said in the promotional material
for The Birds: ”...remember, the next scream you hear
could be your own...”
On an entirely different note, Euan MacAuslan is sure to
ruffle some feathers with his article on food hygiene training
and certificates. He argues that too much reliance is being
placed upon attaining a certificate, rather than attention
being paid to actually achieving competency in food hygiene
practice. Is it time for a switch from certification to competency?
Watch this space...
Finally, Graham Jukes, CIEH chief executive, sets about answering
the question “What’s in it for me?” with
reference to individual membership of the Chartered Institute.
If having a significant role and voice in the future of a
stronger profession sounds appealing – then that’s
what’s in it for you.
|
