Smoke free health facility car parks

All of you wowsers can go and get stuffed – I enjoy smoking and will continue to do so. Judge me if you wish, you’re likely not worth knowing anyway.

Jakez, I can tell you why I stared smoking, despite all the numerous drawbacks to it. I was raised in a house with two heavy smoking parents, lung cancer eventually doing for my old man. I was addicted to smoking before I even stuck a ciggy in my mouth.

Also, in days of yore smoking was heavily advertised and promoted. I can remember going to watch a cricket match, and the sponsors had young ladies going around giving a way free smokes (Benson and Hedges). Even today, does not young Casey Stoner have a motorbike covered in smoking sponsorship?

Pommy bastard said :

If tobacco was banned, it would not stop smoking.

It would very much hasten it’s end though. Can you imagine a tobacco pusher trying to tout his wares to a potential new client?

“Try some of this, it’s expensive, makes you stink, gives you foul breath, and the only outcome of using it is cancer. But here’s the best bit, you get absolutely no buzz out of it whatsoever, until you’re totally addicted, and then you only get a buzz from it when you smoke more to stop you craving it! Good shit maaaan.”

It’s a wonder anyone even started smoking in the first place considering how unnappealing it is.

…hmm

VYBerlinaV8_the_one_they_all_copy said :

I’d love to see it banned. It’s a fcking filthy habit, that directly effects others, and provides no real benefit to anyone (except tobacco company shareholders).

And before people insert the usual stupid responses of “well X is dangerous/unhealthy/stupid why don’t we ban that too”, just remember what your mum taught you: two wrongs don’t make a right.

My mother doesn’t force me not to do them though, now that I am over the age of 18. Who said you could take her place?

Incidentally, in a forum type situation, it is usually considered germane to present your points as a rebuttal, if they have been referred to in a previous post.

If tobacco was banned, it would not stop smoking.

It would very much hasten it’s end though. Can you imagine a tobacco pusher trying to tout his wares to a potential new client?

“Try some of this, it’s expensive, makes you stink, gives you foul breath, and the only outcome of using it is cancer. But here’s the best bit, you get absolutely no buzz out of it whatsoever, until you’re totally addicted, and then you only get a buzz from it when you smoke more to stop you craving it! Good shit maaaan.”

Good point.

and lots of stupid dangerous fun things ARE banned (speeding, fireworks, heroin, etc), so it would hardly be a new idea.

I’d love to see it banned. It’s a fcking filthy habit, that directly effects others, and provides no real benefit to anyone (except tobacco company shareholders).

And before people insert the usual stupid responses of “well X is dangerous/unhealthy/stupid why don’t we ban that too”, just remember what your mum taught you: two wrongs don’t make a right.

If tobacco was banned, it would not stop smoking.

But it would seriously cut down on it I think. Smoking might be very addictive, but doesn’t have quite the same instant attraction from the first hit, like say cocaine or even alcohol.

It seems a lot less likely to me that seventeen year olds are going to have a smoke, then pay black market prices to smoke enough to become addicts.

From all the cigarette butts I see littering the place I thought they were brown. Mulatto perhaps?

Wow, smokers really are the new ‘nigger’.

I thought cigarettes were white, though.

I doubt, unlike other substances, it would develop a great black market or anything, maybe because it is a lot harder to conceal, as it has such a strong smell, and also addicts require it very often throughout the day.

There is already a multi million dollar black market for illegal tobacco imports and sales.

Detected shipments come in all the time, if they were to pass, they were dodging tax to the tune of millions of $$$

If tobacco was banned, it would not stop smoking.

peterh said :

Jakez,

I take a long walk these days when i want a smoke and am with non smokers. I don’t smoke in my car, my house or around my kids. I am just saying that if smoking is so bad, and the ACT health minister believes that it is, why not just ban it?

federal government doesn’t have to, but the trail blazers in the ACT govt seem to do different things here, so, why not ban and be done with it?

you can’t tell me that the nicotine replacement therapy being forced on the staff and patients, regardless of whether they want to quit or not, is funded by smokers only, we are going to fund this initiative, smokers and non smokers alike and it seems a lot easier to ban tobacco, and be done with it.

The govt is too hypocritical and soft to ban smoking plus they make a lot of revenue from taxes. They just make these micro steps so they keep they anti-smoking people happy and don’t piss the smokers off too badly.

Ok sure, but what I wish is that we could rely on persuading people to not do such things instead of using the iron hand of the Government.

Ultimately though, I can hardly view a bit of smoke in my nose as more of an evil habit than the habit that most people in society seem to be addicted to; using the force of Government as proxy to prevent people from doing things that they simply don’t like.

I wonder if I could get the government to pass a law banning bans? 😉

jakez,

i am not saying under a peterh administration, i would be out to ban all activities, sports or any other risky pursuit that any individual wants to pursue. I do think, however, that the demonising and shaming a smoker – who is an individual, true, seems to be ok in today’s society. if you ban smoking completely, this particular behavior is curtailed.

on to the next evil habit, and demonising it.

I don’t have too much problem with the demonising of smokers, but have to support the people out there who say just ban it for gods sake!

What I do find disturbing is the parallel between this debate and the one about smoking in the (prisonerless) prison. Somehow it is alright to physically make it difficult for people to smoke, but not alright to out right stop people from smoking, even when they have been sentenced to a facility specifically designed to restrict them from the things which other members of society can enjoy.

Why does the level of risk matter peterh? Tell me why people don’t have the right to freely choose to harm themselves or put themselves at great risk?

And if we follow your plan for determining what should or should not be banned, are you really going to ban parachuting or base jumping? Motorsports perhaps? What about all those numerous extremely dangerous activities that are more risky than smoking? Are they to really be banned under a peterh administration? I certainly hope that is not truly your real opinion for how things should be run because I certainly think that is a terribly arrogant viewpoint.

I never asked the Government to take your tax money peterh, so why are you taking away my freedom because of it?

There are so many things that could be funded if we only all did what was ‘right’. If we only all ‘behaved’. However I’m not sure I want to live in that kind of ant farm society.

I don’t like my taxes going to bludgers or charlatans, or fat bastards either. However that does not make me lose my principles peterh. That does not make me want to get revenge. That does not even make me want to ban those things that I feel are wrong. I do live under this current regime, however I neither want to get rid of universal health care or get rid of the objectionable people.

jakez, I do not believe that the government should ban alcohol, junk food, coffee, etc, they are considered to be a far safer risk than tobacco. Alcohol can be consumed in moderation, junk food effects can be negated by regular physical exercise, including participating in team sports, coffee does not kill you, etc, etc. Nicotine is a deadly substance. Tar is a deadly substance. co2 is a deadly substance.

if tobacco is removed from the equation, the money that would be saved in health could be usede to fund far more necessary initiatives, including childhood obesity / diabetes / asthma prevention, neo natal facilities, etc. This is what I, as a taxpayer, would like to see my taxes spent on.

not cancer treatment for a preventable cause.

RandomGit said :

jakez, I make judgements of tolerance on things that people choose to do. Things they don’t choose, like race, aren’t things that need to be tolerated or not. They just are. You know, a man shall be judged not be the colour of his skin but by the content of his character and all that. You creating a correlation of the plight between those that suffer from racism and those that suffer from anti-smoking is demeaning.

Smoking is a personal choice. But it affects others. Harmfully. They will judge against you. The stronger side will win.

Deal with it.

The correlation is not between the downtrodden race and the smoker, the correlation is between the people that judge them. If you want to call smokers scum I will not stand in your way, however don’t expect me to think you are a good person for it.

It harms others however that is only a justification for response only if that person doesn’t put themselves in the position to be harmed. What gives you the right to use the force of Government to make rules on another mans property. What gives you the right to barge in and force others to change on their own turf?

Ahh yes I see, the stronger side will win. Your might of numbers is what gives you that right. What arrogance. How dare you.

peterh said :

Jakez,

I take a long walk these days when i want a smoke and am with non smokers. I don’t smoke in my car, my house or around my kids. I am just saying that if smoking is so bad, and the ACT health minister believes that it is, why not just ban it?

federal government doesn’t have to, but the trail blazers in the ACT govt seem to do different things here, so, why not ban and be done with it?

you can’t tell me that the nicotine replacement therapy being forced on the staff and patients, regardless of whether they want to quit or not, is funded by smokers only, we are going to fund this initiative, smokers and non smokers alike and it seems a lot easier to ban tobacco, and be done with it.

So are you playing devils advocate then? I’m not sure whether you are just making a hypothetical point that you think this should be an either/or issue or whether you have no problem with a smoking ban. If you do not have a problem with a smoking ban then my concerns above apply.

I absolutely understand that the therapies will be paid by the taxpayer, I specifically removed that scenario above because I wanted to get your opinion on the individual rights aspect. It is true that universal health care externalises our health decisions. This is why I think universal health care represents the greatest tool in the arsenal of those who want to create a nanny state. Smoking, junk food, etc. The arguments these people use are now based on cost. They make these people the enemy because they are ‘stealing taxpayers hard earned dollars’. I think this is an extremely dangerous attitude. I have great concerns that universal health care is being used to justify authoritarianism, and that this will only get worse in the coming years.

PS. I like the smell of curry.

peterh said :

I am just saying that if smoking is so bad, and the ACT health minister believes that it is, why not just ban it?

And then what is banned next because it’s bad for you? Alcohol? Fried food? Coffee?

Society is becoming so damn risk averse that no-one is prepared to have any fun any more.

jakez, I make judgements of tolerance on things that people choose to do. Things they don’t choose, like race, aren’t things that need to be tolerated or not. They just are. You know, a man shall be judged not be the colour of his skin but by the content of his character and all that. You creating a correlation of the plight between those that suffer from racism and those that suffer from anti-smoking is demeaning.

Smoking is a personal choice. But it affects others. Harmfully. They will judge against you. The stronger side will win.

Deal with it.

Re first point: I understand that they aren’t sold to be consumed as much however they can absolutely be used to harm yourself. However I accept the point you are making, however the point I am making is that I don’t think I have any right to force other people to either do something or not do something with their own bodies. As I believe that I own my own body and desire for my liberty to be respected, I recognise that in order for that to be the case I need to allow others to make their own choices, even if I disagree with them. This does not preclude me from airing my opinion. I absolutely support persuasion however I think there is a great deal of difference between using persuasion and using force to stop them. That is no less immoral whether I do it myself or get someone else to do it on my behalf.

Re second point: Yes I was hesitant to use the word rational for fear of someone making that point. Rationality and what is ‘good’ are not necessarily the same thing, however instead of turning this into a longwinded philosophy roundtable, I’ll concede the point and instead substitute the idea that we all have different values and concepts of what is good. I may value long life, others may value a ‘good life’. If someone values the joy of smoking over the substituted health, it is entirely rational to smoke. Whatever those terms mean, unless they are initiating force against me I don’t believe it is my role to force others to embrace my definitions or values.

Re third point: That person consciously chooses to go out there and hang out with them. At work, I make the choice not to do that about 5-6 times every day. However ultimately (and it is my fault for responding to the smell comment above that this has become a subtopic), I don’t think the smell is a valid justification for a ‘Government’ ban. When considering a private enterprise ban however, I think it could be very valid.

Jakez,

I take a long walk these days when i want a smoke and am with non smokers. I don’t smoke in my car, my house or around my kids. I am just saying that if smoking is so bad, and the ACT health minister believes that it is, why not just ban it?

federal government doesn’t have to, but the trail blazers in the ACT govt seem to do different things here, so, why not ban and be done with it?

you can’t tell me that the nicotine replacement therapy being forced on the staff and patients, regardless of whether they want to quit or not, is funded by smokers only, we are going to fund this initiative, smokers and non smokers alike and it seems a lot easier to ban tobacco, and be done with it.

“Firstly, there are plenty of worse poisons that can be freely picked up by anyone today however, more than that why should it be banned if it kills so many people? From a purely personal perspective (ignoring second hand smoke and ignoring the externality that arises from universal health care), why should people not be able to choose to harm themselves in such a manner.”

Yes, you are right that there are worse poisens out there. However these poisens are not made, marketed and sold to be consumed as cigarettes are. They generally have other functions.

“You are advocating for a system where quite rational people are prevented from making choices they want to make, seemingly because it would help you quit smoking. You are advocating a system where guns are pointed at other people because you need one pointed at you? How can you possibly be okay with that?”
Just being a trouble maker here – but seriously what is rational about inhaling a poisenous subsance without any real benefit?
It does, from the outset, seems somewhat irrational I would think.

“Standing next to a smoker isn’t going to make you smell like smoke.”
Yes it does!!
You won’t be as saturated in smoke as you would if you went to a band, but the smell is so easily picked up in ones hair and the fibres of ones clothes.
I have work colleagues who are non smokers, that have accompanied smokers outside while they have a cigarette and discuss work issues while they are doing it, and when the non-smokers (who are from my area) come back to their desks I can smell the cigarette smoke. Therefore they smell like cigarettes from standing/sitting near someone smoking!

Incidentally, I don’t oppose the ban in the original post either. I consider the ACT Government the owners and operators of ACT Health. Under that framework they are free to make policies as they see fit. The only downfall is that they can only feel consumer backlash once every four years, whereas real businesses can feel it every day.

I remember some of the job ads for the new departments after labor got in had statements to the effect that these departments had a smoke-free workforce and that there was no smoking in work hours, or something similar to that.

peterh said :

jakez said :

peterh said :

Skidbladnir said :

@Dante: Sumptuary laws, and laws of prohibition?

This way the bureaucracy get to inconvenience other parts of the bureaucracy, while getting praised.

well, it sucks. ban smoking by cutting off my access to smokes. I would quit, and you wouldn’t need to fork out for nicotine replacement therapy, either.

Are you saying you are comfortable with peoples freedom to smoke* being violated by Government force, because you are too weak willed to quit yourself?

*freedom to smoke should be read in a libertarian, negative rights context. As in there should be no law against smoking, however it does not have to be facilitated by others, thus property rights determine the rules.

without getting into the specifics of your personal life, do you have any form of addiction?

I do. I am a smoker. I was also an alcoholic, and a gambler. if i was so weak willed, i woudl still be a drunk, gambling smoker. I quit the other 2 addictions, but have not managed to quit smoking. If tobacco is so bad, why isn’t it listed as a poison and classified as a banned substance?

if it kills so many people, it should be.

Well peterh I asked a question not made an accusation so I don’t feel there is a need to take that attitude. You should feel very proud about your achievements. However my central premise and question remains the same and you didn’t answer it, although I think your statement alludes to what your answer would be.

Firstly, there are plenty of worse poisons that can be freely picked up by anyone today however, more than that why should it be banned if it kills so many people? From a purely personal perspective (ignoring second hand smoke and ignoring the externality that arises from universal health care), why should people not be able to choose to harm themselves in such a manner.

You are advocating for a system where quite rational people are prevented from making choices they want to make, seemingly because it would help you quit smoking. You are advocating a system where guns are pointed at other people because you need one pointed at you? How can you possibly be okay with that?

FC said :

The difference is, standing next to someone who eats curry isn’t going to make you smell like curry too! (well not usually anyway)…

Standing next to a smoker isn’t going to make you smell like smoke. If you go to see a band then absolutely. When I enter into a building full of smoke, I’m making that free choice and I know what the consequences are. You cannot tell me that somebody (let’s say in NSW) going into a nightclub doesn’t know what will be in there. Why do they have the right to go onto somebody elses property and say that they can’t do something, simply because this person doesn’t want to smell or inhale smoke. Nobody forced them to enter that nightclub. I was never forced to see a band either.

To take it a step further, not only do I accept the smell of smoke (and moreso fat peoples sweat) onto myself when I enter into a mosh pit, I accept the damage of inhaling that smoke. I may not like it (and I don’t because I’m not a smoker) but I accept it. I certainly won’t tell the owner of that building what to do, just as I would not expect him to tell me what the rules are in my own home.

I’ve no problem with this banning, and agree that it should go further.

“If tobacco is so bad, why isn’t it listed as a poison and classified as a banned substance”
This one throws me also.
I can’t really see any benefit to the community by being legal, and I doubt, unlike other substances, it would develop a great black market or anything, maybe because it is a lot harder to conceal, as it has such a strong smell, and also addicts require it very often throughout the day.
The government says it doesn’t condone/support smoking through their ads/warning/banning like this – HOWEVER why do they think that its okay to continue to make SO much money from keeping it legal?!!!
It seems to me like a parents wacking their kick over the back of the head and saying, “Johnny, don’t hit your sister”

The difference is, standing next to someone who eats curry isn’t going to make you smell like curry too! (well not usually anyway)…

jakez said :

peterh said :

Skidbladnir said :

@Dante: Sumptuary laws, and laws of prohibition?

This way the bureaucracy get to inconvenience other parts of the bureaucracy, while getting praised.

well, it sucks. ban smoking by cutting off my access to smokes. I would quit, and you wouldn’t need to fork out for nicotine replacement therapy, either.

Are you saying you are comfortable with peoples freedom to smoke* being violated by Government force, because you are too weak willed to quit yourself?

*freedom to smoke should be read in a libertarian, negative rights context. As in there should be no law against smoking, however it does not have to be facilitated by others, thus property rights determine the rules.

without getting into the specifics of your personal life, do you have any form of addiction?

I do. I am a smoker. I was also an alcoholic, and a gambler. if i was so weak willed, i woudl still be a drunk, gambling smoker. I quit the other 2 addictions, but have not managed to quit smoking. If tobacco is so bad, why isn’t it listed as a poison and classified as a banned substance?

if it kills so many people, it should be.

People who eat curry are going to smell funny as well. That does not mean I’m going to run them out of town.

Well if it negatively effects other non curry consuming peoples health with dire health complications such as cancer, sure, why not.

I enjoy going out more now that smoking is banned indoors, and it means I retain my aerobic fitness and will not get cancer from passive smoking.

I believe that most if not all federal gov departments did something similar a while back… not 100% sure though.

RandomGit said :

jakez, except smokers don’t just ‘happen’ to be smokers. Plus, the choice to smoke means you are going to smell like an ashtray when you do. There’s a one to one correlation there not based on culture, history or predjudice.

You obviously like to feel especially special.

People who eat curry are going to smell funny as well. That does not mean I’m going to run them out of town.

The operative part of justbands statement is ‘they should be forced further and further and further away from the ‘rest’ of us’. Quite different from persuasion or even ostracism.

I don’t particularly draw a distinction between race and anything else on matters of tolerance, clearl you do. However to put that to the side, there are many things I don’t like, however I’m quite unlikely to force someone away especially when they are not initiating force against me.

I note with amusement that “patients” are no longer – instead we have “healthcare consumers”.

(More of you need to actually read the links provided – in this case you’d find that they’re still providing one “designated outdoor smoking area” at each workplace).

peterh said :

Skidbladnir said :

@Dante: Sumptuary laws, and laws of prohibition?

This way the bureaucracy get to inconvenience other parts of the bureaucracy, while getting praised.

well, it sucks. ban smoking by cutting off my access to smokes. I would quit, and you wouldn’t need to fork out for nicotine replacement therapy, either.

Are you saying you are comfortable with peoples freedom to smoke* being violated by Government force, because you are too weak willed to quit yourself?

*freedom to smoke should be read in a libertarian, negative rights context. As in there should be no law against smoking, however it does not have to be facilitated by others, thus property rights determine the rules.

just realised that I jumped the gun on katy’s media release. she was speaking about it on 666 am yesterday…

jakez, except smokers don’t just ‘happen’ to be smokers. Plus, the choice to smoke means you are going to smell like an ashtray when you do. There’s a one to one correlation there not based on culture, history or predjudice.

You obviously like to feel especially special.

Skidbladnir said :

@Dante: Sumptuary laws, and laws of prohibition?

This way the bureaucracy get to inconvenience other parts of the bureaucracy, while getting praised.

well, it sucks. ban smoking by cutting off my access to smokes. I would quit, and you wouldn’t need to fork out for nicotine replacement therapy, either.

@Dante: Sumptuary laws, and laws of prohibition?

This way the bureaucracy get to inconvenience other parts of the bureaucracy, while getting praised.

Dante said :

I just wish they’d either ban it outright rather than these micro steps towards a ban.

If smokers are such lepers, just ban it ffs.

I’m a smoker but if they banned tobacco I’d just stop smoking.

Oh, and here’s Uncle Tom.

justbands said :

Who is “she” jb?

Anyway….sounds fair to me. Smokers stink, they should be forced further & further & further away from the rest of us….& I see nothing at all wrong with assisting staff & patients in quitting.

Wow, smokers really are the new ‘nigger’.

I just wish they’d either ban it outright rather than these micro steps towards a ban.

If smokers are such lepers, just ban it ffs.

I’m a smoker but if they banned tobacco I’d just stop smoking.

The nurses will be up in arms!

Smoke free health facilities, I fail to see the problem.

Mrs Danman was amused though, recently at nepean hospital where this rule has been in force for some time.She relayed how she saw many a medical professional fringing the boundary smoking their substance of choice.

Who is “she” jb?

Anyway….sounds fair to me. Smokers stink, they should be forced further & further & further away from the rest of us….& I see nothing at all wrong with assisting staff & patients in quitting.