Advertisement

Smoking in playgrounds and bus-stops next to playgrounds…

By 2 May 2014 21

Does anyone know the status of this? I’m so tired of having to ask people not to smoke near my child in a play-ground or when waiting to catch a bus, and the tirade of verbal abuse when politely requesting such an action is horrific..

From: An election promise to count on: outdoor smoking bans coming -”The ACT government plans to ban smoking, or increase awareness of existing smoking bans, at public swimming pools, playgrounds, sports fields where children are present, covered bus interchanges, university campuses, building entrances and large public outdoor events. ”Detailed work is currently being undertaken to progress these commitments,” acting Health Minister Andrew Barr said. ”The Chief Minister will provide further details in the coming months.”  Read more.

Please login to post your comments
21 Responses to Smoking in playgrounds and bus-stops next to playgrounds…
#1
Madam Cholet8:05 am, 03 May 14

I was at Woden one time not so long ago when a mature aged woman decided to spark up in the covered shelter. I have to say I gave her a serve, especially as they already have stickers on the windows suggesting that smoking is not permitted. She was very apologetic, but it’s still pretty selfish to think that it’s ok to do that.

I catch the bus quite regularly and I don’t think it should be limited to the actual shelters. Any area which is a gathering place, such as a bus interchange should be smoke free. It’s pretty hard to get out of if a few people are taking the opportunity for a last puff before getting on the bus.

Really, smoking outside in public areas should be by permission rather than assumption that it’s ok because they are in the fresh air. It’s no longer fresh air once they choose to pollute it. With only something like 15% of the population being smokers, the majority should not have to suffer.

Outside of my building smokers are requested to move 5 metres or more away. Do many do it? No. And you are right, no one asks them to either for fear of what they might get in return.

No idea why it takes so long for the government to act.

#2
damien haas11:37 am, 03 May 14

Unless they are blowing smoke in your childs face i think you should just tut tut silently under your breath. It is doing you no harm.

#3
jasmine6:02 pm, 03 May 14

I agree, it is annoying and irresponsible. But you may find you will cop a tirade for even suggesting courtesies be observed. Being a non-smoker or a polite smoker is not going to win any popularity contests. Some people think their right to smoke should outweigh anyone else’s right not to be subjected to toxic pollutants.

#4
bearlikesbeer11:03 am, 04 May 14

How far away should a smoker stand from your children at a playground or bus stop in order for you to feel that your child is safe? Five metres? Ten metres? Fifty metres? Fifteen metres if upwind, but only ten metres if downwind? How far?

In NSW the rule is ten metres away from children’s play equipment. If a smoker stood ten metres away, would you ask them to move even farther away?

Petrol powered vehicles pump out loads of dangerous things, and they are all over the roads which surround our playgrounds and bus stops. Perhaps we should have minimum safe distances for buses approaching bus stops, in case the waiting children get cancer, or carbon monoxide poisoning, or something.

#5
Madam Cholet8:21 am, 05 May 14

For me personally it’s not a distance thing, it’s that people choose to do it at all around places like playgrounds or bus stops at all.

#6
bigfeet9:01 am, 05 May 14

Madam Cholet said :

For me personally it’s not a distance thing, it’s that people choose to do it at all around places like playgrounds or bus stops at all.

But by using the term ‘around’ you are making it a distance thing. How far do you have to be from a playground or bus stop to be considered no longer to be ‘around’ them?

#7
A_Cog9:33 am, 05 May 14

damien haas said :

Unless they are blowing smoke in your childs face i think you should just tut tut silently under your breath. It is doing you no harm.

No harm?

If you can smell it, you’re breathing it in. So are the kids. The “safe” level for carcinogens is zero.

How is it a crime for me to spray hexavalent chromium into smokers’ faces, but not a crime for them to puff out carcinogens for me and my kids to breathe in?

#8
tim_c11:24 am, 05 May 14

Just throw a bucket of water over them… “Sorry, since it’s illegal to smoke here, I assumed you must have been on fire”

#9
jett181:23 pm, 05 May 14

OK… first of all, I’m going to stick my hand up and say, yes, I am a smoker and I would like to think one of the ones that are “considerate” in public places– while I have my own opinions about the smoking laws in Canberra, I still observe the 5m rule outside public buildings, don’t smoke in the inclosed interchange areas, I move away or extinguish my cigarette if there are kids around– because my filthy habit is just that– mine– and it should not, in my opinion, be inflicted on other people.

Basically, it’s common sense and good manners.

I would like to hope that people don’t smoke around the children that are in their life, so why do so around a strangers kid?
At the same time, I would like to hope that people who are non-smokers are respectful of smokers who do smoke in appropriate public places and are not “tisking” just a smoker is having a puff.
To me, that is just as disrespectful as a smoker sparking up in a public place that is outside of the designated areas.

#10
A_Cog1:44 pm, 05 May 14

damien haas said :

Unless they are blowing smoke in your childs face i think you should just tut tut silently under your breath. It is doing you no harm.

No harm?

“There is no risk-free level of secondhand smoke exposure; even brief exposure can be harmful to health.”
http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/secondhand_smoke/general_facts/

#11
damien haas1:54 pm, 05 May 14

A_Cog said :

damien haas said :

Unless they are blowing smoke in your childs face i think you should just tut tut silently under your breath. It is doing you no harm.

No harm?

“There is no risk-free level of secondhand smoke exposure; even brief exposure can be harmful to health.”
http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/secondhand_smoke/general_facts/

The source you quote states: “Eliminating smoking in indoor spaces is the only way to fully protect nonsmokers from secondhand smoke exposure.”

*indoor spaces*

It says nothing about playgrounds. Smoke dissipation rates would be very high in a place with no walls, doors or ceiling.

As I said, unless they are blowing it in your child’s face, there is no harm being caused.

#12
Maya1233:01 pm, 05 May 14

damien haas said :

A_Cog said :

damien haas said :

Unless they are blowing smoke in your childs face i think you should just tut tut silently under your breath. It is doing you no harm.

No harm?

“There is no risk-free level of secondhand smoke exposure; even brief exposure can be harmful to health.”
http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/secondhand_smoke/general_facts/

The source you quote states: “Eliminating smoking in indoor spaces is the only way to fully protect nonsmokers from secondhand smoke exposure.”

*indoor spaces*

It says nothing about playgrounds. Smoke dissipation rates would be very high in a place with no walls, doors or ceiling.

As I said, unless they are blowing it in your child’s face, there is no harm being caused.

Actually even if a smoker smokes outside away from others they are still a risk to other’s health.
http://lungcancer.about.com/od/Lung-Cancer-And-Smoking/a/Third-Hand-Smoke.htm

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-is-third-hand-smoke/

It’s worrying the number of people working in restaurants who smoke. Check out the smokers near the restaurant’s back door. I would rather go to a restaurant staffed by non-smokers. It could be a great advertising ploy; especially in a place such as Canberra where most people don’t smoke.

#13
damien haas5:15 pm, 05 May 14

Maya123 said :

damien haas said :

A_Cog said :

damien haas said :

Unless they are blowing smoke in your childs face i think you should just tut tut silently under your breath. It is doing you no harm.

No harm?

“There is no risk-free level of secondhand smoke exposure; even brief exposure can be harmful to health.”
http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/secondhand_smoke/general_facts/

The source you quote states: “Eliminating smoking in indoor spaces is the only way to fully protect nonsmokers from secondhand smoke exposure.”

*indoor spaces*

It says nothing about playgrounds. Smoke dissipation rates would be very high in a place with no walls, doors or ceiling.

As I said, unless they are blowing it in your child’s face, there is no harm being caused.

Actually even if a smoker smokes outside away from others they are still a risk to other’s health.
http://lungcancer.about.com/od/Lung-Cancer-And-Smoking/a/Third-Hand-Smoke.htm

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-is-third-hand-smoke/

It’s worrying the number of people working in restaurants who smoke. Check out the smokers near the restaurant’s back door. I would rather go to a restaurant staffed by non-smokers. It could be a great advertising ploy; especially in a place such as Canberra where most people don’t smoke.

I read that source you provided and still can’t agree. I don’t think tobacco smoke is agent orange, and unless you child is licking the grass in the playground that the smoking is taking place in a the very monet the residue (whatever that is – ash? smoke? it’s not clear) – then it’s unlikely your child will be harmed. The source you provide really only applies to a room inside a building, or the interior of a car.

Look, I get it that people don’t like smokers, but manufacturing reasons to destroy their access to open spaces on the spurious and negligibly scientifically supported reasons that ‘children may be harmed’, is just wrong. That a government panders to these fears is also wrong. I’m stunned that the human rights commission hasn’t looked into this persecution.

#14
Maya1236:09 pm, 05 May 14

damien haas said :

Maya123 said :

damien haas said :

A_Cog said :

damien haas said :

Unless they are blowing smoke in your childs face i think you should just tut tut silently under your breath. It is doing you no harm.

No harm?

“There is no risk-free level of secondhand smoke exposure; even brief exposure can be harmful to health.”
http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/secondhand_smoke/general_facts/

The source you quote states: “Eliminating smoking in indoor spaces is the only way to fully protect nonsmokers from secondhand smoke exposure.”

*indoor spaces*

It says nothing about playgrounds. Smoke dissipation rates would be very high in a place with no walls, doors or ceiling.

As I said, unless they are blowing it in your child’s face, there is no harm being caused.

Actually even if a smoker smokes outside away from others they are still a risk to other’s health.
http://lungcancer.about.com/od/Lung-Cancer-And-Smoking/a/Third-Hand-Smoke.htm

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-is-third-hand-smoke/

It’s worrying the number of people working in restaurants who smoke. Check out the smokers near the restaurant’s back door. I would rather go to a restaurant staffed by non-smokers. It could be a great advertising ploy; especially in a place such as Canberra where most people don’t smoke.

I read that source you provided and still can’t agree. I don’t think tobacco smoke is agent orange, and unless you child is licking the grass in the playground that the smoking is taking place in a the very monet the residue (whatever that is – ash? smoke? it’s not clear) – then it’s unlikely your child will be harmed. The source you provide really only applies to a room inside a building, or the interior of a car.

Look, I get it that people don’t like smokers, but manufacturing reasons to destroy their access to open spaces on the spurious and negligibly scientifically supported reasons that ‘children may be harmed’, is just wrong. That a government panders to these fears is also wrong. I’m stunned that the human rights commission hasn’t looked into this persecution.

What about the studies that indicate that tobacco toxin exposure is the leading cause of sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS)? (See above Scientific American link)
I take it you are a smoker, who is feeling threatened. People are not attacking you personally (or I am not), but rather the awful side effects of smoking, that people who don’t smoke have had to put up with and shut up about most of their life. I’m old enough to remember smoking in theatres, planes, at work, etc, and having to put up with it. Personally I can’t imagine why anyone would want to smoke. Health issues aside, there’s the expense, the antagonism it causes and the deforestation. (I think it’s sad that people would rather smoke than preserve forests.)
http://inthesetimes.com/article/3324/tobacco_stains

http://ydouthink.com/deforestation/

#15
damien haas7:18 pm, 05 May 14

Maya123 said :

damien haas said :

Maya123 said :

damien haas said :

A_Cog said :

damien haas said :

Unless they are blowing smoke in your childs face i think you should just tut tut silently under your breath. It is doing you no harm.

No harm?

“There is no risk-free level of secondhand smoke exposure; even brief exposure can be harmful to health.”
http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/secondhand_smoke/general_facts/

The source you quote states: “Eliminating smoking in indoor spaces is the only way to fully protect nonsmokers from secondhand smoke exposure.”

*indoor spaces*

It says nothing about playgrounds. Smoke dissipation rates would be very high in a place with no walls, doors or ceiling.

As I said, unless they are blowing it in your child’s face, there is no harm being caused.

Actually even if a smoker smokes outside away from others they are still a risk to other’s health.
http://lungcancer.about.com/od/Lung-Cancer-And-Smoking/a/Third-Hand-Smoke.htm

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-is-third-hand-smoke/

It’s worrying the number of people working in restaurants who smoke. Check out the smokers near the restaurant’s back door. I would rather go to a restaurant staffed by non-smokers. It could be a great advertising ploy; especially in a place such as Canberra where most people don’t smoke.

I read that source you provided and still can’t agree. I don’t think tobacco smoke is agent orange, and unless you child is licking the grass in the playground that the smoking is taking place in a the very monet the residue (whatever that is – ash? smoke? it’s not clear) – then it’s unlikely your child will be harmed. The source you provide really only applies to a room inside a building, or the interior of a car.

Look, I get it that people don’t like smokers, but manufacturing reasons to destroy their access to open spaces on the spurious and negligibly scientifically supported reasons that ‘children may be harmed’, is just wrong. That a government panders to these fears is also wrong. I’m stunned that the human rights commission hasn’t looked into this persecution.

What about the studies that indicate that tobacco toxin exposure is the leading cause of sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS)? (See above Scientific American link)
I take it you are a smoker, who is feeling threatened. People are not attacking you personally (or I am not), but rather the awful side effects of smoking, that people who don’t smoke have had to put up with and shut up about most of their life. I’m old enough to remember smoking in theatres, planes, at work, etc, and having to put up with it. Personally I can’t imagine why anyone would want to smoke. Health issues aside, there’s the expense, the antagonism it causes and the deforestation. (I think it’s sad that people would rather smoke than preserve forests.)
http://inthesetimes.com/article/3324/tobacco_stains

http://ydouthink.com/deforestation/

Are you contending that a smoker sitting in a park is causing SIDS? The studies you have linked to don’t support any such thing.

Why would you assume I am a smoker? Because i don’t ascribe to your world view regarding evil smokers? The OP is experiencing existential angst over an imagined threat. Every single source provided in this thread to ‘prove’ that some person sitting in a field having a cigarette is causing ‘harm’ to anyone but themselves, has not provided that proof.

The OP didn’t say she was in a car, indoors, or in a restaurant. She said she was in a park.

I am a non-smoker, but I am not non-logic.

Deforestation? FFS

#16
Maya1239:23 pm, 05 May 14

damien haas said :
“Are you contending that a smoker sitting in a park is causing SIDS? The studies you have linked to don’t support any such thing.

Why would you assume I am a smoker? Because i don’t ascribe to your world view regarding evil smokers? The OP is experiencing existential angst over an imagined threat. Every single source provided in this thread to ‘prove’ that some person sitting in a field having a cigarette is causing ‘harm’ to anyone but themselves, has not provided that proof.

The OP didn’t say she was in a car, indoors, or in a restaurant. She said she was in a park.

I am a non-smoker, but I am not non-logic.

Deforestation? FFS”

It appears that no studies convince you of anything. You know better, but offer nothing to back your argument in return.

Discussions can move on.

damien haas said : “”Are you contending that a smoker sitting in a park is causing SIDS?”
Reply: It depends if they are ‘sharing’ their smoke with others. Many smokers don’t appear to know, or care, how far their smoke drifts. The greatest risk probably though is to the smoker’s own children. Even if they don’t smoke near their children, they carry the toxins on their body and spread them about they house, etc, which their children then are exposed to. If you had read and been able to process the links I included you would see the possible risk. Or don’t the smoker’s children’s health matter to you. The argument goes further than someone sitting in a park smoking. It doesn’t end there.

damien haas said : “Deforestation? FFS”
Reply: Again you seem unable to process information. Read the links. I mentioned it as an aside, when I asked why anyone would want to smoke. It was actually a smoker who drew my attention to the deforestation caused by smoking. They told me that that was the best argument they had seen to convince them to give up the habit.

damien haas said : “Because i don’t ascribe to your world view regarding evil smokers?” You are a funny man!

#17
m_ratt9:46 pm, 05 May 14

damien haas said :

The source you quote states: “Eliminating smoking in indoor spaces is the only way to fully protect nonsmokers from secondhand smoke exposure.”

*indoor spaces*

It says nothing about playgrounds. Smoke dissipation rates would be very high in a place with no walls, doors or ceiling.

As I said, unless they are blowing it in your child’s face, there is no harm being caused.

That would be because it’s impossible to eliminate smoke and smoking in outdoor places – especially with inconsiderate jerks like you around.

For goodness sake, if you need to smoke don’t do it around other people. If there are people around, go downwind – far downwind.

Cigarette smoke doesn’t magically disappear because you’re outside – heck, I can tell when there is a smoker in the car in front of me when driving around.

#18
Maya12310:51 pm, 05 May 14

m_ratt said :

damien haas said :

The source you quote states: “Eliminating smoking in indoor spaces is the only way to fully protect nonsmokers from secondhand smoke exposure.”

*indoor spaces*

It says nothing about playgrounds. Smoke dissipation rates would be very high in a place with no walls, doors or ceiling.

As I said, unless they are blowing it in your child’s face, there is no harm being caused.

That would be because it’s impossible to eliminate smoke and smoking in outdoor places – especially with inconsiderate jerks like you around.

For goodness sake, if you need to smoke don’t do it around other people. If there are people around, go downwind – far downwind.

Cigarette smoke doesn’t magically disappear because you’re outside – heck, I can tell when there is a smoker in the car in front of me when driving around.

damien haas wrote, “I am a non-smoker, but I am not non-logic. ”
Okay, I’ll accept the non-smoker bit.

#19
KB197111:44 am, 06 May 14

damien haas said :

Maya123 said :

damien haas said :

Maya123 said :

damien haas said :

A_Cog said :

damien haas said :

Unless they are blowing smoke in your childs face i think you should just tut tut silently under your breath. It is doing you no harm.

No harm?

“There is no risk-free level of secondhand smoke exposure; even brief exposure can be harmful to health.”
http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/secondhand_smoke/general_facts/

The source you quote states: “Eliminating smoking in indoor spaces is the only way to fully protect nonsmokers from secondhand smoke exposure.”

*indoor spaces*

It says nothing about playgrounds. Smoke dissipation rates would be very high in a place with no walls, doors or ceiling.

As I said, unless they are blowing it in your child’s face, there is no harm being caused.

Actually even if a smoker smokes outside away from others they are still a risk to other’s health.
http://lungcancer.about.com/od/Lung-Cancer-And-Smoking/a/Third-Hand-Smoke.htm

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-is-third-hand-smoke/

It’s worrying the number of people working in restaurants who smoke. Check out the smokers near the restaurant’s back door. I would rather go to a restaurant staffed by non-smokers. It could be a great advertising ploy; especially in a place such as Canberra where most people don’t smoke.

I read that source you provided and still can’t agree. I don’t think tobacco smoke is agent orange, and unless you child is licking the grass in the playground that the smoking is taking place in a the very monet the residue (whatever that is – ash? smoke? it’s not clear) – then it’s unlikely your child will be harmed. The source you provide really only applies to a room inside a building, or the interior of a car.

Look, I get it that people don’t like smokers, but manufacturing reasons to destroy their access to open spaces on the spurious and negligibly scientifically supported reasons that ‘children may be harmed’, is just wrong. That a government panders to these fears is also wrong. I’m stunned that the human rights commission hasn’t looked into this persecution.

What about the studies that indicate that tobacco toxin exposure is the leading cause of sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS)? (See above Scientific American link)
I take it you are a smoker, who is feeling threatened. People are not attacking you personally (or I am not), but rather the awful side effects of smoking, that people who don’t smoke have had to put up with and shut up about most of their life. I’m old enough to remember smoking in theatres, planes, at work, etc, and having to put up with it. Personally I can’t imagine why anyone would want to smoke. Health issues aside, there’s the expense, the antagonism it causes and the deforestation. (I think it’s sad that people would rather smoke than preserve forests.)
http://inthesetimes.com/article/3324/tobacco_stains

http://ydouthink.com/deforestation/

Are you contending that a smoker sitting in a park is causing SIDS? The studies you have linked to don’t support any such thing.

Why would you assume I am a smoker? Because i don’t ascribe to your world view regarding evil smokers? The OP is experiencing existential angst over an imagined threat. Every single source provided in this thread to ‘prove’ that some person sitting in a field having a cigarette is causing ‘harm’ to anyone but themselves, has not provided that proof.

The OP didn’t say she was in a car, indoors, or in a restaurant. She said she was in a park.

I am a non-smoker, but I am not non-logic.

Deforestation? FFS

Amen Brother………

#20
Madam Cholet5:23 pm, 22 Jul 14

Noted whilst in Melbourne last weekend that smoking is not permitted at tram stops. I’d hazard a guess that bus stops would be the same. So that’s NSW and VIC who have legislated and perhaps other states as well.

What is stopping the ACT?

#21
gooterz6:16 pm, 22 Jul 14

Madam Cholet said :

Noted whilst in Melbourne last weekend that smoking is not permitted at tram stops. I’d hazard a guess that bus stops would be the same. So that’s NSW and VIC who have legislated and perhaps other states as well.

What is stopping the ACT?

They want to legalise it.

Are they going to need new signs? No smoking unless its medical?

Sponsors
RiotACT Proudly Supports
Advertisement
Copyright © 2014 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.