ACT passes tough new anti-smoking laws.

Richard Bender said :

You are allowed personal freedom. You have the personal freedom to choose not to patronise a business that permits smoking on the premises.

WTF?

Freedom is being able to patronise any god-damned cafe you want without having to compromise your choice because of some smug fuck with a cancer stick!

“cigarettes are an addictive drug just like heroin, why are they legal?”

It possibly has something to do with politics and economics. Maybe something along the lines of the revenue the government gets from tobacco companies is far greater than the cost to the public purse of treating those who get lung cancer and emphysema from tobacco use.

The air that we all need to breathe should be unadulterated by tobacco smoke from thoughtless irresponsible smokers.

If we move all smokers to an enclave somewhere out near Yass, do not permit them to hold jobs, own property, or mix with non-smokers, then the world be a better place for all us, nein?

I’m so proud that the Stanhope Govt is prepared to stand up for human rights; after all, we wouldn’t want to live in a dictatorship or bully-boy state where there is never any consultation, would we?

niftydog said :

Richard Bender said :

If you don’t want your meal “ruined” by selfish smokers… patronise a cafe that does not permit smoking.

Sounds like a great idea. Why don’t I just seal up my house with silicon and never venture outside ever again?! Heck, I’m just a non-smoker so I don’t really deserve any respect, consideration or personal freedom.

You are allowed personal freedom. You have the personal freedom to choose not to patronise a business that permits smoking on the premises. You have the personal freedom to tell the owner that you won’t come back unless smoking is banned on the premises and if the owner can’t get any customers because smoking is permitted, he has the personal freedom to review his policy. It is these new laws, not smokers, that are denying freedom.

Richard Bender said :

If you don’t want your meal “ruined” by selfish smokers… patronise a cafe that does not permit smoking.

Sounds like a great idea. Why don’t I just seal up my house with silicon and never venture outside ever again?! Heck, I’m just a non-smoker so I don’t really deserve any respect, consideration or personal freedom.

Mordd said :

Oh, one other thing I forgot to ask, is when they will be banning cars from the city now, so we don’t have to put up with all that extra smog so we can properly enjoy outdoor dining now. Maybe we could require all vehicles be fitted with an emissions filter to reduce the pollution they put out.

I don’t know what sort of places you choose to eat lunch at Mordd, (but I can guess,) the places I eat at don’t allow cars to park at the next table with their engines running and their exhausts at eye level.

Question for all you non-smokers, how many of you own a car, and frequently use that car to drive distances that are within a 15 minute walk for you? How often of the time you are driving do you have more than 1 person in the car? How many of you have a family where there are 3 or more cars in the household? Come on now, don’t be bashful, I know thats a lot of you!

Irrelevant strawman.

ahappychappy said :

Soon, we’ll be banning people with flatulence, or people who don’t shower daily from venturing outside their house. It’s their choice to not do something about their hygene, but it does have a negative impact on peoples dining experience?

Yeah but bad BO doesn’t give the guy sitting next to you cancer. (although someone might want to research it)

I thought one of the reasons for cracking down on smoking in pubs, clubs, etc was down to OH&S – ie. due to the threat of legal action and compo if any of the staff gets cancer from passive smoking.

Mordd said :

although Essen and Gus’ were both mentioned in the thread, given the style of RA it would not be a stretch to assume that a number of posters here frequent these venues at the very least. 😛

Yeah, one of those upper class establishments where they serve those fancy coffees.

Would those supporting this ban agree to a law that allows the Government to dictate to them what they can and cannot do on their own property, irrespective of whether those actions exposed others to involuntary risk? Because that is exactly what this law does.

Nobody is compelled to eat, drink or work at any establishment. The fact that a particular cafe, restaurant or bar allows smoking is normally self-evident: look for the ashtrays on the tables. If you don’t want your meal “ruined” by selfish smokers, or do not want to be exposed to any health risks from passive smoking, patronise a cafe that does not permit smoking.

Mordd said :

Well this has started up a vigirous discussion hehe (not that I expected any less). I would like to clarify a few points being discussed though.

1. All smokers are bad – This argument never has held water. Fact is with the reduced number of smokers left, you actually find a higher percentage these days of responsible smokers, there are plenty of us aware that if we all go around flicking butts everywhere eventually they will outlaw it altogether, so you might be surprised how many smokers actually do think about this (not forgetting the removal of most bins and butt receptacles from public spaces due to bomb fears notwithstanding though).

2. As I mentiond in the article, I myself deliberately move away from an eating area to smoke already, yes even at Essen for example, some of us actually do realise you don’t want us smoking near you and move without having to be asked – this ties back into point #1 – as much as you want to believe its not true, the responsible smoker is not an urban myth.

3. As I also said in the OP, I actually support the majority aspect of this legislation, the part relating to banning smoking in outdoor restaurant/cafe areas. It is harsh yes, but if its what the majority want then I support that, I am not so ignorant to disrespect others in the community I live in for the sake of my habit – again this ties back in to ponts 1 and 2 here, im sure you will find others smokers also supportive of this aspect.

4. The part which I object to, is the part where they consumption of drinks in the outdoor designated smoking area that they are now allowed to have under the new laws.

Quote: “My guess is that the food and drink ban in designated areas is for OH&S reasons. If people eat and drink, someone will have to go in there and remove plates, glasses etc.

This way, smokers can continue to enjoy their crutch without having to have hospitality staff working there way through a cloud of smoke.”

I would agree, that is the reason for this aspect of the legislation I would imagine. It is illogical though, think about it like this. A venue will either currently have a beer garged, or a designated licensed drinking area segmented off on the footpath.

The venue must now split that area in half, on one side you can smoke but not drink, on the other side you can drink but not smoke. Anyone who thinks the smoking isn’t going to blow from the smoking side to the non smoking side is kidding themselves. So if OH&S is really the reason, then they should ban it outright, as otherwise its not even a bandaid fix of addressing the OH&S aspect.

This also now turns the venue staff into police, who must continually ask smokers to leave their drink in the non smoking side, to step back over the line dividing the sides, etc… You can see how well this is going to go down in most venues on busy nights when all the staff care about is grabbing the empties and getting them back to the bar to be washed. Its only going to result in more arugments between patrons and staff, with staff trying to enforce laws in some cases they wont agree with themselves.

There have also been some valid points raised here about the cost to small operators forced to keep complying with laws that have now changed multiple times int he last few years, and will require businesses to spend even more money again to comply with the latest round of legislation, what else will change in another 12-24 months time many of them will rightfully be asking.

Thankyou to the people who have posted here supporting my argument, I am glad to see that some of you, even some non-smokers recognise this isn’t as a black and white argument as many in the anti-smoking lobby would have you believe. The questions as to what extra funds the government has put into anti-smoking assistance programs now as well is also a valid point to raise here.

To the anti-smoking posters who chose to ignore what I actually said in the article and replied as if I was arguing against the laws in their entirety, I suggest you go back and read what I said again. Ultimately the new laws simply mean that I will be even less likely to come spend money at venues in canberra versus up here in Queanbeyan, and more smokers will simply drink at home instead of going out from now on. How many venues already struggling in the last few years this now sends to the wall as a result is anyone’s guess.

Great story – thought about adapting it to the stage?

Quote geetee: Wish I knew where most of the posters on this thread drunk and ate. Not that I want to smoke near you, I just wouldn’t want to associate with such a bunch of wankers.

Comments like that cut both ways you realise…. although Essen and Gus’ were both mentioned in the thread, given the style of RA it would not be a stretch to assume that a number of posters here frequent these venues at the very least. 😛

Mordd said :

Oh, one other thing I forgot to ask, is when they will be banning cars from the city now, so we don’t have to put up with all that extra smog so we can properly enjoy outdoor dining now. Maybe we could require all vehicles be fitted with an emissions filter to reduce the pollution they put out.

Question for all you non-smokers, how many of you own a car, and frequently use that car to drive distances that are within a 15 minute walk for you? How often of the time you are driving do you have more than 1 person in the car? How many of you have a family where there are 3 or more cars in the household? Come on now, don’t be bashful, I know thats a lot of you!

Seriously if you think car smog and cigarette smoke are the same thing then you are deluded. The inconvenience cigarette smoke makes is far worse. Generally any smog from cars is dispersed before getting near any eating areas. However if it did affect me i’d not be sitting there. If there were not so many smokers who were inconsiderate then there would be no need for these laws. As for cars, completely agree, we need to get the gas guzzling smog producing cars off the roads. Thats a bigger issue to deal with though. Just that oil and car companies have more power than tobacco companies i suspect.

And when it comes down to it…. go outside have a smoke, come back in and have a beer. You get some exercise and probably smoke and drink less. Its not really that bad.

Mordd said :

To the anti-smoking posters who chose to ignore what I actually said in the article and replied as if I was arguing against the laws in their entirety, I suggest you go back and read what I said again.

Obviously you haven’t learnt from any of the other threads. It’s okay for certain people to just ignore specifics within arguments and attack people against their opinion, but not everyone.

Welcome to RiotACT.

I personally don’t smoke, but on ocassions have been known to have a cigarette socially over a beer. I just feel this nanny state thing is getting a little too out of hand.

Soon, we’ll be banning people with flatulence, or people who don’t shower daily from venturing outside their house. It’s their choice to not do something about their hygene, but it does have a negative impact on peoples dining experience?

Wish I knew where most of the posters on this thread drunk and ate. Not that I want to smoke near you, I just wouldn’t want to associate with such a bunch of wankers.

Mordd said :

Maybe we could require all vehicles be fitted with an emissions filter to reduce the pollution they put out.

Erm, yeah, it’s called a catalytic converter. They’ve been mandatory on all cars sold in Australia since 1986, haha.

Best news I have heard all year. GREAT WORK.

If I want to smoke, then I will. Until I do (I won’t), I am happy to be able to eat and drink without having someone else’s filthy habit prevent me.

Get the new smokers. Keep it to yourself or you will be legislated out of existence.

Anyone 30 or less who smokes does not get my sympathy at all. They have had 20 years of being told smoking is going to kill you.

@ Anarchist – its up to you wether you read it or not. This is a topic I have a vested interest in as both a smoker and someone who enjoys eating and drinking out at venues and cafes in Canberra. I don’t see a posting length limit on the comments section.

Oh, one other thing I forgot to ask, is when they will be banning cars from the city now, so we don’t have to put up with all that extra smog so we can properly enjoy outdoor dining now. Maybe we could require all vehicles be fitted with an emissions filter to reduce the pollution they put out.

Question for all you non-smokers, how many of you own a car, and frequently use that car to drive distances that are within a 15 minute walk for you? How often of the time you are driving do you have more than 1 person in the car? How many of you have a family where there are 3 or more cars in the household? Come on now, don’t be bashful, I know thats a lot of you!

astrojax said :

smoking should be regulated such that it is only permissible by cyclists without a helmet in marked cycle lanes – and disposing of butts has to be either in the handle bar ends, or swallowed. and this should be the only form of permissible cycling, too.

+1

and this way the Government could combine the registration to smoke with the registration to own a bike. 🙂

But seriously, I think it should be banned in eating areas, but have areas where people can drink and smoke if they want. Somwhere a bit like the glass cages they had at the old Bangkok airport, where everyone could look in and see the desperate smokers sucking a few down in between flights.

Jeez, Moord, you want us to wade through that lot? What’s wrong with just having an opinion, informed or otherwise?

In my opinion, this is just another Chicken Little argument – yes, there may be some (small) immediate impact on business, but as always, people will adapt. Venues that provide good service to all comers will recover quickly and in no time at all, everyone will be wondering what all the fuss was about. Just get over it.

A venue will either currently have a beer *garden, – sorry for bad spelling, theres a few others too but im sure most ppl can figure it out lol.

Thanks astro – I thought that had disappeared into the ether…

Well this has started up a vigirous discussion hehe (not that I expected any less). I would like to clarify a few points being discussed though.

1. All smokers are bad – This argument never has held water. Fact is with the reduced number of smokers left, you actually find a higher percentage these days of responsible smokers, there are plenty of us aware that if we all go around flicking butts everywhere eventually they will outlaw it altogether, so you might be surprised how many smokers actually do think about this (not forgetting the removal of most bins and butt receptacles from public spaces due to bomb fears notwithstanding though).

2. As I mentiond in the article, I myself deliberately move away from an eating area to smoke already, yes even at Essen for example, some of us actually do realise you don’t want us smoking near you and move without having to be asked – this ties back into point #1 – as much as you want to believe its not true, the responsible smoker is not an urban myth.

3. As I also said in the OP, I actually support the majority aspect of this legislation, the part relating to banning smoking in outdoor restaurant/cafe areas. It is harsh yes, but if its what the majority want then I support that, I am not so ignorant to disrespect others in the community I live in for the sake of my habit – again this ties back in to ponts 1 and 2 here, im sure you will find others smokers also supportive of this aspect.

4. The part which I object to, is the part where they consumption of drinks in the outdoor designated smoking area that they are now allowed to have under the new laws.

Quote: “My guess is that the food and drink ban in designated areas is for OH&S reasons. If people eat and drink, someone will have to go in there and remove plates, glasses etc.

This way, smokers can continue to enjoy their crutch without having to have hospitality staff working there way through a cloud of smoke.”

I would agree, that is the reason for this aspect of the legislation I would imagine. It is illogical though, think about it like this. A venue will either currently have a beer garged, or a designated licensed drinking area segmented off on the footpath.

The venue must now split that area in half, on one side you can smoke but not drink, on the other side you can drink but not smoke. Anyone who thinks the smoking isn’t going to blow from the smoking side to the non smoking side is kidding themselves. So if OH&S is really the reason, then they should ban it outright, as otherwise its not even a bandaid fix of addressing the OH&S aspect.

This also now turns the venue staff into police, who must continually ask smokers to leave their drink in the non smoking side, to step back over the line dividing the sides, etc… You can see how well this is going to go down in most venues on busy nights when all the staff care about is grabbing the empties and getting them back to the bar to be washed. Its only going to result in more arugments between patrons and staff, with staff trying to enforce laws in some cases they wont agree with themselves.

There have also been some valid points raised here about the cost to small operators forced to keep complying with laws that have now changed multiple times int he last few years, and will require businesses to spend even more money again to comply with the latest round of legislation, what else will change in another 12-24 months time many of them will rightfully be asking.

Thankyou to the people who have posted here supporting my argument, I am glad to see that some of you, even some non-smokers recognise this isn’t as a black and white argument as many in the anti-smoking lobby would have you believe. The questions as to what extra funds the government has put into anti-smoking assistance programs now as well is also a valid point to raise here.

To the anti-smoking posters who chose to ignore what I actually said in the article and replied as if I was arguing against the laws in their entirety, I suggest you go back and read what I said again. Ultimately the new laws simply mean that I will be even less likely to come spend money at venues in canberra versus up here in Queanbeyan, and more smokers will simply drink at home instead of going out from now on. How many venues already struggling in the last few years this now sends to the wall as a result is anyone’s guess.

54-11 said :

You know, if the average smoker had been more reasonable in their habits, not dropping butts, cellophane and empty packs around the place, not smoking next to other people eating, didn’t congregate where their collective smoke/toxins affected non-smokers, then they may have an argument about draconian laws.

However, given their overall (and I’m generalising here) arrogance and ignorance in their habits, then they (collectively) deserve everything they get.

Likewise with cyclists…

smoking should be regulated such that it is only permissible by cyclists without a helmet in marked cycle lanes – and disposing of butts has to be either in the handle bar ends, or swallowed. and this should be the only form of permissible cycling, too.

“flick a fart out of his car window”

I’ve been trying to master that for years but have never managed it. “Can you smell petrol?”

punktual said :

This is not a stawman argument, it is showing that there is a double standard.
If you honestly think second hand smoke is effecting your health more while sitting at Gus’s/Essen than all the car exhaust fumes your breathing in then you are kidding yourself. If people where concerned about the health risks they would tollerate car exhaust either, but you never hear complaints about that in trendy inner city cafes.

No it is a strawman argument.

Either prove to me that people who do not like smoke blown over them and their food, deliberately choose to go and eat Gus’s/Essen (I’ve never even heard of them let alone eaten there,) and inhale car smoke, or you have no argument.

Most people with functioning synapses would not choose to go and eat where they are subjected to car fumes, especially those like me who do not like smoke or car exaust pollution.

You’re analogy is totally and utterly false and without substantiation.

The fart analogy is correct.

As a smoker, and a barman, I have no real problem with the laws. I understand not all want to smoke, in fact, the majority don’t. This is why I also don’t smoke at my desk at my day job, or walk the hospital corridors smoking either.
I can honestly say, if it was banned by the government, other than the 5 or 6 billion the government would lose per year in revenue, it would have little effect on me. I’d still smoke.
I’d be happy to work in a smoke friendly bar, with smoking staff who really don’t give a crap, but then that would be a bit exclusive, and I know how much non smokers hate missing out on what secrets the smokers talk about.
Do I know it’s bad for me, yeah. The mole that used to be on my neck that gave me lymphatic cancer, I had no clue that was bad for me. It did however remind me that I’m not here forever, and I might as well enjoy my time here.
So feel free to hate the fact I smoke, to be honest I really don’t care.

dtc said :

… As an argument its about as good as a 3yr old holding their breath until they get their own way. I don’t care if smoking is banned. Go for it. Hold your breath.

At least if smokers hold their breath we don’t have to smell their second hand smoke.

youami, what a pathetic attitude – “this is a democratic society so majority wins”.

If you are a homosexual, atheist, cyclist, smoker, homeless, muslim, aborigine, jew, pregnant, single parent, hindu, or have dark skin, you lose. Too bad.

punktual said :

And yes i know about your precious second hand smoke, but seriously… how many people a year are seriously effected or killed by second hand smoke? Now how many people are injured or killed because of consumption alcohol by others? should we ban alcohol in public spaces too ?

No need to ban alcohol too – Sitting around with a few people having a beer isn’t going to increase your chance of liver disease, but sitting around with a bunch of smokers is going to increase your chances of cancer.

As for the number of passive smokers killed by second hand smoke – “Using this worst case scenario, you could expect 3.64 deaths per 1000 workers per year” (note that this is workers only. Source: http://www.cancercouncil.com.au/editorial.asp?pageid=1020)

Beau Locks said :

There are lots of things that go on in our society that are, in my opinion, far more offensive than people smoking

There’s a big difference between something being offensive and something being dangerous to my health.

And lets knock the ‘you should ban drinking as well’ argument over. If you drink and do not cause any problems to other people, then its fine. If you drink and you cause problems to other people (fights etc) or even you might cause problems to other people (DUI) then its a crime.

So, now smoking has the same rules. You can smoke, but if your smoking affects another person then you aren’t allowed to do it. And by ‘other person’ that includes both non smokers and hospitality workers who have to operate around smokers.

There is no double standard here. In fact, the rules are exactly the same.

And Gus’s / Essen. Fine, make that argument. But only for cafes right next to a road. Which, of course, most are not. And car exhaust does not require me to wash/dry clean my clothes. Or (in Canberra) give me a sore throat or scratchy eyes. And, of course, i get the choice as to whether I sit there or not, unlike with smokers.

Finally – I suspect that 90% of non smokers would have no problems whatsoever if smoking was banned entirely. Don’t think its a clever argument to say ‘oh, you wouldn’t dare ban it because of the tax’. As an argument its about as good as a 3yr old holding their breath until they get their own way. I don’t care if smoking is banned. Go for it. Hold your breath.

barking toad said :

I’m off to buy a pipe and some good old fashioned tobacco to upset the hippies.

Sorry to disappoint you, but I can assure you that “the hippies” really don’t care how bitter and twisted you are.

punktual said :

This is not a stawman argument, it is showing that there is a double standard.
If you honestly think second hand smoke is effecting your health more while sitting at Gus’s/Essen than all the car exhaust fumes your breathing in then you are kidding yourself. If people where concerned about the health risks they would tollerate car exhaust either, but you never hear complaints about that in trendy inner city cafes.

This is why the fart analogy, no matter how twee it is, is actually quite a good example. It demonstrates how the behaviour of one can directly affect a number of others nearby who otherwise have every right to expect that person’s behaviour to be pulled into line.

The amount of times I have been put off my meal at an outside cafe by a passing car compared to a lingering chain smoker is zero to the cars as against countless times to the smokers.

Never mind the health issues, it’s just bloody rude, selfish and inconsiderate.

grundy said :

Brilliant post! 😀

Mind if I forward this around to a few smokers? 🙂

Be my guest.

So, will we be back to the old days of the magic line drawn across the roof separating smoking from non-smoking areas – except it’s now outside instead of inside? And the smoke recognises this magic line? Hahaha!

The social engineers might perhaps consider their alternative if they are so serious about getting punters off the fags. Make tobacco illegal and lose the tax rake-off at the same time.

Yeah, that’ll happen!

I have no problem with smoking being barred inside. Or having specified outdoor areas in clubs/pubs designated as non-smoking. But to say to a bloke in the outdoor area – “you can go over there for a fag, but you can’t take your beer” is stupid.

I’m off to buy a pipe and some good old fashioned tobacco to upset the hippies.

niftydog said :

Imagine this scenario:

You’re sitting at a cafe eating your meal when a man comes up and sits at an adjoining table. Before he’s even picked up the menu he lets out an enormous, smelly, lingering fart. ….

Brilliant post! 😀

Mind if I forward this around to a few smokers? 🙂

I really think the best idea would be to have ‘smoking venues’ and ‘non smoking venues’.

I know it will never happen but if it did I bet all the best clubs around town would be smoking clubs with live music etc.

Pommy bastard said :

Dante said :

Very disappointing.

“I still find it incredulous that people will complain about smokers at a cafe, but will be more than happy to sit along side some of the busiest urban roads in Canberra eating their meals and inhaling the car emissions.”

Oh yes, they do that don’t they? Oh no, anyone with common sense, which excludes most smokers, will NOT do that voluntarily.

A strawnman unsupported by any evidence. Just the unthinking knee jerk selfishness we expect from smokers, who expect everyone to be as dumb as they are.

This is not a stawman argument, it is showing that there is a double standard.
If you honestly think second hand smoke is effecting your health more while sitting at Gus’s/Essen than all the car exhaust fumes your breathing in then you are kidding yourself. If people where concerned about the health risks they would tollerate car exhaust either, but you never hear complaints about that in trendy inner city cafes.

niftydog said :

Imagine this scenario:

You’re sitting at a cafe eating your meal when a man comes up and sits at an adjoining table. Before he’s even picked up the menu he lets out an enormous, smelly, lingering fart. Then a few seconds later, he does it again. Then again, and again… and again for 5-10 minutes. You look over at him with disgust but he takes absolutely no notice of you and continues enjoying his farting.

By this time a couple of his friends have turned up and they all start farting together. On the other side of the cafe, a bunch more people are also joining in the fart-fest. A lady walks past the cafe, farting as she goes. Somehow a man manages to flick a fart out of his car window as he drives past and it lingers in the air for a few minutes after he is gone.

When they all leave the cafe they leave behind residue on the table and on the ground that smells just like half-sucked stale farts. Their farts even soak into the soft furnishings around the cafe.

As they walk into a non-farting area they madly let out as many farts as possible right at the entrance/exit doors, leaving behind a cloud of farts as well as more stale fart residue all over the ground. The smell of farts lingers around them for hours afterwards, so even though they haven’t farted in a long time it’s very obvious to non-farters within the non-farting area that they have a farting habit.

Within 1.5 seconds of leaving the non-farting area they all blissfully let out a barrage of farts, as if they were about to burst from not farting for so long. The non-farters exiting the non-farting area behind them have no choice but to walk directly into their fart cloud. The non-farters try to avoid their fart cloud, but they are surprised by the tenacious fart cloud is as it seems to carry on the wind a very long way – it even manages to float around corners, through doors and windows and up stairs from where the farting is going on.

Not a very pleasant sounding scenario I’m sure you would all agree.

Sure, many of us like a good fart, and very few people would attempt to deny anyone the right to fart (even though some farters seem to think that all non-farters are hunting them down with corks). All I’m asking is that you be discrete about your farts and have some respect for non-farting people around you by not subjecting them to your smelly farts all the time.

I would be horribly embarrassed if I upset a whole crowd of people with my incessant farting habit. Why is it not so for smokers?

ROFLMFAO, a great analogy. However, it creates an alternate image of those we called “bumsuckers” back in the day.

Actually if I remember correctly the Norwegian law was more “no smoking inside and no drinking outside” but the effective result as far as smokers are concerned is more or less the same.

I saw this exact law in action in Norway a few years back. This could be just the measure we need to knock Norway off the top of the human development index rankings.

The most amusing outcome of the law was that the smoking rooms (each with a guard to keep your glass of beer out) in the nightclub I was in had all been named after terminal illnesses linked to smoking.

54-11 said :

punktual, you’re right. If people want to smoke, they should be able to.

And when I don’t want to smoke your smoke, I should be able to.

As you said, personal choice and responsibility. You have it dead right. And it’s not a slippery slope, it’s a win for good health and good manners.

I have to stereotype because there is no other way: I witness on a daily basis smokers being litterbugs, being ignorant of the people and environment around them, and arrogant towards others especially non-smokers. If you are a smoker and not the stereotype and take offence then go tell your fellow smokers to bin their butts and look around before lighting up!

Besides, this is a democratic society so majority wins. There are more non-smokers than smokers these days so health issues aside, non-smokers (the majority) are entitled to inhale clean air away from smokers. I will play a violin and will cough my lungs up for those who feel they are being victimised… anyway, you still get your ‘designated area’.

Now sure, I have my vices (ie. alcohol and coffee) but they all are in the majority. And if in the far distant future for whatever reason the majority of society becomes against such vices then so be it. I will accept it like smokers should accept this.

Imagine this scenario:

You’re sitting at a cafe eating your meal when a man comes up and sits at an adjoining table. Before he’s even picked up the menu he lets out an enormous, smelly, lingering fart. Then a few seconds later, he does it again. Then again, and again… and again for 5-10 minutes. You look over at him with disgust but he takes absolutely no notice of you and continues enjoying his farting.

By this time a couple of his friends have turned up and they all start farting together. On the other side of the cafe, a bunch more people are also joining in the fart-fest. A lady walks past the cafe, farting as she goes. Somehow a man manages to flick a fart out of his car window as he drives past and it lingers in the air for a few minutes after he is gone.

When they all leave the cafe they leave behind residue on the table and on the ground that smells just like half-sucked stale farts. Their farts even soak into the soft furnishings around the cafe.

As they walk into a non-farting area they madly let out as many farts as possible right at the entrance/exit doors, leaving behind a cloud of farts as well as more stale fart residue all over the ground. The smell of farts lingers around them for hours afterwards, so even though they haven’t farted in a long time it’s very obvious to non-farters within the non-farting area that they have a farting habit.

Within 1.5 seconds of leaving the non-farting area they all blissfully let out a barrage of farts, as if they were about to burst from not farting for so long. The non-farters exiting the non-farting area behind them have no choice but to walk directly into their fart cloud. The non-farters try to avoid their fart cloud, but they are surprised by the tenacious fart cloud is as it seems to carry on the wind a very long way – it even manages to float around corners, through doors and windows and up stairs from where the farting is going on.

Not a very pleasant sounding scenario I’m sure you would all agree.

Sure, many of us like a good fart, and very few people would attempt to deny anyone the right to fart (even though some farters seem to think that all non-farters are hunting them down with corks). All I’m asking is that you be discrete about your farts and have some respect for non-farting people around you by not subjecting them to your smelly farts all the time.

I would be horribly embarrassed if I upset a whole crowd of people with my incessant farting habit. Why is it not so for smokers?

S4anta said :

Dante said :

Very disappointing.

“I still find it incredulous that people will complain about smokers at a cafe, but will be more than happy to sit along side some of the busiest urban roads in Canberra eating their meals and inhaling the car emissions.”

Dante,
Don’t bring logic into this, the mouth breathers will get confused.

So, because people do harmful to themselves, we should allow people to harmful things to others?

How is that ‘logic’?

Pommy bastard said :

Dante said :

Very disappointing.

“I still find it incredulous that people will complain about smokers at a cafe, but will be more than happy to sit along side some of the busiest urban roads in Canberra eating their meals and inhaling the car emissions.”

Oh yes, they do that don’t they? Oh no, anyone with common sense, which excludes most smokers, will NOT do that voluntarily.

A strawnman unsupported by any evidence. Just the unthinking knee jerk selfishness we expect from smokers, who expect everyone to be as dumb as they are.

I think I’m getting cancer from the smug emanating from over here…….
*cough*

Oops, “strawman”…

Dante said :

Very disappointing.

“I still find it incredulous that people will complain about smokers at a cafe, but will be more than happy to sit along side some of the busiest urban roads in Canberra eating their meals and inhaling the car emissions.”

Oh yes, they do that don’t they? Oh no, anyone with common sense, which excludes most smokers, will NOT do that voluntarily.

A strawnman unsupported by any evidence. Just the unthinking knee jerk selfishness we expect from smokers, who expect everyone to be as dumb as they are.

Katie said :

Pushing them out onto the footpath (and away from any ash trays) is going to increase the amount of butts that make their way down the drains as you can be sure they’ll be thrown on the ground. Not so good for the environment.

All they need to do is strategically place rangers outside to write the people littering tickets. Jack up the fine for littering cigarette butts, minimises the problem.

Eyeball In A Quart Jar Of Snot said :

Grail said :

Cigarettes are an addictive drug, just like heroin. Why are they still legal?

An addictive drug?

Like…… caffeine and alcohol?

Bugger, I forgot! 2 wrongs make a right!

Have a coke and a smoke and STFU 🙂

Grail said :

Cigarettes are an addictive drug, just like heroin. Why are they still legal?

An addictive drug?

Like…… caffeine and alcohol?

Dante said :

Very disappointing.

“I still find it incredulous that people will complain about smokers at a cafe, but will be more than happy to sit along side some of the busiest urban roads in Canberra eating their meals and inhaling the car emissions.”

Dante,
Don’t bring logic into this, the mouth breathers will get confused.

I feel a bit sorry for the smokers who love having a ciggy and a drink in the outdoor areas. but maybe the temptation to chain-smoke when drinking will be lessened, so they may feel a bit better after a big night out?

Very disappointing.

I’d asked a Greens MLA to get in touch with me regarding this issue months ago when it was first brought up on RA, and was assured that someone would get back to me.

I’ve never heard anything back and now it’s passed through the assembly..

This is going to make it very hard for smaller venues such as The Front and Transit Bar, and will negatively impact on artistic endeavours put on at those venues.

I still find it incredulous that people will complain about smokers at a cafe, but will be more than happy to sit along side some of the busiest urban roads in Canberra eating their meals and inhaling the car emissions.

The ACT Government is getting really good at this. First, change the law to ban smoking in pubs and clubs unless you have designated smoking area with an expensive extraction unit/air conditioner. Then Wait until businesses foot the bill to comply with the new law, then change it again to ban smoking inside. Now they’ve done almost the same thing with outdoor smoking areas. Small operators must be well impressed…..

I’ve only just given up smoking so my care factor about this is somewhat less than what it would have been about 4 weeks ago, but no allowing drink in designated smoking areas is a bit rough, especially if it’s in a licenced area.

Cigarettes are an addictive drug, just like heroin. Why are they still legal?

Bosworth said :

I’m glad that smoking is now banned in outdoor cafe and restaurant areas.

Disallowing drinks and food in smoking-designated areas is unnecessarily restrictive.

+1 (almost).

Like grundy, eating outside with smokers nearby is something I detest. If it didn’t put me off my meal I wouldn’t mind it, I guess, haha. Thankfully, and finally, it appears this is going to be stopped.

While I agree that banning smoking in a beer garden type situation is a bit OTT, at least by banning smoking where food or drink is served it will stop the situation you might have where the non-smoking and smoking areas at restaurants are right next to each other. Which has always seemed rather pointless to me.

punktual, you’re right. If people want to smoke, they should be able to.

And when I don’t want to smoke your smoke, I should be able to.

As you said, personal choice and responsibility. You have it dead right. And it’s not a slippery slope, it’s a win for good health and good manners.

Poor Canberra!! This evolution has been happening for a while- particularly in the rest of the country..

and while we are all bitching and whining about smokers ruining the outdoors the real issues seem to get ingored.

Nice navel gazing, keep up all the good work.

grundy said :

Awesome, so we’ll be able to eat outside at Gus’ and Essen without breathing in smoke!

Great, now you’ll only be choking on the smug clouds.

Pushing them out onto the footpath (and away from any ash trays) is going to increase the amount of butts that make their way down the drains as you can be sure they’ll be thrown on the ground. Not so good for the environment.

I am currently trying to quit smoking however find the anti-smoking comments on here rediculous.

If people want to smoke they will… and should be able to.
It’s called personal choice and responsibility.

Smokers allready have to go outside on 40 degree days during summer and 0 degree nights during winter to enjoy a cigarette. Now they cant have a beer with that cigerette either?

And yes i know about your precious second hand smoke, but seriously… how many people a year are seriously effected or killed by second hand smoke? Now how many people are injured or killed because of consumption alcohol by others? should we ban alcohol in public spaces too ? Of course not, there would be public outrage if that happened, so we turn a blind eye and have a double standard.

If the government was serious about saving lives they would outright ban smoking but they will never do that because it generates far too much revenue, but even this is beside the point which is that we should have right to make our own decisions and choices and not allow the ‘nanny state’ government decide for us.

To the non smokers zealots – we all have our vices…
Where will the slippery slope end and when will they come for yours?

You know, if the average smoker had been more reasonable in their habits, not dropping butts, cellophane and empty packs around the place, not smoking next to other people eating, didn’t congregate where their collective smoke/toxins affected non-smokers, then they may have an argument about draconian laws.

However, given their overall (and I’m generalising here) arrogance and ignorance in their habits, then they (collectively) deserve everything they get.

Likewise with cyclists…

Awesome, so we’ll be able to eat outside at Gus’ and Essen without breathing in smoke!

I wonder, if they manage to stop everyone smoking (hah!), where the taxes generated by that activity will come from? I can’t imagine it’s a small amount.

And what’s next on their ‘good for us’ list?

No, I’m not a smoker, in case you’re wondering. I’m just getting pissed off at the whole ‘nanny’ thing.

I’m glad that smoking is now banned in outdoor cafe and restaurant areas.

Disallowing drinks and food in smoking-designated areas is unnecessarily restrictive.

i think its a great idea its finally going to put a stop to the chain smoking drinkers at pubs. peoplle might think twice about going out for a smoke if it means they are going to have to walk away from there friends or miss a drink..

smoking shouldent be so socially accepted.

I’ve got an idea for a quit smoking program that the government could run.
How about we set up some car batteries in the designated smoking areas and whenever someone goes into the area to have a smoke, we hook the batteries up to their genitals.
Aversion therapy works every time.

i am not a smoker, but i think not allowing them to drink while smoking is a little over the top.

kevn said :

It’s ok, soon you’ll all have to check yourselves into a fenced area of Hume to smoke, so the footpath issue is moot.

Hume: home of secret data centres and the smoking area (that is until some Telstra worker complains about the smoke).

Seriously though, If the ACT Government continues to take this stance it will only be a matter of time until they ban drinking in public bars, sounds silly i know. But think about the positive consequence that would start to occur:

Lower accident rates – drives insurance premiums and payouts down
Lower assault rate in Civic – people will want to visit the city again, local industry wins
Less of a Police presence needed
Accident and Emergency departments will be freed up by less volume of patients
Streets would be somewhat cleaner
Folks would stay at home more (maybe meet the neighbours)
No more regrettable one night stands (Good thing or bad thing?)

But this wont wash with a lot of folk as it takes away and deprives people of liberties that they have the right to enjoy and utilise as they see fit. If Ms Gallagher says that i cannot enjoy a smoke with a beer then she can try and pry it away from my cold, yellowed fingers.

Fully support this.

I hate it when I’m having MY LUNCH sat outside a cafe, and some thoughtless selfish asshole decides to ruin it by lighting up and stinking the area out with smoke.

Great stuff. The more we keep dirty smokers away from the rest of us, especially while eating and drinking, the better.

Whilst I feel for those businesses that have geared up to accomodate smokers with investments in beer gardens and the like, its probably about time that we just banned tobbacco products outright – with all these laws, we end up making pariahs of those enjoy a smoke.

The other thing that interests me is the idea of where all these laws come from – they’re a great example of the effectiveness of an extremely small zealous lobby that are able to influence legislators to make quite significant changes to laws that in a political sense aren’t really tagged to many votes.

Mordd–I agree with your comments. For the record, I’m not a smoker. I find it interesting that smokers have become the new social pariahs that everyone feels okay about persecuting. Honestly, if don’t want to be around smokers, I go somewhere where people don’t smoke. We let the magic of the market decide for everything else, yet choose to regulate like buggery when it comes to smoking.

How about some more stringent laws about other stuff? Special licenses for twonks in four wheel drives that don’t actually need a four wheel drive. That’s learn ’em. (A condition of getting the license would be to do a test drive thru some really full on mud and hills and then have to change a tyre using a high lift jack on a two tonne vehicle. I reckon that’d sort out 99% of the SUV mums that you see picking kids up at Grammar, and send them back to driving a more appropriate vehicle that’d less likely to kill anything it hits.) Or what about a tax on fugly macmansions?

There are lots of things that go on in our society that are, in my opinion, far more offensive than people smoking, and probably far more costly to us all, too. Likely, tho, most of them would be political suicide to regulate or legislate around. People need to chill out and keep in mind that most of us engage in some type of activity that other people will find offensive.

My guess is that the food and drink ban in designated areas is for OH&S reasons. If people eat and drink, someone will have to go in there and remove plates, glasses etc.

This way, smokers can continue to enjoy their crutch without having to have hospitality staff working there way through a cloud of smoke.

Yay! Keep coming with the smoking clamp down ACT Govt!!

Pushing the smokers out onto footpaths is not good though, so we should probably ban smoking on footpaths, or maybe for simplicity all public areas. Then the next step is ban smoking everywhere in the ACT.

It’s ok, soon you’ll all have to check yourselves into a fenced area of Hume to smoke, so the footpath issue is moot.

So smokers in 12 months time if you want to enjoy a drink and smoke outside, just remember NSW doesn’t have dracanion legislation like this and Queanbeyan has at least 1 nice venue with a beer garden you can smoke in.

What’s draconian is that there are people that still think that smoking in front of others is ‘just a bother’ and not something that adversely effects their health, whether they be an asthmatic or persons that just prefer not to increase their chances of smoking (passive) related diseases.

You could always make an attempt to quit. I wonder what initiatives the ACT gov’t has spearheaded to assist in this way? I’m genuinely not having a shot Mordd, I am just curious to know if any support measures were considered while this was drafted and passed. I must say this is not unexpected and smokers can probably expect further restrictions. I’m a non-smoker, so I kinda feel like I’m looking into the fish bowl here.

Just get over it and quit already. They’re trying to make it harder to smoke for your own benefit and the benefit of all the tax payers footing your Medicare bill.

Personally, I’ll be delighted when I don’t have to put up with smoking anywhere. But for now I’ll just have to put up with it on my way in and out of a venue.

It would make more sence to ban smoking while driving, and why not ban drinking!

I would be happy if they changed the laws to move all smokers to Queanbeyan. However, you can be almost 100% assured that NSW will have very similar laws in the not too distant future.

Anyway, you have not mentioned in your rant thatthe minister has specifically said that pubs and clubs can designate 50% of their outdoor areas to dirty smokers, which to me is a designated area. If people want to wander off and start fights or walk in front of vehicles, that’s a totally different story. They’re just as likely to do either of those things without having a smoke in their hand if they’re drunk.

If you don’t like it, quit smoking.