Skip to content Skip to main navigation

Ever greater restrictions on where you can suck down a coffin nail

johnboy 31 May 2013 51

bubbler

Chief Minister Gallagher has announced she’s turning the screw even tighter on smoking:

Playgrounds, public swimming pools, sporting fields and bus interchanges are among the next locations that the ACT Government will seek to restrict smoking, potentially extending the list of places where smoking is banned in the ACT, Chief Minister and Minister for Health, Katy Gallagher, announced today.

The Chief Minister today launched the ACT Government’s ‘Future directions for tobacco reduction in the ACT 2013?2016’ coinciding with World No Tobacco Day.

“The ACT has already taken considerable steps to protect the community from the harmful effects of tobacco smoke and to discourage the uptake of smoking. Today I am announcing a new list of locations where prohibiting smoking may reduce the health impacts on the wider community,” the Chief Minister said.  

“The latest list of locations to consider a ban on smoking has targeted places where there is close personal interaction like bus interchanges and in many cases close interaction with children like playgrounds and swimming pools.”

The ‘Future Directions for Tobacco reduction in the ACT 2013?16’ includes options to prohibit smoking at the following locations:

— public swimming pools, playgrounds, sporting fields,  bus interchanges,  university campuses,

building entrances, and large public events.


What’s Your opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
51 Responses to
Ever greater restrictions on where you can suck down a coffin nail
Filter
Showing only Website comments
Order
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
pink little birdie 1:44 pm 14 Aug 13

They should have smoking rooms in bus interchanges; Like they have at Japan railway stations. so the smoke is sent up and away from people.

DrKoresh 1:25 pm 14 Aug 13

Thumper said :

Surely it’s time to simply put smokers in re-education camps?

Irony, I hope.

dkNigs 12:45 pm 14 Aug 13

There is absolutely zero point to this if they don’t get out there, enforce it, and give on the spot fines. The only reason the restaurant / bar restrictions work is because fair trading will fine the establishment if it’s breached, so they enforce it themselves. Nearly every time I go out I see some twat trying to light up in an outdoor beer garden and security having to stop them.

No enforcement = no results.

Thumper 10:59 am 14 Aug 13

Roundhead89 said :

This morning coming back from the pool I saw a young bloke in the car next to me at the lights smoking. I believe cars should be fitted with immobilisers and wifi beacons so that if cigarette smoke is detected the car immediately stops and a message sent to the relevant authorities cancelling the car’s rego and the driver’s licence. They should then be barred from driving for life and if caught behind the wheel sentenced to life imprisonment.

Surely it’s time to simply put smokers in re-education camps?

Postalgeek 10:45 am 14 Aug 13

I wouldn’t say alcohol gets of scot-free: there are alcohol-free zones, permanent and temporary, strict liquor licensing, and laws that ban people from carrying open liquor containers in certain public places like bus interchanges.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/act/consol_act/la2010107/s199.html

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/act/consol_act/la2010107/s200.html

If you drink and drive, you face criminal charges. You don’t face any charges for smoking and driving, though people who throw lit cigarettes out the window should be fisted with the Barbed Gauntlet of Justice. And if you were to force alcohol into the mouths of strangers in close proximity to you, I imagine you’d be looking at a range of criminal charges.

bundah 10:32 am 14 Aug 13

Roundhead89 said :

This morning coming back from the pool I saw a young bloke in the car next to me at the lights smoking. I believe cars should be fitted with immobilisers and wifi beacons so that if cigarette smoke is detected the car immediately stops and a message sent to the relevant authorities cancelling the car’s rego and the driver’s licence. They should then be barred from driving for life and if caught behind the wheel sentenced to life imprisonment.

Far easier to just shoot ’em…

Roundhead89 10:28 am 14 Aug 13

This morning coming back from the pool I saw a young bloke in the car next to me at the lights smoking. I believe cars should be fitted with immobilisers and wifi beacons so that if cigarette smoke is detected the car immediately stops and a message sent to the relevant authorities cancelling the car’s rego and the driver’s licence. They should then be barred from driving for life and if caught behind the wheel sentenced to life imprisonment.

kumadude 10:21 am 14 Aug 13

It is amazing to think a gram of green has not risen in 20 years and now cigarettes has made it far more attractive.
I recommend electronic cigarettes no smoke, far better for your health in the long run and the juice comes with sweet flavours like apple, watermelon, vanilla and coffee. The big plus, no tax…suck it gubment.

Here_and_Now 10:11 am 14 Aug 13

rosscoact said :

MissChief said :

Smokers don’t bother me but I have often wondered why they don’t do more to stop drinking – surely the cause of far more destruction and misery than smoking. If anything is going to be banned, it should be alcohol.

http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/parenting/pregnancy-drinking-harming-hundreds/story-fnet08xa-1226654826593

Because there’s a safe level of drinking and no safe level of smoking.

Besides smokers stink

Yes, whenever a discussion about banning/legalising something comes up and someone says ‘alcohol is worse than [X] and we haven’t banned alcohol’, it doesn’t come across to me as ‘so we shouldn’t ban [X] so much as ‘so we should ban alcohol as well as [X]’.

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd 9:06 am 14 Aug 13

;b

Dilandach 8:05 am 14 Aug 13

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

Also if you are going to criticise my spelling, maybe you should first L2QUOTE…

Where ever they need to ‘L2QUOTE’ apparently you need to go too 😉

DrKoresh 1:09 am 14 Aug 13

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

Also if you are going to criticise my spelling, maybe you should first L2QUOTE…

Pot, kettle, black.

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd 9:50 pm 13 Aug 13

Blathnat said :

Hey moron,your silly argument could be used for anything. Say like, if you start smoking next to my kids and I make a personnel choice to start reportedly pinching you in the face, you should acomidate that and if you say otherwise its discrimination against me.

Grow up.

I find it funny that for someone who has told me to “grow up” has not only referred to me as a “moron”, and resorted to (to paraphrase) ‘if you smoke near me, I will pinch your face’ (based on the other misspellings I’ll assume you meant “repeatedly”, “punch” and “accommodate”). Yes, good to see we’re all mature intelligent people here on riotact.

But I’ll bite. You are perfectly capable of moving, as are your children. As far as it goes, whoever was there first has ‘right of way’ in my mind. If someone walks up to where I am standing having a smoke, it is their problem, not mine. If I walked up to your family and lit up, then I would be in the wrong (although if you had bothered to read any of my post you would realise that I, and every smoker I know, will attempt to move away from others while we smoke). Oh, and so we’re clear, if you touched me you’d have more problems than a little smoke…

As for us smokers “stinking”, well that is a matter of opinion. Have you ever had to catch a peak-hour bus? There are numerous passengers that reek of sweat, poor hygiene, unbrushed teeth, breakfast foods (a mixture of cereal and stale milk), young children, not to mention the plethora of “ethnic” foods and spices. I find these things far more obnoxious and odorous than smoke, yet if I were to mention to a passenger that they “reeked of spices” I would likely end up in front of a disciplinary committee…

Banning smoking completely will just not work. There is no way of enforcing it in our own homes. That said, with the price of cigarettes these days, our household is going to move on to other natural smokables since it will be cheaper to buy green than tobacco…

BADASS OVER HERE!!!!!

You have not addressed a single point I made. Nice going.

Also if you are going to criticise my spelling, maybe you should first L2QUOTE…

Blathnat 9:27 pm 13 Aug 13

Hey moron,your silly argument could be used for anything. Say like, if you start smoking next to my kids and I make a personnel choice to start reportedly pinching you in the face, you should acomidate that and if you say otherwise its discrimination against me.

Grow up.

I find it funny that for someone who has told me to “grow up” has not only referred to me as a “moron”, and resorted to (to paraphrase) ‘if you smoke near me, I will pinch your face’ (based on the other misspellings I’ll assume you meant “repeatedly”, “punch” and “accommodate”). Yes, good to see we’re all mature intelligent people here on riotact.

But I’ll bite. You are perfectly capable of moving, as are your children. As far as it goes, whoever was there first has ‘right of way’ in my mind. If someone walks up to where I am standing having a smoke, it is their problem, not mine. If I walked up to your family and lit up, then I would be in the wrong (although if you had bothered to read any of my post you would realise that I, and every smoker I know, will attempt to move away from others while we smoke). Oh, and so we’re clear, if you touched me you’d have more problems than a little smoke…

As for us smokers “stinking”, well that is a matter of opinion. Have you ever had to catch a peak-hour bus? There are numerous passengers that reek of sweat, poor hygiene, unbrushed teeth, breakfast foods (a mixture of cereal and stale milk), young children, not to mention the plethora of “ethnic” foods and spices. I find these things far more obnoxious and odorous than smoke, yet if I were to mention to a passenger that they “reeked of spices” I would likely end up in front of a disciplinary committee…

Banning smoking completely will just not work. There is no way of enforcing it in our own homes. That said, with the price of cigarettes these days, our household is going to move on to other natural smokables since it will be cheaper to buy green than tobacco…

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd 7:59 am 11 Aug 13

Blathnat said :

Hey Katy, why not just ban it completely? Oh, that’s right, because the taxes on tobacco contribute billions to our economy.

And don’t start with that “but smokers cost the healthcare system more”. Do we? Think about it, don’t smokers have shorter life spans? Isn’t one of the major concerns with greater healthcare the fact that we have a aging population and no one to look after them/pay for their medicines?

So tell me this – if I die at age 60, of an incurable disease where I spend 6-8 weeks in hospital, wouldn’t I cost significantly less than someone who lives to the age of 90, but spends the last 10-20 years of their life in and out of hospitals, hospices and care homes? Now, without taking any income tax into account (because you cannot compare a smoker earning 150k/year to a non-smoker living on wellfare apparently) we can see simple facts: Over the course of 40 years, assuming 1 pack of 30s per week and that prices/taxes stay the same as current, I would be paying approximately $22,000 in tax alone, just on cigarettes in my life time. Those who are “pack-a-day” smokers, would pay in excess of $132,000 over that same 40 year period.

Then add to that the correlation between those who smoke, and those who drink on a more frequent basis (and all the lovely taxes involved with a case of beer, of which about $18 per case is tax at the moment). I’m sorry, but in no way, shape or form, can you tell me that a smoker has a larger cost on our healthcare system than a non-smoker.

I’m sorry, but I will continue to smoke outdoors, because well, it’s outdoors. I attempt to move away from groups if I go to have a smoke, but at the same time if I have to accommodate their personal choices, why do they not have to accommodate mine? In fact, wouldn’t this be the most amazing discrimination case?
Think about it, you can’t discriminate based on sex, race, religion or personal beliefs. But God help you if you’re a smoker…

Hey moron,your silly argument could be used for anything. Say like, if you start smoking next to my kids and I make a personnel choice to start reportedly pinching you in the face, you should acomidate that and if you say otherwise its discrimination against me.

Grow up.

Special G 10:17 pm 10 Aug 13

As long as she adds in a hefty on the spot fine into the mix as well it shouldn’t be too hard to enforce.

It’s easy – smokers stink and they inflict it on others.

Deref 12:34 pm 10 Aug 13

thebrownstreak69 said :

Good to see. I look forward to the day they are banned.

Yep, because banning works so well for other drugs. Not to mention the huge success of prohibition in the US.

rosscoact 10:02 am 10 Aug 13

Feel better now?

Blathnat 6:34 am 10 Aug 13

Hey Katy, why not just ban it completely? Oh, that’s right, because the taxes on tobacco contribute billions to our economy.

And don’t start with that “but smokers cost the healthcare system more”. Do we? Think about it, don’t smokers have shorter life spans? Isn’t one of the major concerns with greater healthcare the fact that we have a aging population and no one to look after them/pay for their medicines?

So tell me this – if I die at age 60, of an incurable disease where I spend 6-8 weeks in hospital, wouldn’t I cost significantly less than someone who lives to the age of 90, but spends the last 10-20 years of their life in and out of hospitals, hospices and care homes? Now, without taking any income tax into account (because you cannot compare a smoker earning 150k/year to a non-smoker living on wellfare apparently) we can see simple facts: Over the course of 40 years, assuming 1 pack of 30s per week and that prices/taxes stay the same as current, I would be paying approximately $22,000 in tax alone, just on cigarettes in my life time. Those who are “pack-a-day” smokers, would pay in excess of $132,000 over that same 40 year period.

Then add to that the correlation between those who smoke, and those who drink on a more frequent basis (and all the lovely taxes involved with a case of beer, of which about $18 per case is tax at the moment). I’m sorry, but in no way, shape or form, can you tell me that a smoker has a larger cost on our healthcare system than a non-smoker.

I’m sorry, but I will continue to smoke outdoors, because well, it’s outdoors. I attempt to move away from groups if I go to have a smoke, but at the same time if I have to accommodate their personal choices, why do they not have to accommodate mine? In fact, wouldn’t this be the most amazing discrimination case?
Think about it, you can’t discriminate based on sex, race, religion or personal beliefs. But God help you if you’re a smoker…

NoAddedMSG 8:33 pm 01 Jun 13

Conan of Cooma said :

In case none of you non smokers noticed the cars that drive along side of you kick out MUCH MUCH MORE noxious gas than smokers. Much more. Walter White didn’t get lung cancer from smoking, he got it from being a science teacher and hanging around arsehole kids imbued with car excretions.

Suck it up and stop driving, THEN y’all can whine about the smokers.

Lolz, using an example from a fictional tv show to support your argument……..

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2019 Region Group Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
the-riotact.com | aboutregional.com.au | b2bmagazine.com.au | thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site