Skip to content Skip to main navigation


Tax time headache?
Call RSM on 6190 1277

Smokers are dying breed.

Thumper 26 October 2005 86

Firstly, sorry about the pun. Secondly I have as yet to find a link.

And thirdly, it appears that under our consultative sharing caring government that the only place that you will be allowed to smoke in the future will be in a small sealed box located on the windward side of Mount Tinderry, but not in bushfire season and not when the winds are blowing from the southeast, and definitely not if there happens to be any wildlife within a 100 klick radius.

Now I know smoking is not good, and I also realise that pubs and clubs are shocking for non smokers. Don’t flame me, I agree. However the latest had me in uproar. Apparently Foskey wants smoking banned from any covered enclosure. Yes, thats correct, any covered enclosure, as in carport, or even an eve off a building.

Is the government going to pay for the doctors bills and dry cleaning bills when people get dumped on by rain in winter?

Rational thought people, rational thought….

(Or else I’ll jump on my bugbear, that being fat people being allowed to eat at McDonalds! )


What's Your Opinion?

Please login to post your comments, or connect with
86 Responses to Smokers are dying breed.
Spitfire3 Spitfire3 3:07 pm 28 Oct 05

I’d be excited about the future possibility of holding you to that, if I thought the Deb Foskey part would ever happen. Oh well.

nyssa76 nyssa76 2:19 pm 28 Oct 05

Bring on the petrol fumes….only joking.

I’ll give up smoking if Deb Foskey gives up her ACT Housing accommodation.

bulldog bulldog 1:27 pm 28 Oct 05

Bonfire, I’ll listen to you rattle on about lot of issues, sometimes you even make sense; but most of what you have just said (and most of your previous comments on this post) is out and out bullshit.

Butts are litter and take longer to break down organic matter. No, it’s obviously not going to be a million years (i think that was retracted), but they contain a non-organic polymer (plastic) which does not break down quickly.

Butts out of your car window is irresponsible and regardless of how many people die in a year from the resulting fires; people who do this should be kicked in the face. I’d sooner kick a tree hugger then talk to one and I certainly don’t eat tofu or any other crap that you have mentioned, but the damage these fucktards cause to this fine sunburnt country is unforgiveable.

If smoking is dangerous, thenpassive smoking in enough quantity is dangerous. Becasue of the quantity issue I don’t believe that garema place is an issue, but enclosed areas (without getting into that percentages garbage) could potentially be a problem for some.
Solution; continue having smoking areas and non-smoking areas.

In fact, the only thing that made sense to me was the Deb Foskey description. That was tidy.

Thumper Thumper 12:56 pm 28 Oct 05

Or did I mean to say that they, we, are responsible for global warming?

*Oh give me beer where the buffalo roam
and a taxi to drive me back home….*

Thumper Thumper 12:55 pm 28 Oct 05

Yeah, but smokers contribute to the reduction in Greenhouse gasses.

bonfire bonfire 12:52 pm 28 Oct 05

smokers have nil impact on those around them. the amount of smoke they create is less than a monkey bike on its illegal cruise down ainslie avenue.

the million year old butts are a furphy, used by carping bores as a plank to their flimsy arguments to try and ban someone elses legal enjoyment.

we are not all in agreeance, some of us are bewildered at softheads who think they have the right to dictate peoples lifestyles.

quoting deb foskey who never had an original thought in her life but merely acts as a funnel for every fruit loop idea that gets a guernsey in la la land is the icing on the cake.

sit back smugly and tut tut smokers. i mean you know youre right.

Thumper Thumper 12:45 pm 28 Oct 05

*Hallelujah, Halleljah….*

that is a very poor attempt at a ‘preaching choir’.

bulldog bulldog 12:02 pm 28 Oct 05

You’re preaching to the choir simto. The f*cktards who we have pointed out who throw butts out of their car windows, litter, smoke in non-smoking areas should be forced to extinguish their smokes in their own eyeballs.

I think we are all in agreeance with this. Good work with the post Thumper, you’ve managed to encourage people to voice some differing opinions to the fore and created a little controversy.

simto simto 11:03 am 28 Oct 05

Fair enough – Garema place (and, indeed, most open thoroughfares) are pretty weak examples.

I suppose I’m more peeved by the entitled, whining attitude that most smokers seem to cop. You’re choosing a recreational activity that has significant impacts on a lot of people around you – take some freaking responsibility for it.

And for the people who have taken responsibility – yay you.

bulldog bulldog 8:45 am 28 Oct 05

Should clarify for those that are taking this all far too seriously that the “cool” comment was made tongue in cheek. Relax.

As for outdoor areas; Garema place for example, if I am smoking there and someone walks past the amount of smoke they are going to be exposed to is negligable. In fact, I am more likely to get my hayfever triggered by some moron’s cheap aftershave or perfume; should we place a ban on that as well? Based on your logic simto, what right do people have to wear perfume that triggers an allergic reaction in others?

I have mentioned that I (and it seems most other RA players) try and be courteous about our habit. I won’t apologise for smoking and I won’t stop doing it in public areas where I am allowed to until the legislation changes.

simto simto 8:31 am 28 Oct 05

I do like this strange new definition of “public space”, which appears to mean “a place that I can tell other people to bugger off from if they don’t like what I’m doing there”.

A public space is – get this – public for EVERYONE. Not just you. Which means what you do actually effects everyone else around you.

To pick a particularly ludicrous example – I can probably practice fencing with a bloody great sword in my backyard without harming anybody else – and if people run up to me and get hit by the sword, that’s their own lookout.

On the other hand, if I was to stand in the middle of Garema place and wave the sword about, I’m pretty sure someone’s going to have a problem with me pretty soon. That doesn’t make them fun-nazis or hippies or anything else – it just means I’m affecting everyone else’s amenity in a public place. And maybe, just maybe, I should take responsibility for myself, rather than bitching that everyone else is being horrible to me.

Thumper Thumper 7:42 am 28 Oct 05


No kidding. Try Mort street. deisel belching buses driving past and stopping at the lights.

Now I’m sure a huge gutful of deiel doesn’t do you any good.

nyssa76 nyssa76 6:10 pm 27 Oct 05

I’d be more worried of car fumes in public places than smokers.

simto, you need to re-read my previous post.

Absent Diane Absent Diane 5:05 pm 27 Oct 05

HAHA @ MAEL…… thats fucking hilarious

Maelinar Maelinar 4:18 pm 27 Oct 05

Bonfire, you’re making this far too easy for me.

If you want to be considered public space, you’re up for industrial pollution. Kyoto here we come.

bonfire bonfire 4:10 pm 27 Oct 05

public space is public space. if you see me smoking, and it will make you curl up into a foetal ball and demand some legal remedy, then just dont approach me.

i always liked ‘the office xmas special’ response to the woman asking the smoker to stop smoking because she was pregnant.

as far as foskey goes, i’ll not take advice from a beson that looks like an unmade bed.

the greens are a joke. the % of votes they get reflect this. I figure it equates to the % of morons and slack jawed yokels that wander the streets.

im not sure when i voted my rights to walk around in peace away. i certainly never surrendered them to jackbooting green zealots and their bizarre statistical evidence that they twist to suit whatever fruitloop agenda seizes their frontal lobes on any given day.

simto simto 3:41 pm 27 Oct 05

Okay – you choose to smoke, regardless of the dangers.

Other people nearby you didn’t. And they shouldn’t be punished for going through a public area by choices that they didn’t make. In other words – you shouldn’t have the right to subject other people to your smoke.

So I don’t object if you smoke in your house, in your car, in a zone particularly provided for smokers only or in any way in which you’re not going to bug me.

Having said that, the first guy I dated was a smoker, so the smell of cigarettes does have a weird erotic pull to it…

nyssa76 nyssa76 2:48 pm 27 Oct 05

If I want to smoke, I’ll smoke.

I usually walk as far away from people as humanly possible. However, if I’ve lit up and someone then comes near me and complains, it’s their problem not mine.

I’ve had mothers with prams do that – so I’ll move but I will inform them that it was blantantly noticable that I was smoking.

I don’t litter with my butts either.

Smoking isn’t “cool”. WTF? Who cares if it is “cool” or not?

I smoke because I want to. I know the risks and simply don’t care but I DON’T subject anyone to my habit – my kids, my family, co-workers etc.

The Govt is more than happy to take the proceeds of the taxes on cigarettes, they can bloody well shut up and stop being hypocrites – then again, it isn’t something unusual for them to do that.

Maelinar Maelinar 2:47 pm 27 Oct 05

Thanks Roland, it’s put it into perspective.

I see 75% as at least one wall missing, sort of like a garden bar with shelter (None Canberra specific spring to mind but I think Olims outdoor area fits the bill as being walled in and shade cloth/umbrella over the top). I reckon that’d have enough ventilation for me to not be too bothered by a troup of cigarrette smokers, however if it was any further enclosed than that I’d be concerned they were contravening the 75% issue.

Roland GRNS Roland GRNS 2:34 pm 27 Oct 05

For the record:

ACT Greens MLA Deb Foskey Media Release

Tues 25 Oct 2005

Smoking and public health:
ACT leads the way – backwards

ACT Greens MLA Deb Foskey described the supposed prohibition on smoking in enclosed public places in the ACT as inadequate, and a dangerous precedent for the rest of Australia.

“Clubs and venues in other states are watching the ACT Government to see if it will get away with its Smoking (Prohibition in Enclosed Public Places) Regulation – as tabled last week – which will allow smoking rooms to be up to 75% enclosed” Dr Foskey said today.

“This 75% rule simply describes such a place as unenclosed! It can have a ceiling, and walls, and everything.”

“I know that lobby groups in other States, who believe that smoking helped their business, are watching the ACT because they can see that a room which is 75% enclosed can keep people smoking near the bar and the gaming machines.”

“Canberra people should remember that the Government’s own Regulatory Impact Statement on the smoke free legislation found that the health impacts are likely to be much worse in enclosed places, or those mostly enclosed; and that it would only get safer at the other end of the spectrum.”

“In other words, the evidence is clear – Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) is bad for your health. And with a ceiling over your head in a smoking area, the smoke will hang around and poison you for longer.”

“It might be better if there was no rule at all, because then the courts would have to decide what unenclosed really meant.”

“Rather than drag Australia backwards, the ACT Government should look to the Queensland model where OHS concerns are addressed by ensuring smoking areas are not enclosed, are not serviced, and are separated from the main building.”

“I will move to disallow the regulation when the Assembly meets in November” Dr Foskey said.

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Copyright © 2019 Region Group Pty Ltd. All rights reserved. | | |

Search across the site