Skip to content Skip to main navigation

Smoking ban not being observed

Homeless 19 December 2010 71

I was wandering around Civic on Saturday doing some last minute Christmas shopping with a couple of friends. We were hungry, so one of my friends offered to buy us lunch. We walked to a restaurant in City Walk and ordered some food and coffee. While sitting down outside, drinking coffees a couple came over, sat down and proceeded to light up.

One of my friends is very allergic to cigarette smoke, so they went over and politely said “Would you mind please not smoking here please. I’m allergic to it, and it’s illegal now.”

The male smoker went burko straight off. He used some pretty foul language to tell my friend where to go and how to get there and said “I don’t give a shit if you are allergic to it, there’s no signs saying I can’t smoke here. Go get…”

My friend was very taken aback and came over to the other two of us. I went inside the restaurant to ask them to do something about it but the staff member was extremely reluctant to do so. Upon explaining the matter their first response was “Well why did you sit outside then if you don’t like smoking?” I explained we liked the sun and fresh air. Further requests for assistance were met with “It’s not really our problem. I don’t want to get involved. It’s between you and them.”

My friend who was paying then announced we were leaving, paid for the coffees we had started to drink and cancelled the food side of our order which had not arrived yet. The staff demanded a tip for cancelling the order, but we refused to pay that, instead leaving. As we left, the smoker, who was still smoking, abused the three of us.

I thought that restaurants, pubs and clubs were supposed to put up signs now saying that smoking was no longer permitted outside? We only saw them at King O Malleys. Why is it that no other restaurant in Garema Place or City Walk has signs up?

If you want to avoid this sort of rubbish behaviour, just look for the restaurant in city walk with dozens of cigarettes floating in the containers they use to hold up their awning and avoid them.


What’s Your opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
71 Responses to
Smoking ban not being observed
Filter
Showing only Website comments
Order
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
motleychick 8:31 am 12 Jan 11

Eyeball In A Quart Jar Of Snot said :

Homeless, if this is about your tax dollars your hate should be aimed forwards the fatties.

They’re doing more harm than smokers.

+1

DeanStokes 2:01 am 12 Jan 11

No offence Homeless but this sort of thing has really gone to far.
I dont smoke myself but over the last 10 years Ive noticed this country becoming a bunch of sooks.

We got smokers out of public transport, malls, resteraunts, public sports matches, clubs and pubs etc etc.
Let them smoke outside.

Sure they should have been diplomatic but as stated there were no signs prohibiting smoking and it was out doors.
I wouldnt have been to happy with you had it been me.

SamusAran 3:32 pm 10 Jan 11

I have an amazing solution to your problem. Stay home.

I don’t smoke but I have no problem with other people smoking and if I don’t want their fumes near me when I’m eating I’ll just sit inside. Really not a big deal.

The people hurrah-ing this law are probably the same people who complained about not having enough walking space between essen and milk and honey.

JustThinking 2:40 pm 25 Dec 10

I smoke but enjoy eating without smoking…or breathing in someone elses smoke.
I agree that certain areas should be smoke-free…esp those where non-smokers, children etc are.
What I dislike is when I am in an area specifically for ‘smokers’ and someone asks me not to smoke…
You know outside shopping centres or outdoor club areas where it is posted “no smoking beyond this point” then “you may smoke here” or “smoking area”
I had an elderly woman sit next to while I was smoking,,then turn and say to me “can you put that out I don’t like it” I told her no so she called for security,,which did her no good as I was in a smoking area. The drama she went on with….!!

Goes both ways some days

meggsy 3:57 pm 22 Dec 10

While I am the first to admit I’m an avid anti smoker and intensely dislike the smell of cigarette smoke I begrudgingly respect the right of smokers to smoke in open areas as it is not illegal.(The discarded butt’s are another story!) I do draw the line however at eating around people who are smoking as the smell prevents me from enjoying my food and the smoke badly affects my throat leaving it very raw and sore.

Which brings me to my question. I don’t understand why smokers need to eat as/where they eat. Surely it is not that hard to have a cigarette away from the eating area, come and eat/have a coffee and then move away before having another cigarette. I realise smoking is an addiction but surely smokers can refrain for the short time it takes to eat a meal/have a coffee?

Eyeball In A Quart Jar Of Snot 1:28 pm 22 Dec 10

Homeless, if this is about your tax dollars your hate should be aimed forwards the fatties.

They’re doing more harm than smokers.

Jim Jones 9:54 am 22 Dec 10

Wow, getting pissy because someone went to the trouble of defining the term ‘allergy’ properly and then claiming that this willful ignorance is because you’re ‘down to earth’.

That’s not ‘down to earth’, that’s just stupid.

p1 9:10 am 22 Dec 10

I don’t think it’s got anything to do with ego stroking. Consider: smoking costs the public massive sums of money. Presumably there’s nothing govt’s would like more than to ban it and reduce the health costs. An outright ban on cigarettes would probably cause people to completely freak out and would be massively unpopular, risking their likelihood of re-election. They’ve probably realised that by gradually introducing these sort of laws they can eat away at the legality of smoking over time. Ultimately, these sorts of measures will reduce smoking and associated morbidity and hence decrease public health costs. Big win, if you’re a government with health costs spiralling out of control, yeah?

This is exactly the plan. It is stated government policy. Reducing morbidity and mortality due to smoking related illness through reducing the incidence of smoking.

willo 9:00 am 22 Dec 10

“100% of non-smokers die”

Homeless 8:34 am 22 Dec 10

Oh, and the government department we complained to must have done something, as the eatery in question now has two reaonsably prominant no smoking signs which I observed late last night as I jogged past. They don’t however have any signs at all in their actual outdoor smoking area.

Homeless 8:31 am 22 Dec 10

Eyeball In A Quart Jar Of Snot said:

“I feel very little sympathy to non smokers in the way they act and carry on. I can understand the obvious frustration displayed by the smoker in the op.”

Ahh, so the truth comes out. The “kind of doctor” is really nothing but another smoker.
Well I feel very little sympathy for the smokers wasting my tax dollars on propping up their health. I feel very little sympathy when they die from self inflicted medical issues. I feel very little sympathy for smokers when they are quite rightly told to give up their disgusting habit or to clear off because they are pollouting fresh air. I feel very little sympathy for smokers whinging about the high prices of smokes. I most of all feel very little sympathy for smokers who whinge about smokers ‘right’ to smoke. There’s no such right. I on the other hand, do have a right to fresh air, it is mandated by the United Nations.

Leinna 7:21 am 22 Dec 10

I am looking forward to being able to eat a meal outside again without someone ruining the event by lighting up next to us.

beejay76 6:17 am 22 Dec 10

Eyeball In A Quart Jar Of Snot said:

“The Government, our saviour.

Smoking is an easy target. Kind of like refugees.

It allows them to collect more revenue in fines while stroking the egos of the pc nannas.”

I don’t think it’s got anything to do with ego stroking. Consider: smoking costs the public massive sums of money. Presumably there’s nothing govt’s would like more than to ban it and reduce the health costs. An outright ban on cigarettes would probably cause people to completely freak out and would be massively unpopular, risking their likelihood of re-election. They’ve probably realised that by gradually introducing these sort of laws they can eat away at the legality of smoking over time. Ultimately, these sorts of measures will reduce smoking and associated morbidity and hence decrease public health costs. Big win, if you’re a government with health costs spiralling out of control, yeah?

And, really, considering the government foots the bill for the health effects of smoking, don’t you think it’s reasonable that they tell people where they can do it? They pay: they get to say.

Eyeball In A Quart Jar Of Snot 2:06 am 22 Dec 10

You might choke on those smug clouds though, which I’m allergic to.

OpenYourMind 10:25 pm 21 Dec 10

I’ll try to shed a tear for you Mr Eyeball as I sip my latte sitting in my cafe’s outdoor and now fresh aired ambience.

Eyeball In A Quart Jar Of Snot 12:43 pm 21 Dec 10

The Government, our saviour.

Smoking is an easy target. Kind of like refugees.

It allows them to collect more revenue in fines while stroking the egos of the pc nannas.

“won’t somebody please think of the children?!”

Canberrans are certainly are under greater risk of harm from the crap they eat, other pollutants, the drivers on the road or the anti social drunks in the city at night.

In the meantime I can’t continue the old tradition of sitting in or outside a bar with a beer and a smoke because the Govenment chooses to intrude on the way these private establishments operate.

I feel very little sympathy to non smokers in the way they act and carry on. I can understand the obvious frustration displayed by the smoker in the op.

p1 10:46 am 21 Dec 10

These particular laws are not about the harmful impact of passive smoke in outdoor areas. It is about the great benefit to the overall health of the population if less people smoke.

EvanJames 10:27 am 21 Dec 10

It is depressing when you report an illegal (and arsehole-like) act to the proper authorities, and they clearly have no interest in doing their jobs.

I still think you should let everyone know the name of the establishment.

I also find it incongruous that cigarette smoking has been targetted because it causes harm to some people, and yet women are free to pollute the air around them with ever-stronger perfumes, which also cause asthma, headaches and other misery to some people, and no one wants to touch that one.

Homeless 9:28 am 21 Dec 10

Eyeball In A Quart Jar Of Snot said:
“I’m a kind of doctor.

You can’t be allergic to cigarette smoke because smoking burns all the protein elements in the cigarette.

But cigarette smoke can act as a trigger for OTHER allergies and asthma.

Smoke is not an allergen, but an irritant.

So when somebody says that they’re “allergic to cigarette smoke” they are technically full of shit.”

Wow mate, you must feel so technically superior to the likes of me. I mean I’m just simple minded and think like this:
Some substance or experience happens; Someone has an adverse reaction to it; It probably means that person is allergic to it.

Oh yeah, I bow to your mighty superior intellect. Oh I really do. You must be a goddamn genius. Just the sort of material the US army is looking for right now to put on the front line in Baghdad and Kandahar. There’s a job for you.

Sorry but I don’t give a shit about your technical argument. Down to Earth people like me look at smart alec “kind of a doctor” people like you and your technical arguments and just think “yeah, whatever floats your boat mate, you’re still an idiot.” You’re just not seeing the forest for the trees. If my friend says they’re allergic to cigarette smoke and it makes them very sick, then yeah, no amount of technical data from you is going to change my mind is it?

Really, why did you even bother with your posts? I’m not trying to be insulting there. But seriously, did you think this thread was improved by pointing out the technicalities of allergies instead of sticking to the subject of outdoor eateries not observing smoking bans? I realise you have the right to an opinion, and a right to say what is on your mind, but why make such an unhelpful comment?

You may think it makes you look like a technical genius, but in my opinion at least, it just makes you look like a bit of a troll.

Back on to the issue at hand, we reported the issue on Monday to a not very enthusiastic person at the ACT office of regulation, in the Work Cover section. They said they would get around to dealing with it when they can. When I pointed out the vast number of restaurants in Garema Place, Bunda Street and City Walk with outdoor eating areas and a total lack of legally required prominent no smoking signs, they were not that enthusiastic either. So we are going to let the Canberra Times know about this oh so enthusiastic response.

Genie 9:19 am 21 Dec 10

I feel sorry for Belco Labor club. Millions spent only this year for a new outdoor area.

Smoking is only banned in outdoor EATING venues.

Clubs that have installed speciality “smoking areas” are excempt from this law. Provided no food or drinks are to be taken into the area, and no entertainment is to be provided. Supposedly the regulation also states that clubs arent meant to regularly clean this area.

So basically the Belco Labor Club and others will have to remove all tv’s from their outdoor smoking area’s and not allow patrons to take drinks or food into the area.

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