19 December 2010

Smoking ban not being observed

| Homeless
Join the conversation
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.

Join the conversation

71
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
Latest

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

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.

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.

JustThinking2:40 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

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 Snot1:28 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.

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.

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.

“100% of non-smokers die”

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.

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.

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

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 Snot2:06 am 22 Dec 10

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

OpenYourMind10:25 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 Snot12:43 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I think smokers should sue the government for allowing cigarettes to be sold in the first place, especially when smokers were not informed about cigarettes poisons. These cigarettes companies were not honest regarding the affects of smoking cigarettes.

GardeningGirl1:24 am 21 Dec 10

Sad that people are debating smoking “allergy”. Physical reactions to cigarette smoke are real, whether it’s asthma as in the case of a couple of people I worked with or the watering eyes I suffer from or other things.
Name and shame the establishment.

“What will be next? Farting in public? “

Oh man, I would be in serious trouble

OpenYourMind4:57 pm 20 Dec 10

I love it when a smoking room gets built for the hard core smokers and they won’t smoke there because it’s too smoky!!

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

What will be next? Farting in public? People don’t have enough to worry about if that’s their biggest concern. Build a bridge… and move indoors!

Its so nice to be able to sit outside and NOT have to put up with smoke and it should be enforced.

I’d also like to know the name of this place.

When will smokers get some will power and give it up ? Smokers have no idea what tasts they are missing out on, and to us non smokers you simply stink sorry, but its true.

Mawson Club on the weekend. Pretty much the whole back outdoor area is non smoking. There is a little part around the corner where you can smoke, and between that and the main outdoor area is a ‘dead zone’ where no one can stand.

Felix the Cat12:53 pm 20 Dec 10

The Magpies Club at Kippax has a semi-enclosed (no roof but glass wall of the club on one side with high brick walls the other three sides) outdoor area that people drink and still smoke in. There is a new half-finished short (about 1.5m high) wall dividing the area, presumably to seperate smokers from non-smokers. Even if it is legal to still smoke in this area (don’t see how it could be)how is this wall going to stop the cigarette smoke from drifting to the non-smoking side?

So your post is really about people not listening to your friend? Unless your mate was a cop I would have told them to nick off too.

With regard to the smoking distances – I haven’t been trained in measuring out 10 meters from a building. So how am I to know what’s ok?

If im reading the below Act correctly (please let me know if im not), smokers are not actually committing an offence until the business owner or other delegated official has asked them to stop.

Offence to smoke in enclosed public place in
contravention of direction
(1) A person commits an offence if—
(a) the person smokes in an enclosed public place; and
(b) an inspector, or the occupier of the place, directs the person to
stop smoking in the enclosed public place; and
(c) the person contravenes the direction.
More at:

http://www.legislation.act.gov.au/isysquery/document.asp?results=78D2F798-4B7A-4CAE-8012-5E61A70C5995&doc=41&download=true#xml=

It is the Government’s decision to implement these laws, and in turn, make sure they are being upheld.

To Gantz: So Eby, yes, it is actually illegal now to smoke in outdoor food and drink areas, but the entrance to Target at Hyperdome is not an outdoor food area nor drink area. So, no Eby, they were not ‘well within’ their rights, they were simply abusing a law, it seems, not a lot of the general public seem to understand, like yourself.

I wasn’t talking about the entrance to Target at Hyperdome, I was talking about outdoor eating and drinking areas, like the restaurant in question. Where, yes, they were well within their rights to raise the issue with the smoker.

Peewee Slasher12:25 pm 20 Dec 10

The poor old smokers in my building now have to walk 15 metres away before lighting up.
But, it’s ok, they’ve found a great big Actew transformer to stand behind, get shelter from the wind, etc. So now, if the lung cancer kicks in, the EMF will irradiate it!

StrangeAttractor11:50 am 20 Dec 10

I had thought that the new legislations banned smoking from outdoor areas where food and drink is served. Keyword being ‘served’.

For instance at the Hellenic Club, the outdoor area past the dance floor has plaques on the tables, saying that due to the new laws, they can’t have table service in that section. This is a separate section to their “Designated Outside Smoking Area”.

So is it something like: you can still smoke in eating and drinking areas, they can’t bring stuff to you, or take your order in those sections?

Its not an allergic reaction, as pointed out in the above.

You can’t call the remarks ‘ignorant’ then agree with them and state ‘but its not the whole story’.

Poison Ivy is also not an allergic reaction.

Want to whinge properly, get the facts straight.

Smoking affects people in different ways, none of them being allergic reactions in accordance with the consensus of what an allergic reaction is

Just to shut up the ignorant remarks about allergies being to do with proteins, yes they are, but that’s far from the full story. For example, poison ivy in the US “is not itself a protein, acts as a hapten and chemically reacts with, binds to, and changes the shape of integral membrane proteins on exposed skin cells.”

Just extend that to exposed mucous membranes for some people with regard to cigarette smoke (and there will be specific elements in that that cause the sensitivity), and there’s your medically valid allergic reaction.

trickyxr said :

Smoking isnt banned from all outdoor areas, only areas that serve food and drink.

but it should be.

Eyeball In A Quart Jar Of Snot10:19 am 20 Dec 10

D2 said :

Eyeball In A Quart Jar Of Snot said :

As I’ve already stated – you can’t be allergic to smoke because there are no protein elements.

Just for the record, Eyeball, are you a doctor? What’s the basis of your knowledge?

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.

p1 said :

Gantz said :

So Eby, yes, it is actually illegal now to smoke in outdoor food and drink areas, but the entrance to Target at Hyperdome is not an outdoor food area nor drink area.

How close are we talking? Because even before the latest round of laws-for-your-own-good, there have been legal restrictions on smoking within certain distances of doors like that.

Yeah, you can’t smoke within 10 metres of the entrance to a shopping center.

Food musn’t be too good there if people have to kill their taste buds with a cigerette before eating.

Gantz said :

So Eby, yes, it is actually illegal now to smoke in outdoor food and drink areas, but the entrance to Target at Hyperdome is not an outdoor food area nor drink area.

How close are we talking? Because even before the latest round of laws-for-your-own-good, there have been legal restrictions on smoking within certain distances of doors like that.

Eyeball In A Quart Jar Of Snot said :

As I’ve already stated – you can’t be allergic to smoke because there are no protein elements.

Just for the record, Eyeball, are you a doctor? What’s the basis of your knowledge?

Eby said :

grunge_hippy said :

Erm… it is actually illegal now to smoke in outdoor food and drink areas. So they were well within their rights to tell them they couldn’t smoke.

It is this kind of statement that is worrying, and why there will be confusion and aggreviation to the new law.

So Eby, yes, it is actually illegal now to smoke in outdoor food and drink areas, but the entrance to Target at Hyperdome is not an outdoor food area nor drink area.

So, no Eby, they were not ‘well within’ their rights, they were simply abusing a law, it seems, not a lot of the general public seem to understand, like yourself.

Mystery2Me said :

go find some other anti-smoking supporting cafe to drink your highly addictive caffeine drink at ….

Indeed, what about MY right to slosh my coffee around when at an outdoor cafe? It may land on other people’s food but they shouldn’t choose to sit out there if they don’t like it. After all, it’s an OUTDOOR eating area and if I can’t slosh my coffee around OUTDOORS, where can I? It’s more lefty PC madness i tell you

Mystery2Me said :

Homeless said :

…You’ve possibly not seen many people with asthma or emphysema VG…

Lol, a smoker without knowledge of emphysema … that would be fairly impossible these days, with cigarette packets enforcing knowledge of emphysema and every other minutely possible adverse effect smoking may cause (or is that affect for the grammatically-correct police on RiotAct). I say, go find some other anti-smoking supporting cafe to drink your highly addictive caffeine drink at ….

The difference is that other people aren’t harmed while one is consuming the highly addictive caffeine drink.

Richard Bender said :

Sounds fair enough to me. If the ACT Government won’t respect the right of property owners to decide whether or not to permit smoking on their properties, why should anyone respect the right of the ACT Government to do the same on its property?

They do. But this is public property.

I’m starting to feel sorry for smokers :/

Just go and get the fire extinguisher and put the burning embers out. Just doing your civic duty in stopping bushfires this season. Might then lead to somebody swinging a punch at you – so might require some prep work in the gym/dojo first.

Next time, whip out a camera (phones have them now) and snap a clear pick of them smoking in contravention of the law. Then walk around the corner to the police station and file a written report.

Homeless said :

…You’ve possibly not seen many people with asthma or emphysema VG…

Lol, a smoker without knowledge of emphysema … that would be fairly impossible these days, with cigarette packets enforcing knowledge of emphysema and every other minutely possible adverse effect smoking may cause (or is that affect for the grammatically-correct police on RiotAct). I say, go find some other anti-smoking supporting cafe to drink your highly addictive caffeine drink at ….

Richard Bender6:56 pm 19 Dec 10

miz said :

I was amazed to see numerous people smoking near the ED/Ambo bay at TCH a couple of weeks ago – right next to a sign saying something like ‘no smoking on hospital grounds’.

Sounds fair enough to me. If the ACT Government won’t respect the right of property owners to decide whether or not to permit smoking on their properties, why should anyone respect the right of the ACT Government to do the same on its property?

grunge_hippy said :

i saw the security at hyperdome shooing the smokers away from the outside area out near the target entrance. i think people just dont know the rule yet… i certainly didnt. I’m not a smoker (used to).

as for being rude, that’s not very nice but really, if there is nothing indicating that they cant smoke, you come and tell them that they cant, then I would get snarky too. who are you to tell people what they can and cant do?

shit, where can people smoke now if you cant even smoke outside????

Erm… it is actually illegal now to smoke in outdoor food and drink areas. So they were well within their rights to tell them they couldn’t smoke.

@homeless – I appreciate your discretion – but I am appalled at the restaurant staff. I support naming and shaming.

Eyeball In A Quart Jar Of Snot6:41 pm 19 Dec 10

As I’ve already stated – you can’t be allergic to smoke because there are no protein elements.

However, smoke can irritate other conditions or allergies.

We’re reporting it on Monday. And there is plenty of information there for you to identify the place of business in question. Look for the butts.

I can assure you that my friend is allergic to cigarette smoke. I’ve seen them go almost blue in the face from breathing difficulties caused by cigarette smoke. It is very scary to see. You’ve possibly not seen many people with asthma or emphysema VG. If you’d like to get an idea of how it feels, try this. Put tape over your mouth. Stick a straw in one nostril, use a peg to almost block both nostrils, then try breathe through the straw. For added effect, gradually pinch off the straw, and have someone blow some smoke into it. Or, fill the straw with spew, which is what my friend sometimes does shortly after smelling cigarette smoke.

People who die of asthma usually die because they can’t exhale the air in their lungs which prevents them drawing more air in.

But yes, emotion and disturbing mental images aside, we are reporting the place on Monday.

@Pantsman….This law worked well in Townsville when we lived there. It was a new law and there were some teething problems but it worked. BTW they know how to fight up there in FNQ!

It was a rude awakening returning to our beloved Canberra only to be smothered in smoke at local cafes’. Even when smoking outside the smoke would come inside (think Essen). We had forgotten what it was like to have to be around smoking while eating. YUK. Even smokers generally do not smoke while THEY are eating either.

I am happy about these laws.

+1 more for name and shame.

who has an entitlement complex

to cross thread, maybe there is a PhD in this ?

vg said :

I agree with every sentiment expressed bar the fact your friend is ‘very allergic’ to cigarette smoke. That is bullshit. They just don’t like it. I’ve never heard of anyone being ‘allergic’ to smoke in any form.

Try having Asthma and then see how allergic you get to cigarette smoke.

Your friend should have turned to face them and sneezed constantly at them. Most of them are perfectly happy to puff away on their suicide sticks, but don’t like getting sneezed on for some reason…

Name and shame the worthless hovel trying to send all their customers to an early grave.

Eyeball In A Quart Jar Of Snot1:44 pm 19 Dec 10

vg said :

vg said :

I’ve never heard of anyone being ‘allergic’ to smoke in any form.

VG come sit with me next time I have someone smoking next to me – I will sneeze uncontrollably, my eyes water and my asthma kicks in! call it whatever you like but I am allergic to cigarette and any other type of smoke.

Sounds like some low form of life you encountered on the table (where food and drink were being served) who has an entitlement complex and the staff at the venue sound like they need a lot of training about the new laws.

Actually, VG is correct.

You can’t be allergic to cigarette smoke:

It is the protein in an allergen that actually causes an allergic reaction, and there is no protein left in cigarette smoke.

Irrespective of what you think of smoking, this is just crap policy that will cause more drunken fights at bars in Canberra than an NRL team building camp.

Fight one: “Is this outdoor area full of drunk people at 11.30 pm , none of whom are eating, an outdoor eating area? Where does it say that?” Bouncers running around putting people’s cigarettes out: will end well.

Fight two: “Excuse me sir, even though you are out off the premises, you are not far enough outside: could you please more further away. I don’t care if you are just walking past, I am a bouncer and it is my job to physically stop you smoking. This is an exception to the law about me not having the right to assault people.”

Fight three: The ‘Art Show Fight’. “Excuse me sir, even though this is not part of King O’Malley’s it is a public place that we have taken over and are now going to throw members of the public out of. Please leave or me and my aggressive, steroid addicted, meat head friends will hit you.”

Fight four: “Me and my mates just went outside to have a smoke; can we get back in with our friends?” “No, we are now full. [Two minutes later] Say that again and I’ll hit you. We’re calling the cops.”

Great start to the festive season.

vg said :

I’ve never heard of anyone being ‘allergic’ to smoke in any form.

VG come sit with me next time I have someone smoking next to me – I will sneeze uncontrollably, my eyes water and my asthma kicks in! call it whatever you like but I am allergic to cigarette and any other type of smoke.

Sounds like some low form of life you encountered on the table (where food and drink were being served) who has an entitlement complex and the staff at the venue sound like they need a lot of training about the new laws.

I was amazed to see numerous people smoking near the ED/Ambo bay at TCH a couple of weeks ago – right next to a sign saying something like ‘no smoking on hospital grounds’.

Who polices these things?

AussieRodney12:54 pm 19 Dec 10

The staff demanded a tip for cancelling the order…

That’s as bad as the abusive smoker.

+3 Name & shame, please.

If the staff refuse to ask the people to stop smoking in the eating area you should just tell them that you will report them to ORS for not complying with the law.

I would have then asked for a glass of water and thrown it over the moron smoking then left without paying.

Add

Smoking isnt banned from all outdoor areas, only areas that serve food and drink.

screaming banshee said :

screaming banshee said :

A. You shouldn’t have paid for the coffees
B. Name and shame

+2

Sounds like the kind of place I’d love to avoid, if I don’t already.

Please name and shame as I eat in Civic a lot.

As a positive, I know Cafe Essen has no smoking stickers on every table outside.

I agree with every sentiment expressed bar the fact your friend is ‘very allergic’ to cigarette smoke. That is bullshit. They just don’t like it. I’ve never heard of anyone being ‘allergic’ to smoke in any form.

I would have sat the abuser on their ass in the face of an abusive response to a polite query, but don’t try and flower it up with the allergic crap

screaming banshee said :

A. You shouldn’t have paid for the coffees
B. Name and shame

+2 Sounds like the kind of place I’d love to avoid, if I don’t already.

grunge_hippy11:51 am 19 Dec 10

i saw the security at hyperdome shooing the smokers away from the outside area out near the target entrance. i think people just dont know the rule yet… i certainly didnt. I’m not a smoker (used to).

as for being rude, that’s not very nice but really, if there is nothing indicating that they cant smoke, you come and tell them that they cant, then I would get snarky too. who are you to tell people what they can and cant do?

shit, where can people smoke now if you cant even smoke outside????

What arseholes. Name the joint and report them.

screaming banshee said :

A. You shouldn’t have paid for the coffees
B. Name and shame

+1

If that’s the attitude the staff are taking, that’s not a business that’s getting any of my money.

Eyeball In A Quart Jar Of Snot11:19 am 19 Dec 10

Please name the place.

Sounds like somewhere I might go whenever I visit Canberra.

I’m glad to hear there’s somewhere not enforcing these ridiculous laws.

screaming banshee11:01 am 19 Dec 10

A. You shouldn’t have paid for the coffees
B. Name and shame

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Riotact stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.