Skip to content Skip to main navigation

News

Excellence in Public Sector consulting

Smoking in cars (with children) ban comes into force

By johnboy 2 May 2012 60

The ACT Government’s ongoing efforts to teach you how to be a parent have advanced a pace.

Sometime overnight a media release went onto the Open Government website advising that yesterday was the start of the smoking in cars ban:

ACT Chief Minister and Minister for Health Katy Gallagher MLA today welcomed the start of the ban on smoking in cars with children under the age of 16.

“Children have a right to be protected from the health effects of tobacco smoke when they are in a car,” the Chief Minister said.

“The ban will be enforced by ACT Policing. Those found to be smoking in a car with children will have to cough up a $250 on the spot fine or up to $5,500 if the offence is proven in court.

“While it is an adult’s right to choose to smoke and expose themselves to all the associated and well-known health risks, this ban aims to protect children who could not otherwise protect themselves.

It’s OK for 16 and 17 year olds to passively smoke? Interesting!

What’s Your opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
60 Responses to
Smoking in cars (with children) ban comes into force
Filter
Showing only Website comments
Order
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newst
astrojax 1:41 am 06 May 12

or we should just ban cars, then all this fuss will go away…

kakosi 12:22 am 06 May 12

Smoking cigarettes is LEGAL and being taxed by the government – earning millions for other non-smoking citizens. Unlike illegal drugs that drain our economy and don’t provide any tax dollars.

I don’t smoke but I really think this is all a big overreaction. We’re all probably gonna die from lung cancer from inhaling car, truck and bus fumes and some people are worried about passive smoking in an outdoor setting? Oh, and don’t forget all the chemicals from plastic containers which are contaminating our food and drink so we get bowel cancer before we die.

Banning smoking in cars with kids is a silly move unless you are going to put cameras into people’s houses to make sure people aren’t smoking at home with the kids inside.

Life’s short – enjoy it and forget about what other people are doing with their lives.

LSWCHP 10:31 pm 05 May 12

Woody Mann-Caruso said :

I’ve always viewed rights as far more fundamental things, such as those rights espoused in the UN declaration of human rights or the rights of the child

And yet you couldn’t get to number two on the list, apparently.

2. The child shall enjoy special protection, and shall be given opportunities and facilities, by law and by other means, to enable him to develop physically, mentally, morally, spiritually and socially in a healthy and normal manner and in conditions of freedom and dignity. In the enactment of laws for this purpose, the best interests of the child shall be the paramount consideration.

Maybe enduring smoke in a vehicle might not be so swell, but it’s not nearly as bad as being sold into slavery, denied an education and stuff like that.

My general point, which you don’t seem to have appreciated, is that Some Things Are More Important Than Others. Claiming relatively small things (eg the right to freedom from cigarette smoke in a vehicle) as human rights dilutes the whole idea of what should be viewed as a right versus what should be viewed as relatively important, desirable or simply rather nice to have.

clp 9:18 pm 05 May 12

cross said :

Nicotine is more addictive than heroin.But why don’t Governments just outright ban them altogether, is it because of the mountains of cash they make or is it they would face a backlash that could see them voted out.
I have non smoking friends who don’t complain about smoking to much because they fear there wine drinking will be next on list.I smoke but don’t drink I could make the argument that alcohol is far far worse than smoking and more damaging to society than all other habits put together.

Yes but you would be incorrect – and alcohol is a public health problem as well – but its a different one – you don’t add anything to the argument with these “yes buts…”

cross 10:58 am 03 May 12

Nicotine is more addictive than heroin.But why don’t Governments just outright ban them altogether, is it because of the mountains of cash they make or is it they would face a backlash that could see them voted out.
I have non smoking friends who don’t complain about smoking to much because they fear there wine drinking will be next on list.I smoke but don’t drink I could make the argument that alcohol is far far worse than smoking and more damaging to society than all other habits put together.

VYBerlinaV8_is_back 10:40 am 03 May 12

Just make it illegal already. It’s smelly and leads to health problems. I also won’t miss smokers throwing their butts on the ground.

Gismondo 10:32 am 03 May 12

blimkybill said :

I repeat, where do you get smoke blown in your face?

And do you tell people stinking of perfume or sweat to go stand in a paddock as you go about town too? People talking too loudly on their phone or with an irritating laugh? People who have no dress sense too maybe. And they should ban motorbikes because of the noise.

Stop overreacting and lighten up.

My kids get to breathe in lots of smoke while waiting at bus stops. The interchange at Belconnen is always full of people smoking. Yes you do get a faceful and lungful of smoke. They really hate it and I don’t see why they should have to be subjected to it.

I enjoy it when people answer their own question. Saves me from having to do it

Gismondo 10:31 am 03 May 12

“I repeat, where do you get smoke blown in your face?

My kids get to breathe in lots of smoke while waiting at bus stops. The interchange at Belconnen is always full of people smoking. Yes you do get a faceful and lungful of smoke. They really hate it and I don’t see why they should have to be subjected to it.”

I enjoy it when people answer their own question. Saves me from having to do it

niftydog 10:13 am 03 May 12

Some smokers are completely unaware of the extent their smoking impacts on others. They would be surprised to learn that, for example, I can smell them over the top of all the fumes in slow moving peak hour traffic. Or that I can detect a smoker by smell from clear across a room up to 30 minutes after their last cigarette.

It shouldn’t really be an argument about laws or police resources or health affects or the mysterious difference between “smelling” and “inhaling” – It’s all about having respect for others and showing some consideration. Plain and simple.

I don’t go farting for ten minutes directly under the fresh air intake of your buildings AC system, do I? Nor do I madly squeeze out a desperate half a dozen farts half a second before walking in the door of a building. I try really hard not to fart anywhere near people eating. I only fart in a car if it is absolutely unavoidable, and even then I’d probably feel compelled to apologise.

Jim Jones 9:51 am 03 May 12

Thumper said :

Sandman said :

Watson said :

I repeat, where do you get smoke blown in your face?

In the square outside Dickson Library.
Outside the main doors at the Airport. (old terminal anyway, haven’t used the new terminal yet)
Footpath outside various clubs/pubs/restaurants.
Lots of access paths at various sporting and social events.

It’s not always “blown” in your face with the holier than thou attitude some smokers seem to have but it’s there and it’s in your face.

Go the ban!

I can’t remember the last time someone ‘blew smoke in my face’.

Seriously.

And no, I’m not a smoker.

I had enough smoke blown in my face just last weekend to get pretty crabby about it.

Thumper 8:34 am 03 May 12

Sandman said :

Watson said :

I repeat, where do you get smoke blown in your face?

In the square outside Dickson Library.
Outside the main doors at the Airport. (old terminal anyway, haven’t used the new terminal yet)
Footpath outside various clubs/pubs/restaurants.
Lots of access paths at various sporting and social events.

It’s not always “blown” in your face with the holier than thou attitude some smokers seem to have but it’s there and it’s in your face.

Go the ban!

I can’t remember the last time someone ‘blew smoke in my face’.

Seriously.

And no, I’m not a smoker.

bearlikesbeer 8:32 am 03 May 12

goggles13 said :

bearlikesbeer said :

buzz819 said :

Dante said :

I wonder how e-cigarettes come into the equation? They give off no smoke (only a vapour) and only contain compounds that are regularly used in food and medicine.

If this ban applies to e-cigs then it needs to apply to perfumes, and smoke machines will need to be subsequently banned in nightclubs (same compounds).

E-Cigarettes aren’t actually legal in Canberra, but their use does come under anti-smoking legislation – ie they allow nicotine to be inhaled.

I use nicotine-free electronic cigarettes, so legality isn’t an issue.

I recently contacted Westfield Centre manager Kate Holsgrove and asked if Westfield had any policies relating to the use of e-cigs within their shopping centres. I got a call back from Woden Westfield manager Isaac Tait, who informed me that I was free to use my e-cig within Westfield Woden, and that Westfield is in the process of drafting a national policy relating to the use of e-cigs in their shopping centres. 

interesting that they are making a policy about something that is illegal in Australia.

do they have policies about other illegal things that may be consumed in their centres?

You think nicotine-free e-cigs are illegal in the ACT? Illegal to sell, illegal to use, or both?

bearlikesbeer 8:29 am 03 May 12

puggy said :

bearlikesbeer said :

I use nicotine-free electronic cigarettes…

This really is a polite question: To what end do you smoke nicotine-free e-cigarettes?

I enjoy the action of smoking. It relaxes me. I find smoking very calming as it helps me to regulate my breathing. Nicotine free e-cigs are ideal for me as I don’t particularly enjoy the rush from a “real” cigarette. I want the smoke/vapour, not the drug.

Deref 8:28 am 03 May 12

I-filed said :

Next step: slap a fine on any pregnant woman who has half a glass of win?

I’d like half a glass of win. 😛

milkman 7:07 am 03 May 12

Sandman said :

Watson said :

I repeat, where do you get smoke blown in your face?

In the square outside Dickson Library.
Outside the main doors at the Airport. (old terminal anyway, haven’t used the new terminal yet)
Footpath outside various clubs/pubs/restaurants.
Lots of access paths at various sporting and social events.

It’s not always “blown” in your face with the holier than thou attitude some smokers seem to have but it’s there and it’s in your face.

Go the ban!

+1 from me. Smokers are annoying, unhealthy and stink.

BelcoMan 10:34 pm 02 May 12

LSWCHP said :

, the right to be free from cruelty or neglect etc.
.

I think you contradicted yourself dramatically there. Smoking with a child in an enclosed area is nothing less than child cruelty. There is a direct, measurable physical impact on the child/ren by smoking in the car.

@ breda As callous as it sounds, shooting up or online gambling don’t have the same “measurable” result.

clp 10:25 pm 02 May 12

God people post a lot of rot in regards to anti-smoking legislation. Do you not understand the impact on children’s health from passive smoking? Its not about it being an unpleasant sensation (despite the fact that it clearly is) or about saving the smoker from themselves (last I looked cigarettes were still oddly enough still legally for sale in Australia) its about the impact on the health of those who are at greatest risk because of (i) their physical immaturity and (ii) the fact that they are under the care and protection of the adult and in the car and cannot chose to be in a smoke free environment.

So get over your bloody bus smoke rant, perfume in nightclubs etc etc – its all getting rather stale. Why not actually let some facts enter the debate:

http://www.pediatricsdigest.mobi/content/113/Supplement_3/1007.full (admittedly relating to exposure of newborns but this legislation is probably more to protect infants)

http://www.nursingtimes.net/nursing-practice-clinical-research/the-effects-of-passive-smoking-on-adult-and-child-health/199313.article

Maybe when someone actually sues their parents for exposure to second-hand smoke will people actually think these laws (which are totally analagous to seat-belt legislation and child-car-seat restraint laws) are useful.

Then there is the furphy of “waste of police resources to enforce” – well the law is as much about recognising that most of the time most people choose to obey the law. Of course there will be morons who continue this practice – just like their are fools who abuse kids despite laws – but thats not a reason to not have these laws.

Sandman 9:21 pm 02 May 12

Watson said :

I repeat, where do you get smoke blown in your face?

In the square outside Dickson Library.
Outside the main doors at the Airport. (old terminal anyway, haven’t used the new terminal yet)
Footpath outside various clubs/pubs/restaurants.
Lots of access paths at various sporting and social events.

It’s not always “blown” in your face with the holier than thou attitude some smokers seem to have but it’s there and it’s in your face.

Go the ban!

Woody Mann-Caruso 8:41 pm 02 May 12

I’ve always viewed rights as far more fundamental things, such as those rights espoused in the UN declaration of human rights or the rights of the child

And yet you couldn’t get to number two on the list, apparently.

2. The child shall enjoy special protection, and shall be given opportunities and facilities, by law and by other means, to enable him to develop physically, mentally, morally, spiritually and socially in a healthy and normal manner and in conditions of freedom and dignity. In the enactment of laws for this purpose, the best interests of the child shall be the paramount consideration.

LSWCHP 7:28 pm 02 May 12

I don’t think smoking is a good idea anywhere, but I also think it’s absurd to claim that children have a “right” to not be in a car with smokers. It’s desirable, yes, but I don’t think it could possibly be claimed as a right.

I’ve always viewed rights as far more fundamental things, such as those rights espoused in the UN declaration of human rights or the rights of the child. These are rights such as the right to a name, the right to education, the right to be free from cruelty or neglect etc.

I’ve no doubt that this measure is well intentioned, but the wanky spin supplied by Katy just makes her look trivial and silly.

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2018 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
the-riotact.com | aboutregional.com.au | b2bmagazine.com.au | thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site