Smoking in playgrounds and bus-stops next to playgrounds...

Madam Cholet said :

Noted whilst in Melbourne last weekend that smoking is not permitted at tram stops. I’d hazard a guess that bus stops would be the same. So that’s NSW and VIC who have legislated and perhaps other states as well.

What is stopping the ACT?

They want to legalise it.

Are they going to need new signs? No smoking unless its medical?

Noted whilst in Melbourne last weekend that smoking is not permitted at tram stops. I’d hazard a guess that bus stops would be the same. So that’s NSW and VIC who have legislated and perhaps other states as well.

What is stopping the ACT?

damien haas said :

Maya123 said :

damien haas said :

Maya123 said :

damien haas said :

damien haas said :

Unless they are blowing smoke in your childs face i think you should just tut tut silently under your breath. It is doing you no harm.

No harm?

“There is no risk-free level of secondhand smoke exposure; even brief exposure can be harmful to health.”
http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/secondhand_smoke/general_facts/

The source you quote states: “Eliminating smoking in indoor spaces is the only way to fully protect nonsmokers from secondhand smoke exposure.”

*indoor spaces*

It says nothing about playgrounds. Smoke dissipation rates would be very high in a place with no walls, doors or ceiling.

As I said, unless they are blowing it in your child’s face, there is no harm being caused.

Actually even if a smoker smokes outside away from others they are still a risk to other’s health.
http://lungcancer.about.com/od/Lung-Cancer-And-Smoking/a/Third-Hand-Smoke.htm

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-is-third-hand-smoke/

It’s worrying the number of people working in restaurants who smoke. Check out the smokers near the restaurant’s back door. I would rather go to a restaurant staffed by non-smokers. It could be a great advertising ploy; especially in a place such as Canberra where most people don’t smoke.

I read that source you provided and still can’t agree. I don’t think tobacco smoke is agent orange, and unless you child is licking the grass in the playground that the smoking is taking place in a the very monet the residue (whatever that is – ash? smoke? it’s not clear) – then it’s unlikely your child will be harmed. The source you provide really only applies to a room inside a building, or the interior of a car.

Look, I get it that people don’t like smokers, but manufacturing reasons to destroy their access to open spaces on the spurious and negligibly scientifically supported reasons that ‘children may be harmed’, is just wrong. That a government panders to these fears is also wrong. I’m stunned that the human rights commission hasn’t looked into this persecution.

What about the studies that indicate that tobacco toxin exposure is the leading cause of sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS)? (See above Scientific American link)
I take it you are a smoker, who is feeling threatened. People are not attacking you personally (or I am not), but rather the awful side effects of smoking, that people who don’t smoke have had to put up with and shut up about most of their life. I’m old enough to remember smoking in theatres, planes, at work, etc, and having to put up with it. Personally I can’t imagine why anyone would want to smoke. Health issues aside, there’s the expense, the antagonism it causes and the deforestation. (I think it’s sad that people would rather smoke than preserve forests.)
http://inthesetimes.com/article/3324/tobacco_stains

http://ydouthink.com/deforestation/

Are you contending that a smoker sitting in a park is causing SIDS? The studies you have linked to don’t support any such thing.

Why would you assume I am a smoker? Because i don’t ascribe to your world view regarding evil smokers? The OP is experiencing existential angst over an imagined threat. Every single source provided in this thread to ‘prove’ that some person sitting in a field having a cigarette is causing ‘harm’ to anyone but themselves, has not provided that proof.

The OP didn’t say she was in a car, indoors, or in a restaurant. She said she was in a park.

I am a non-smoker, but I am not non-logic.

Deforestation? FFS

Amen Brother………

m_ratt said :

damien haas said :

The source you quote states: “Eliminating smoking in indoor spaces is the only way to fully protect nonsmokers from secondhand smoke exposure.”

*indoor spaces*

It says nothing about playgrounds. Smoke dissipation rates would be very high in a place with no walls, doors or ceiling.

As I said, unless they are blowing it in your child’s face, there is no harm being caused.

That would be because it’s impossible to eliminate smoke and smoking in outdoor places – especially with inconsiderate jerks like you around.

For goodness sake, if you need to smoke don’t do it around other people. If there are people around, go downwind – far downwind.

Cigarette smoke doesn’t magically disappear because you’re outside – heck, I can tell when there is a smoker in the car in front of me when driving around.

damien haas wrote, “I am a non-smoker, but I am not non-logic. ”
Okay, I’ll accept the non-smoker bit.

damien haas said :

The source you quote states: “Eliminating smoking in indoor spaces is the only way to fully protect nonsmokers from secondhand smoke exposure.”

*indoor spaces*

It says nothing about playgrounds. Smoke dissipation rates would be very high in a place with no walls, doors or ceiling.

As I said, unless they are blowing it in your child’s face, there is no harm being caused.

That would be because it’s impossible to eliminate smoke and smoking in outdoor places – especially with inconsiderate jerks like you around.

For goodness sake, if you need to smoke don’t do it around other people. If there are people around, go downwind – far downwind.

Cigarette smoke doesn’t magically disappear because you’re outside – heck, I can tell when there is a smoker in the car in front of me when driving around.

damien haas said :
“Are you contending that a smoker sitting in a park is causing SIDS? The studies you have linked to don’t support any such thing.

Why would you assume I am a smoker? Because i don’t ascribe to your world view regarding evil smokers? The OP is experiencing existential angst over an imagined threat. Every single source provided in this thread to ‘prove’ that some person sitting in a field having a cigarette is causing ‘harm’ to anyone but themselves, has not provided that proof.

The OP didn’t say she was in a car, indoors, or in a restaurant. She said she was in a park.

I am a non-smoker, but I am not non-logic.

Deforestation? FFS”

It appears that no studies convince you of anything. You know better, but offer nothing to back your argument in return.

Discussions can move on.

damien haas said : “”Are you contending that a smoker sitting in a park is causing SIDS?”
Reply: It depends if they are ‘sharing’ their smoke with others. Many smokers don’t appear to know, or care, how far their smoke drifts. The greatest risk probably though is to the smoker’s own children. Even if they don’t smoke near their children, they carry the toxins on their body and spread them about they house, etc, which their children then are exposed to. If you had read and been able to process the links I included you would see the possible risk. Or don’t the smoker’s children’s health matter to you. The argument goes further than someone sitting in a park smoking. It doesn’t end there.

damien haas said : “Deforestation? FFS”
Reply: Again you seem unable to process information. Read the links. I mentioned it as an aside, when I asked why anyone would want to smoke. It was actually a smoker who drew my attention to the deforestation caused by smoking. They told me that that was the best argument they had seen to convince them to give up the habit.

damien haas said : “Because i don’t ascribe to your world view regarding evil smokers?” You are a funny man!

Maya123 said :

damien haas said :

Maya123 said :

damien haas said :

damien haas said :

Unless they are blowing smoke in your childs face i think you should just tut tut silently under your breath. It is doing you no harm.

No harm?

“There is no risk-free level of secondhand smoke exposure; even brief exposure can be harmful to health.”
http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/secondhand_smoke/general_facts/

The source you quote states: “Eliminating smoking in indoor spaces is the only way to fully protect nonsmokers from secondhand smoke exposure.”

*indoor spaces*

It says nothing about playgrounds. Smoke dissipation rates would be very high in a place with no walls, doors or ceiling.

As I said, unless they are blowing it in your child’s face, there is no harm being caused.

Actually even if a smoker smokes outside away from others they are still a risk to other’s health.
http://lungcancer.about.com/od/Lung-Cancer-And-Smoking/a/Third-Hand-Smoke.htm

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-is-third-hand-smoke/

It’s worrying the number of people working in restaurants who smoke. Check out the smokers near the restaurant’s back door. I would rather go to a restaurant staffed by non-smokers. It could be a great advertising ploy; especially in a place such as Canberra where most people don’t smoke.

I read that source you provided and still can’t agree. I don’t think tobacco smoke is agent orange, and unless you child is licking the grass in the playground that the smoking is taking place in a the very monet the residue (whatever that is – ash? smoke? it’s not clear) – then it’s unlikely your child will be harmed. The source you provide really only applies to a room inside a building, or the interior of a car.

Look, I get it that people don’t like smokers, but manufacturing reasons to destroy their access to open spaces on the spurious and negligibly scientifically supported reasons that ‘children may be harmed’, is just wrong. That a government panders to these fears is also wrong. I’m stunned that the human rights commission hasn’t looked into this persecution.

What about the studies that indicate that tobacco toxin exposure is the leading cause of sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS)? (See above Scientific American link)
I take it you are a smoker, who is feeling threatened. People are not attacking you personally (or I am not), but rather the awful side effects of smoking, that people who don’t smoke have had to put up with and shut up about most of their life. I’m old enough to remember smoking in theatres, planes, at work, etc, and having to put up with it. Personally I can’t imagine why anyone would want to smoke. Health issues aside, there’s the expense, the antagonism it causes and the deforestation. (I think it’s sad that people would rather smoke than preserve forests.)
http://inthesetimes.com/article/3324/tobacco_stains

http://ydouthink.com/deforestation/

Are you contending that a smoker sitting in a park is causing SIDS? The studies you have linked to don’t support any such thing.

Why would you assume I am a smoker? Because i don’t ascribe to your world view regarding evil smokers? The OP is experiencing existential angst over an imagined threat. Every single source provided in this thread to ‘prove’ that some person sitting in a field having a cigarette is causing ‘harm’ to anyone but themselves, has not provided that proof.

The OP didn’t say she was in a car, indoors, or in a restaurant. She said she was in a park.

I am a non-smoker, but I am not non-logic.

Deforestation? FFS

damien haas said :

Maya123 said :

damien haas said :

damien haas said :

Unless they are blowing smoke in your childs face i think you should just tut tut silently under your breath. It is doing you no harm.

No harm?

“There is no risk-free level of secondhand smoke exposure; even brief exposure can be harmful to health.”
http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/secondhand_smoke/general_facts/

The source you quote states: “Eliminating smoking in indoor spaces is the only way to fully protect nonsmokers from secondhand smoke exposure.”

*indoor spaces*

It says nothing about playgrounds. Smoke dissipation rates would be very high in a place with no walls, doors or ceiling.

As I said, unless they are blowing it in your child’s face, there is no harm being caused.

Actually even if a smoker smokes outside away from others they are still a risk to other’s health.
http://lungcancer.about.com/od/Lung-Cancer-And-Smoking/a/Third-Hand-Smoke.htm

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-is-third-hand-smoke/

It’s worrying the number of people working in restaurants who smoke. Check out the smokers near the restaurant’s back door. I would rather go to a restaurant staffed by non-smokers. It could be a great advertising ploy; especially in a place such as Canberra where most people don’t smoke.

I read that source you provided and still can’t agree. I don’t think tobacco smoke is agent orange, and unless you child is licking the grass in the playground that the smoking is taking place in a the very monet the residue (whatever that is – ash? smoke? it’s not clear) – then it’s unlikely your child will be harmed. The source you provide really only applies to a room inside a building, or the interior of a car.

Look, I get it that people don’t like smokers, but manufacturing reasons to destroy their access to open spaces on the spurious and negligibly scientifically supported reasons that ‘children may be harmed’, is just wrong. That a government panders to these fears is also wrong. I’m stunned that the human rights commission hasn’t looked into this persecution.

What about the studies that indicate that tobacco toxin exposure is the leading cause of sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS)? (See above Scientific American link)
I take it you are a smoker, who is feeling threatened. People are not attacking you personally (or I am not), but rather the awful side effects of smoking, that people who don’t smoke have had to put up with and shut up about most of their life. I’m old enough to remember smoking in theatres, planes, at work, etc, and having to put up with it. Personally I can’t imagine why anyone would want to smoke. Health issues aside, there’s the expense, the antagonism it causes and the deforestation. (I think it’s sad that people would rather smoke than preserve forests.)
http://inthesetimes.com/article/3324/tobacco_stains

http://ydouthink.com/deforestation/

Maya123 said :

damien haas said :

damien haas said :

Unless they are blowing smoke in your childs face i think you should just tut tut silently under your breath. It is doing you no harm.

No harm?

“There is no risk-free level of secondhand smoke exposure; even brief exposure can be harmful to health.”
http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/secondhand_smoke/general_facts/

The source you quote states: “Eliminating smoking in indoor spaces is the only way to fully protect nonsmokers from secondhand smoke exposure.”

*indoor spaces*

It says nothing about playgrounds. Smoke dissipation rates would be very high in a place with no walls, doors or ceiling.

As I said, unless they are blowing it in your child’s face, there is no harm being caused.

Actually even if a smoker smokes outside away from others they are still a risk to other’s health.
http://lungcancer.about.com/od/Lung-Cancer-And-Smoking/a/Third-Hand-Smoke.htm

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-is-third-hand-smoke/

It’s worrying the number of people working in restaurants who smoke. Check out the smokers near the restaurant’s back door. I would rather go to a restaurant staffed by non-smokers. It could be a great advertising ploy; especially in a place such as Canberra where most people don’t smoke.

I read that source you provided and still can’t agree. I don’t think tobacco smoke is agent orange, and unless you child is licking the grass in the playground that the smoking is taking place in a the very monet the residue (whatever that is – ash? smoke? it’s not clear) – then it’s unlikely your child will be harmed. The source you provide really only applies to a room inside a building, or the interior of a car.

Look, I get it that people don’t like smokers, but manufacturing reasons to destroy their access to open spaces on the spurious and negligibly scientifically supported reasons that ‘children may be harmed’, is just wrong. That a government panders to these fears is also wrong. I’m stunned that the human rights commission hasn’t looked into this persecution.

damien haas said :

damien haas said :

Unless they are blowing smoke in your childs face i think you should just tut tut silently under your breath. It is doing you no harm.

No harm?

“There is no risk-free level of secondhand smoke exposure; even brief exposure can be harmful to health.”
http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/secondhand_smoke/general_facts/

The source you quote states: “Eliminating smoking in indoor spaces is the only way to fully protect nonsmokers from secondhand smoke exposure.”

*indoor spaces*

It says nothing about playgrounds. Smoke dissipation rates would be very high in a place with no walls, doors or ceiling.

As I said, unless they are blowing it in your child’s face, there is no harm being caused.

Actually even if a smoker smokes outside away from others they are still a risk to other’s health.
http://lungcancer.about.com/od/Lung-Cancer-And-Smoking/a/Third-Hand-Smoke.htm

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-is-third-hand-smoke/

It’s worrying the number of people working in restaurants who smoke. Check out the smokers near the restaurant’s back door. I would rather go to a restaurant staffed by non-smokers. It could be a great advertising ploy; especially in a place such as Canberra where most people don’t smoke.