# Banning smoking in public spaces...



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

The state government in New South Wales, Australia is looking to ban smoking in some public spaces - eg. bus stops, outdoor dining areas and parks.

Article HERE at ABC news online.

What do you think about this? Good, bad, ugly? Good thing for public health or the "nanny state" gone mad? What's going on in this regard in the country where you live?

I am all for it, I really dislike eg. waiting at a bus stop and having a smoker light up - as the ABC article says, I have no choice but to be there, I can't move away, it's an inconvenience when they do this.

Smoking is already banned here on train platforms, the grounds of hospitals and some university campuses.

Register your (private) vote & tell us why...


----------



## Chrythes (Oct 13, 2011)

I agree.
Not only the non smokers would benefit from that, but also the smokers - less places to smoke, it might become a bother to light up (maybe the conformists would start feeling evil for smoking), the smokers smoke less - more decide to quite. 
Success.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

Ban the disgusting habit in public. Smokers can smoke all they like but I certainly don't have to inhale the **** they breathe out.


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

Every human has the right to inhale clean air


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

If we're going to look at this on a principled basis, it's clear enough that the only reason we've got the backlash with smoking and not with illegal drugs is because people have been smoking for years and it's a huge industry. Well, **** that, it kills.


----------



## regressivetransphobe (May 16, 2011)

Polednice said:


> Well, **** that, it kills.


It's not the government's place to tell people what they can and cannot do with their bodies.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Smoking outdoors (or in a shelter open on two or more sides) should not be banned. It's another blanketty-blank intrusion by the Great Nanny State.

[I haven't been a smoker since 1983.]


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

Fully support the rights of people to slowly poison themselves, but not others. Which is why this ban is essentially on public second-hand smoke, not smoking itself. People are still free to smoke their lungs out in their private residences.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

regressivetransphobe said:


> It's not the government's place to tell people what they can and cannot do with their bodies.


I didn't suggest that the government should ban smoking in private.


----------



## Delicious Manager (Jul 16, 2008)

regressivetransphobe said:


> It's not the government's place to tell people what they can and cannot do with their bodies.


Maybe not, but surely it's right for the those people who DON'T want to be poisoned and exposed to possible cancer to be able to go about their business without inhaling nicotine addicts' muck?

Remember the great jazz trumpeter and entertainer Roy Castle. He never smoked in his life, but died from lung cancer ENTIRELY brought about from passive smoking. That's alright, is it?


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Delicious Manager said:


> Maybe not, but surely it's right for the those people who DON'T want to be poisoned and exposed to possible cancer to be able to go about their business without inhaling nicotine addicts' muck?
> 
> Remember the great jazz trumpeter and entertainer Roy Castle. He never smoked in his life, but died from lung cancer ENTIRELY brought about from passive smoking. That's alright, is it?


So you're saying that this guy worked mostly in open air concerts? Tell me another'n.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Imagine smoking was a rare habit, and was perceived like some drug uses to be disgusting. Would there be uproar then? I don't think so, because people would recognise that no one has the right to force another person in a public space to involuntarily jeopardise their health. As far as I can tell, the only reason why people cry foul is because smoking is such a prevalent habit, and this notion of the "nanny state" only gains traction because the market is so large. Well that's not a good enough reason.


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

I don't wish to sound callous but had Roy Castle not played in the smoky club environment which was a rite of passage in the jazz world then he would hardly have got a gig at all - it was sad what happened to him but how many non-smoking artists (or fans, for that matter) used to complain about smoking THEN?


----------



## Delicious Manager (Jul 16, 2008)

elgars ghost said:


> I don't wish to sound callous but had Roy Castle not played in the smoky club environment which was a rite of passage in the jazz world then he would hardly have got a gig at all - it was sad what happened to him but how many non-smoking artists (or fans, for that matter) used to complain about smoking THEN?


True. But the dangers of cigarettes were not known (or admitted to) at this time.


----------



## kv466 (May 18, 2011)

It is what is being smoked that is the daing problem!


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

The smoking ban has been in effect for years here in New York State. I'm all for it. Now if they would just start writing tickets to all the smokers who throw butts out the window of their cars, we could clean up the highways. If I as a non smoker throw one little baggy of trash out the window in the vicinity of a police officer, I'll get pulled over and ticketed 200 to 500 hundred dollars. But the smoker can toss tens of thousands of butts on the highway with impunity.


----------



## sospiro (Apr 3, 2010)

Polednice said:


> If we're going to look at this on a principled basis, it's clear enough that the only reason we've got the backlash with smoking and not with illegal drugs is because people have been smoking for years and it's a huge industry. Well, **** that, it kills.


If tobacco was discovered/developed today it would be illegal, look at all the fuss over kavakava. One person in Germany died & it's now banned.

Having said that, smoking is legal so you should be able to smoke outside but not within a mile of anyone else  So I voted _Yes, some but not all spaces_

PS I'm an ex-smoker of 25 years


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Threads like this one are a constant reminder of how illiberal 'liberals' are. It's Prohibitionists you are. Ban this! Ban that! Ban, ban, ban. what a sorry bunch you are.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

You really want to go back to smoking in airplanes and crowded restaurants? I don't.


----------



## itywltmt (May 29, 2011)

The debate is also in front of Ottawa City Council today - banning smoking in parks most notably. I am not a smoker, and I personally am put off by people who smoke around me, but I was raised in a smoking household (in the 1960's, who wasn't?) and I remember my mom's infallible trick of lighting up at the bus stop as a sure-fire way of making a bus appear. It worked remarkably well, as I recall! If oinly for that reason, maybe we should allow smoking at bus stops (not in bus shelters, though).

I remember how "cigarette taxes" were levied to help pay for my beloved white elephant, Drapeau's folly, the concrete palace we know as *Montreal's Olympic Stadium*. We used to hang out there Summers (BTW - *RIP, Gary Carter*) and they banned smoking at the Big O. How ironic! The people who were paying for the stadium couldn't enjoy their smokes during ballgames!

I'm as liberal as they come, and as anti-smoking as they come. That having been said, people pay taxes, are told "not to smokle indoors" (a practice I applaud) yet people can't smoke outdoors either - smoking is (last time I checked) a perfectly _legal _albeit nefarious practice... I say, ban if you so choose, but assign "smoking areas" (far from play structures and whatever else) and let people puff away if they so desire. Having travelled in airplanes back in the day when there was a "smoking section", I know there's something untoward with the concept, but it doiesn't mean it can't be designed in a way that properly segregates smokers and their noxious by-products from those of us who don't want to be exposed to them...

And tax the crap out of their sin to help pay for the social burden (health care, etc.).


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

starthrower said:


> You really want to go back to smoking in airplanes and crowded restaurants? I don't.


And that has _what_ relevance to smoking outdoors?


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

I said yes in some public places. I might be in the minority here but I would make an exception for club or bar owners who want to establish their club or bar as a smoking establishment as long as they make it clear that it is a smoking establishment and there's no smoking outside the establishment.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

violadude said:


> I said yes in some public places. I might be in the minority here but I would make an exception for club or bar owners who want to establish their club or bar as a smoking establishment as long as they make it clear that it is a smoking establishment and there's no smoking outside the establishment.


Thanks, _dude_. Now that I am renewed in spirit by Marais and Hume, I can appreciate the grotesque humor in your post.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Hilltroll72 said:


> Thanks, _dude_. Now that I am renewed in spirit by Marais and Hume, I can appreciate the grotesque humor in your post.


Are you sure that's not the grotesque humor in your post?


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

I also voted for banning smoking in _some but not all places_, and I support the New South Wales' government's proposed laws.

A partial ban is the logical next step. As some have noted, in the bad old days it was allowed in places like pubs and restaurants (indoors). In Tasmania, the island state of Australia, it's already banned outdoors in these establishments as well. I understand in Paris, France, same thing has happened in recent years. We've had smoking banned indoors here in pubs, etc. for a number of years, maybe a decade. So same should go for outdoors.

However, some pubs and clubs have a smoking section, it's a bit like a balcony open to the air, but separated from the rest of the pub. So it's an in-between indoor-outdoor space, for smokers to smoke only. If the establishment can afford that, then that is a possible compromise.

I must note that in the universities here where smoking is banned, it is banned within 10 metres of buildings (esp. entrances) and public areas of the campus. Cigarette sales are banned on campus. The system is not aimed at revenue raising, eg. immediately fining offenders. The aim is to give them a warning, or several warnings, before imposing fines if they break the ban. It's aimed at a healthy campus and similar things have been in place in hospitals here for years. In reality, it's not perfect, you do see patients and staff break the ban and light up, but it's much less prevalent on hospital grounds than it used to be for sure...


----------



## Fsharpmajor (Dec 14, 2008)

Hilltroll72 said:


> Threads like this one are a constant reminder of how illiberal 'liberals' are. It's Prohibitionists you are. Ban this! Ban that! Ban, ban, ban. what a sorry bunch you are.


I suppose maybe the ideological gulf between liberals and conservatives isn't so deep in this country, or else it is very different, because, speaking as a British liberal, I can't think for the life of me what the last thing I called for to be banned was. In fact, the main criticism against me and the political party that I belong to (Liberal Democrat) is somewhat justified--it's that we seem to want (within the bounds of reason) to legalize just about everything.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Hilltroll72 said:


> And that has _what_ relevance to smoking outdoors?


Who's talking about outdoors? The smoking ban in New York pertains to indoor public spaces.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

RE some people objecting - I think it's not a matter of the "nanny state" gone mad. It's just like the OH&S (Occupational Health & Safety) policies that have been brought into workplaces in recent decades. It's about the safety of the public at large (just like that of employees and customers, etc. with OH&S).

Indoors, it goes without saying, second hand smoking in enclosed spaces has been proven to cause the same types of diseases to second-hand smokers as the smokers themselves.

Outdoors is debatable, as we can see on this thread (though only one person has voted "no" to my poll question), but it's logical that if smoking is banned - or severely limited - on train platforms, on hospital grounds and some uni campuses as it already is here, then we need to be consistent and extend the ban to similar places (eg. as proposed here - public parks & open spaces where the public congregates, outdoor dining/drinking areas of eateries, pubs, cafes, and also bus stops)...


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

itywltmt said:


> ...
> And tax the crap out of their sin to help pay for the social burden (health care, etc.).


That's already happening. About two years ago here a 25 per cent tax increase was slapped onto cigarettes. It had a big effect (a lot of people quit, the government funded Quitline was swamped with callers seeking advice on quitting).

These tax hikes on cigs are staggered, there is more to come (a further 25 per cent increase, I believe).

I do think this is good, but a case of double standards. Alcohol can be had very cheaply in this country. But argue for a tax hike on those and you have various factors come to play. The alcohol industry are large but undisclosed donors to our two major political parties. The other thing is that this country floats on alcohol, it may well not function properly without it being cheaply available, it's a big social lubricant to keep the facade of normality (if I want to be cynical).

Anyway, not wanting to open a can of worms, but you get my drift. Of course, smoking causes more deaths than alcohol, so it has to be seriously discouraged in all ways possible. But both are no good...


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

I'm a smoker myself but I'm in agreement with the banning (or, if no ban is in force, discouragement) of smoking in most environments. I don't have a problem with it if a smoker is some distance away from anyone else when outside especially if the smoker is on the move which prevents the miasma from hanging in same space for any length of time but then there is the problem of ciggie-end littering - the problem of littering in general is one of those issues which brings on a slow burn (no pun intended) in me. If we are talking about indoors I agree with the point that certain drinking establishments - i.e. traditional 'wet' pubs rather than those that are now little more than family-centric diners - should have been given the right to retain smoking if - and only if - the majority of the clientele had no objection. For example, one of my local watering holes was a 'wet' pub where most people used to smoke and when the ban came into force approximately three or four regulars openly welcomed the move but the irony is that only one of them still drinks there. I think a lot of pressure came to bear when pubs started to become more family-friendly (which I also have mixed feelings about but that's another story), but again some establishments were more cut out for this than others. I agree with a smoking ban in places of work/study, restaurants, public transport stations, sporting events and theatres/cinemas whether they be open or enclosed. I also agree with the ban in places such as beaches and parks if the places are busy and there is no way that littering can be prevented.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

starthrower said:


> Who's talking about outdoors? The smoking ban in New York pertains to indoor public spaces.


Looks like everyone but you is talking about outdoor 'public spaces', parks etc. I have no grief about the ban indoors.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

If local governments decide to extend the ban to outdoor public spaces, citizens can always speak up and make their voices heard. It's their tax dollars that support the public spaces.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

starthrower said:


> If local governments decide to extend the ban to outdoor public spaces, citizens can always speak up and make their voices heard. It's their tax dollars that support the public spaces.


That's if state government doesn't trump the local. Either way, the tyranny of the majority is apparent.


----------



## Eviticus (Dec 8, 2011)

Yes i agree about keeping smoking out of the work place, bars, restaurants, clubs etc. Only the other week i was involved in a music discussion and asked the chap 'So what type of music do you listen to?' He just tapped his cigarette holder, replied something like “Vaaawgner” and blew smoke in my face… 

Charming.


----------



## Fsharpmajor (Dec 14, 2008)

Eviticus said:


> Yes i agree about keeping smoking out of the work place, bars, restaurants, clubs etc. Only the other week i was involved in a music discussion and asked the chap 'So what type of music do you listen to?' He just tapped his cigarette holder, replied something like "Vaaawgner" and blew smoke in my face…
> 
> Charming.


Whoever this guy is, he needs to be banned from TC forthwith. 

Seriously, though, I think the smoking ban in indoor workplaces is great (and long overdue), but extending it to outdoor spaces is somewhat over the top. Okay, bus shelters and stadiums--that I can see, because they fall in a bit of a grey area when it comes to what is actually meant by "indoors." But I'm worried that considerations of public health are being superseded by ideas of personal morality if it goes very much farther than that kind of situation.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Apologies, in my last post on this thread HERE I said that a couple of years ago here in Australia there was a 25 per cent tax increase on cigarettes. I was wrong, it was about 12 per cent. They also said that they would raise it a further 12 per cent in future (& maybe even a further 12 per cent again a while after that). So a kind of staggered tax hike...


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

Eviticus said:


> Yes i agree about keeping smoking out of the work place, bars, restaurants, clubs etc. Only the other week i was involved in a music discussion and asked the chap 'So what type of music do you listen to?' He just tapped his cigarette holder, replied something like "Vaaawgner" and blew smoke in my face…
> 
> Charming.


That's Manchester for you.


----------

