'Australia Is Stubbing Out Smoking' (bbc.com)

Australia was the first country in the world to introduce mandatory plain packaging for tobacco products. Now it is taking another strong stand, but will other countries follow suit? From an article on BBC, shared by an anonymous reader: It's not easy being a smoker in Australia. The smoking bans started inside -- in workplaces, bars and restaurants -- and moved out. "Now, smoking is prohibited within 10m (33ft) of a playground, within 4m (13ft) of the entrance to a public building, at rail platforms, taxi ranks and bus stops," said Mark Driver, Sydney's Park and Recreation Planner. Those are the rules in New South Wales, but they are mirrored in many other states. Smoking is banned on many beaches, and most Australian states have now banned cigarettes in jail. All states ban smoking in vehicles if children are present. Fines vary, but in some places you may be fined AUD$2,000 (USD$1,515) if you smoke in the wrong place. And even if you don't, you'll be paying more than that each year by 2020, if you smoke just one AUD$40 pack a week. [...] These days, smoking is often taken up by people who are on the lowest rungs of the socio-economic ladder, Simone Dennis, an associate professor at Australian National University, points out, "and that adds a burden of shame to people who might already be marginalised." If it's the poor who are now the most likely to smoke, it's hard to see how they will ever afford the AUD$40 (USD$30) pack of cigarettes.

Comments

Re:The point

[amalcolm]

cost of health care? I don't know how it works in Aus but in the UK the costs of lung removals, limb amputations etc. etc fall on the NHS and is apparently a huge burden on the taxpayer

Where the fuck is the problem?

[Opportunist]

Seriously.

I've been a long time smoker. I stopped smoking a while ago. Didn't want to anymore. Honestly no big deal, at least for me. Likewise, it's no big deal for me if someone does smoke.

Now, of course I can see it in places where people who do not enjoy smoke have to go. Public offices and buildings, especially when kids are involved, absolutely off limits when it comes to smoking. I can also see how smoke takes away the experience of a good dinner at a restaurant. Absolutely d'accord.

But frankly, what's wrong with smoking in a bar? I finally found a place that's still sane, where people can get together, enjoy their cocktails in a cultivated atmosphere, some of the people enjoy their cigars, yes, that adds to my experience. I love that. I can go there and simply relax, unwind, have a good and entertaining conversation and spend an evening drinking, talking and enjoying the smell of cigars.

If you don't, well, there's other places to go to. Nobody forces you to go to my bar, it's far from the only one and there are plenty of non-smoking places now.

Why does it have to be mandatory non-smoking? Could anyone explain this to me? Why not allow the owner of the pub, bar or even restaurant to decide whether he wishes to allow smoking? Good ol' capitalist logic tells me that the market dictates that a product that the customer does not want will vanish and the one offering it shall perish, why not let the market sort it out?

Re:Where the fuck is the problem?

[AmiMoJo]

But frankly, what's wrong with smoking in a bar?

It's bad for the bar staff's help.

Imagine if it was paint fumes. The decorating company says to its staff, "you just have to put up with paint fumes and the damage they do to your lungs, or get another job". That wouldn't fly in most places, the law requires jobs that expose workers to hazards to provide protective equipment.

In other words the bar staff would need breathing equipment, and would be required to wear it by law to prevent unfair competition (i.e. individuals opting out of safety equipment to make themselves more employable).

There are exemptions for things like actors who smoke for a role, but just wanting to operate a smoking room in a bar is not one of them.

Re:No Sympathy

[totallyarb]

"I have no sympathy. Smoking is entirely unnecessary."

That, I'm afraid, is the perfect totalitarian mantra: "I think it is unnecessary, therefore I will ban it."

"People keep doing it only because they are addicted to it, not for any other positive reasons."

[Citation Needed]

What you seem to be saying is actually "*I* don't enjoy it, so it is impossible that anyone else does."

"It can go entirely without any objectively negative impacts whatsoever."

So, you're the sort of crude utilitarian who assumes there are objective standards of which activities are enjoyable and which are not? And moreover, that your judgement of these "objective" standards is objectively perfect? Wow. Just wow.

I don't smoke, have never smoked, no stake in this game; but your post is a crime against logic and reason.

Re:The point

[AmiMoJo]

Forcing people to pay for the health care of other adults is wrong.

It's absolutely right and one of the best things about countries with social/subsidised healthcare. Shame on America for abandoning it.

Re:Joy Joy Feelings for all

[thegarbz]

I fully agree. I should be free not to breath in your smoke.

And the fact you don't think it's a person vs corporation issue when someone is selling you a product that provides you with zero benefit at all to the end user... well that says a lot.

But just like any drug addiction smoking has negative affects on people around you. Unlike most drug addictions smokers have shown an inability to keep their habit to themselves.

Seriously fuck smokers. Karma / mod points be damned. The vast majority are filthy entitled scum who feel like their habit should be all that matters and then whine when managers complain about the amount of breaks they take or people complain that they don't want to smell smoke while eating, or god forbid a workplace shall have an atmosphere that doesn't cause cancer. Lock them in their homes and close all the windows.