This entry was posted on Tuesday, December 16th, 2008 at 11:00 am and is filed under NZ Politics.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
58 Responses to “City Vision Cr votes to ban smoking in Auckland CBD”
Smokers rarely if ever impinge on my life nowadays. Leave the poor bastards alone. If someone has to die early to reduce the demand on National Super, long costly years in rest homes etc etc, it may as well be smokers.
I am probably as anti-smoking as they come. It killed my mother, father and stepfather, all before their time. I find it a disgusting habit with no moral virtue, no benefit and no reason.
Yet banning it is a retrograde step. By all means use the fact that a person smokes as a means of rationing treatment however. If there is a hospital waiting list, then those who choose to smoke should do so in the knowledge that this will move a person down the waiting list for treatment.
In fact that is the warning that should also appear on ciggie packs. “smoking will negatively impact the ability to access the health care that you will need by smoking in the first place.”
It is a fallacy that smokers don’t pay their way. In actual fact the amount of taxes they pay far outweighs the cost to society of them. They die quicker and of diseases that don’t really allow you to linger.
If we cut out smoking we are just going to have heaps of whining old people cluttering up the place.
My view is if we tax it then it must be legal and there should be small limits on smokers, they are paying for it after all. If as a nation we decide that smoking isn’t really our bag then just get on with it and make it illegal.
Maybe they suggested it becuase their pick on the homeless campaign didn’t work. Most homeless smoke (one of the few pleasures the poor bastards have) so this is a nice way to remove them from the more salubrious parts of the CBD so the City Vision types won’t have to see them and they can contiunue their delusion that everyone lives in a nice middle-class lefty suburb. Twats.
step 1) – ban smoking in bars… oh shit, people like that.. lets see how far we can push it..
step 2) -ban smoking outside bars! cause ummm the smoke can be seen by non-smokers! and its bad for the enviroment! and we hate business… fuck all the pubs/resturants that will lose a tonne of money cause smokers wont go out anymore! fuck em!
Have been since 1984 – one week before the mad bastard Muldoon was deposed.
Even I can see that smokers, by the simple act of dying almost as young as the super-fit scrawnies and paying ridiculous taxes for that pleasure, contribute more to the NZ economy per head than the we-know-what’s-best-for-you anti-pleasure dickheads.
DPF: “Why not just cut out all the in between steps, and just start shooting smokers?”
A smokeless society would be fan-bloody-tastic.
I flew back into Wellington on Pacific Blue recently. The steward on the PA was hilarious… “Please remember to remain seated until the captain has switched off the seatbelt lights. Also I remind you that smoking is not permitted on the tarmac outside the aircraft, or inside the terminal building, or on the bus, or anywhere in Wellington at all. GIVE UP people, it’s disgusting and it’s bad for you. And thank you for flying with us on Pacific Blue etc etc…”
A smokeless society would be fan-bloody-tastic.”
Well where do you propose to get the extra $900 million in excise from? Or will you just start with the smokers and then move on to the drinkers? Meat-eaters? Coke drinkers? And keep going until there are only health-conscious, tofu-eating wowsers sitting around knitting their own undies? Good luck with that, it’s not a land I’d care to live in. I’m a smoker; smoking is a perfectly legal activity. Where is your problem with this?
Bring smoking back into pubs, but with restrictions similar to those in Australia. Provide govt support for the extractor fans to be put in establishments that want to go back to being a smoking venue.
Then outlaw smoking in public places. Why? When I go into a smoking bar, I know and expect there to be smoke! What I really hate is walking down the street and having some smoker in front of me clogging my lungs with their vial stench, tar and nicotine.
Also the amount of cigarette butts that pollute Wellington streets, planter boxes, gardens, beaches, gutters, is somewhat disgusting.
bh: “Well where do you propose to get the extra $900 million in excise from?”
Nowhere! Does the state need it? Really?? Rodney can cut some fat out of the system somewhere. That’s his whole job description.
bh: “Or will you just start with the smokers and then move on to the drinkers? Meat-eaters? Coke drinkers?”
No. None of those things disgusts me – only smoking.
bh: “smoking is a perfectly legal activity. Where is your problem with this?”
I quite often need to take a piss after leaving a bar. Unfortunately I can’t do this because usually there is a whole gauntlet of smokers hanging around in the street outside the door coughing and wheezing, and pissing on them might constitute indecency or assault – which is also not allowed in a polite society, because it’s DISGUSTING!!!
CraigM: “Why does the ‘it’s all about me” attitude from Rb not surprise me.”
Well you obviously look to your own values for your sense of what should be allowed and what shouldn’t be allowed (e.g: “lefties just want to ban shit all the time. FFS, get out of my life”…) but for some reason you are criticizing me for doing the same?
CraigM: “Biter hates smoking but thinks pissing in the street is acceptable. I would rather have smoke blown in my face than have someone piss on my jeans. Hyprocitical idiot.”
WHHHHHHHOOOOOOOOOOOSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSHHHHHHHHHHHH as the whimsy in the allegorical pissing-on-smokers tale goes straight over poor CraigM’s head!
Well, since no one gets your “whimsy”, RB, perhaps you could address my point about smoking being a perfectly legal activity? I get inconvenienced by others performing legal activities all the time, but I don’t call for the banning of joggers, cyclists, bungy-jumpers or town planners.
PhilU is completely on topic. Making all sorts of assumptions (and then insinuations) about Bhatnagar’s personal agenda as a way of supposedly discrediting him is about par for the course and a standard way of addressing a topic around here.
The difference is that when PhilU does this, he usually does his own research first!
Ten years ago smoking related health issues cost $200 million/year and Govt took $1 billion in tobacco tax. That was according to Lindsay Perigo on talk back …. don’t know what todays figures are.
What right has anyone to say that a smoker has no right to health care? Smokers are the only people that pay for their own.
It really fucks me off how you so called “freedom fighters” are prepared to ‘cherry pick’ what personal rights the Govt is allowed to take off us.
Smoking is not illegal.
And it is OK for you to see discrimination when it suits you. Imagine the fucking fuss if a 200 kg PI was told he wasn’t allowed to eat a big mac in public …. and you nanny state fuckwits would be jumping up and down with the rest of them. Selective discrimination is OK.
How come we don’t have to have pictures of squashed kids painted on the sides of our cars? Or a picture of an exploding 400kg PI on KFC boxes?
I am 58 years old. Smoked since I was 9. I can climb to 6,000 feet with people 30 years younger than me. Did Goat Pass
(33 ks) in a 6 1/2 hour stroll last year. Walked 27 miles behind sheep in two days last week and the week before rode and walked 70 miles in three days behind cattle. I know smoking is not good for me, but that is my business.
Last year it took me all summer to get my Commercial Pilots medical renewed. My cardiologist and GP both said I was “extremely healthy, in fact 99% healthy but unfortunately, because you smoke, the Department want you to be 100% healthy.” Who the fuck is 100% healthy?
This discrimination cost me the summer seasons flying ($20,000) and $6,000 in tests.
Everywhere I look I see our rights being taken from us or degraded and the sheeple applaud.
I have never seen such fucking drongos as the average Kiwi.
Get out of my life you oppressive, nanny state fucking sheep!
Chris, I’d hardly describe my comments on 1Auckland as a “cheap jibe”. The nutty idea to ban smoking in parts of the CBD came from a director or vice-chairman of your 1Auckland ticket, who was also a candidate. The idea was co-sponsored by another 1Auckland candidate. if the argument got politicised, it’s because your director and former candidates have been doing so in the local papers and in their local email loops.
Phil – what on earth are you talking about? Paritai Drive isn’t even in my ward, and if you are referring to Judges Bay (which is 2km, 2 suburbs and 2 bays away) , you might like to contemplate the fact that it has the worst water quality of any Auckland ithsmus beach. I thought you greenies were in favour of environmental improvements to our beaches? Or are you just as clueless as you appear to be?
And don’t talk to me about Councils! Our Council gave a private company $1.2 million of our rates to do a feasibility study on their irrigation scheme. Since then, bent Benson-Pope approved acquiring authority for this private company to take my farm off me.
Not only am I to have my farm stolen off me, I am paying for them to do it out of my rates!!!
Aaron, I find it very hard to rest easy knowing the stubborness of many in Auckland City Council and the “don’t worry your little head, we know best” attitude of so many of the staff. Roll on the Royal Commission report and restructuring.
“I’d hardly describe my comments on 1Auckland as a “cheap jibe”. The nutty idea to ban smoking in parts of the CBD came from a director or vice-chairman of your 1Auckland ticket, who was also a candidate. The idea was co-sponsored by another 1Auckland candidate. if the argument got politicised, it’s because your director and former candidates have been doing so in the local papers and in their local email loops.”
In fact, Dick Ayres came to your committee in his capacity as a member of the CBD Board upon which he represents Auckland CBD Residents’ Advisory Group Inc, a body he has long been a member of. Tim Coffey has been a CBD resident for over 30yrs and is likewise involved in the CBD Residents’ Advisory Group Inc.
Their activities on behalf of their community have nothing to do with any role in 1Auckland. It’s only you (and not anyone else) who has attempted to draw 1Auckland into an issue that it is not involved. And what a long bow.
By you own admission a CBD smoking ban is going nowhere. In fact, no one is interested in this “story” and it hasn’t got political, because compared to the utter dopiness of a By law to outlaw the homeless, it pales into insignificance.
Whatever the enthusiasm of Messrs Ayres and Coffey for a smoking ban in the CBD, at least it has not resulted in a waste of $50,000 of ratepayer money on a By law that no one wants and most regard as ridiculous, and that will cost shift onto the NZ Police if they bother to enforce it along with reams of other laws they don’t have the resources to enforce.
Why not post on C&R’s waste of money on this unwanted By law which is in an area of social policy that is plainly out of Auckland City’s core competence – that is a story.
Attacking or ridiculing ordinary people exercising their democratic rights (whatever you think about the wisdom of what they ask for) isn’t a hot look. Political leaders should be bigger than that. Perhaps Auckland City should stick to ‘big events’ something for which it clearly has the Midas touch
Excellent point, I too agree that smoking is and should be a perfectly legal activity. There is plenty of information about the possible effects of smoking, so if someone chooses to engage in such an activity then they are accepting such risks. I do not really have a problem with people smoking outside at all. As others have mentioned they do contribute towards their health costs through the tax they pay.
WebWrat you are an ignoramus. Just because you can climb mt everest having smoked 10 packs a day since you were 1 doesn’t mean that smoking does not cause health problems.
There is a definite difference between eating related issues and smoking ones. The body is built to eat to survive, but not to smoke to survive. That is something you picked up behind the school toilets with the rest of your dropout mates.
Why should I pay for any of your smoking related health problems?
You can smoke so long as I don’t pay for your filthy little habit and if I don’t have to smell the putrid air you emit.
Any criticism about tax payer funded schemes is a bit bloody rich coming from a bludger like you.
You also talk about a more equitable society and in usual pinko fashion threaten violence if your demands are not met yet it cannot have escaped even the thickest lefty that you write these words as a person who does not contribute one cent to government revenue or I suspect local body revenue.
As usual you want what others have without working for it.
1. In fact Ayres is an executive director of a political organisation, as well as a former candidate for it (as was Coffey), so their politicising the decision after it didn’t go their way makes their political allegiances completely relevant.
2. In fact this story has been newsworthy. I just had a interview with radio a few hours ago about it. Local rags have covered the story as well.
3. I’ll take lessons on events management from 1Auckland when they learn how to have a campaign launch (see http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10454615&pnum=0 and http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10454613 – no confirmed candidates, no policy, no website despite making the ticket name a URL).
4. I have blogged before about homeless related issues on my site, but if this issue is of interest to you, you should blog about it yourself. My committee (City Development) doesn’t deal with social services, so it’s not my duty to discuss it. Were it my story to tell I’ll point out that it was reported in the media the other day that we’re not necessarily spending a dime on a new by-law, but that is simply one of the options the council are considering.
5. The only reason Ayres and Coffey haven’t cost the ratepayer any sum of money for a daft bylaw is because I killed it dead, no thanks to them.
Phil – you must be afflicted in some way. How many times do I need to tell you that Paritai Drive isn’t in my district and is two whole suburbs away from where I think you are talking about? As for your other comments, I think you need a nice cup of tea and a long lie down.
When I have enjoyed a good steak at Tony’s and step out onto the street to have a well deserved fag, I would defy anyone telling me to stub it out. Police included. I simply would not obey such a silly by-law. It is called reasonable civil disobedience. Sheep bleat as they are corraled for slaughter. I don’t. What is the worst thing that will happen to you if you show balls? Nothing. But we need numbers. Where are they?
No event that 1Auckland is involved in has ever resulted in an Auditor General’s investigation. I wonder how much Auckland City’s idea of funding Beckham’s football team will eventually cost ratepayers.
I note in relation to 1Auckland’s policy – it was pretty clear from the name…. and wait for it…… it’s coming.
I guess I will defer to your expertise at getting tv coverage for a political launch. And Bernard always gives C&R such great copy.
Again what is very odd is why you are trying to link 1Auckland into something that it isn’t involved merely because a couple of people pushing a local issue happen to be one Auckland people. It’s a sort of cheap ‘guilt by association’ argument – infantile politics really. No links to ANY news coverage of this “story” or the 1Auckland angle….. because there is no story.
Is everything you do by extention the actions of C&R/National? Of course not.
Pleased to hear you will be voting against the proposal to outlaw the homeless as it is clearly a dopey idea. Of course it joins the ranks with that other triumph of public policy, the By law on buskers and song repetition. I wonder how much that cost.