Smoking bans outdoors?

January 19th, 2012 at 11:00 am by David Farrar

The Herald reports:

Health bosses want the Auckland Council to ban in all public outdoor areas in the city in a bid to stop children picking up the habit.

The proposed ban would include the city centre, parks, playgrounds, sports grounds, stadiums, parts of beaches, council-controlled land such as around the Auckland Museum and art gallery, and events supported by the council, such as Pasifika.

Why not just go the whole hog and have summary executions of people caught smoking? That would be far more effective in encouraging children not to smoke.

One drawback of an execution policy is that Auckland could suffer significant population loss. So to ameliorate the effects, perhaps adopt the Roman decimation policy – just kill 1 in 10 smokers?

Tags:

52 Responses to “Smoking bans outdoors?”

  1. RightNow (6,669 comments) says:

    I’d guess at least 1 in 10 smokers will leave Auckland anyway if this is enacted.

    One day a government will show some balls and simply make smoking illegal. Clearly it’s a net tax earner though, or it would have been done already.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. XavierG (76 comments) says:

    Yes. Executions are the logical corollary of this policy. Stupid strawman is stupid.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. beautox (430 comments) says:

    Why not just make cigarette companies add something to their products that kill people, then you don’t need to execute them?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Lance (2,451 comments) says:

    I agree that no-one should be forced to endure secondhand smoke and there should be health warnings on packs, back of the que on hospital waiting lists and such but beyond that it’s gross interference and nanny state-ism.
    The trouble is we are already getting food Nazi’s and the next stage will be to BAN anything someone disagrees with.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    I don’t want a government that “will show some balls”. I want a government that respects individual freedom of choice. Any social cost should be recouped through taxation and it is fair to regulate against smoking indoors because of its effect on others. But to prohibit smoking outdoors because it might encourage youngsters to smoke? FFS, that’s not even a valid justification for anything. May as well ban pubs because it might encourage them to drink. Ban the sale of Hustler in convenience stores because it might encourage them to go blind. Ban this, ban that. Look after your own children and stop worrying about everyone else’s and what “messages” they might get from legitimate adult activity.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. thedavincimode (6,539 comments) says:

    Ban wharfies, hobos and smelly rent-a-demo types as well so kids don’t pick up those bad habits.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Jcw (98 comments) says:

    Stupid post.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. s.russell (1,564 comments) says:

    I do not smoke and never have. But this is going too far.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. slightlyrighty (2,496 comments) says:

    Because banning worked so well for pot didn’t it.

    What happens when the health nazi’s win this battle? What will be next ion their sights? Fast Food? Beer? Wine? Where do you draw the line?

    It is one thing to ban outright, it is another to educate, inform, support good choices and encourage personal responsibility.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    Jcw (96) Says:
    January 19th, 2012 at 11:33 am
    Stupid post.

    far from it, it shows that there is a large group of fucking idiots out there sucking up public funds to come out with asinine rubbish like this.

    I would how ever like ‘ health bosses’ defined. I’m imagining a couple of middle managers who have been allowed a press release

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Farmerpete (39 comments) says:

    Point taken, but it really gets under my skin to be sitting in a cafe and some ignorant arsehole lights up under the window and you have to suffer their smoke. Or at a sports venue. Do you notice how smokers actually turn their heads when they are exhaling so that they can really get you with their second hand shit?”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Lance (2,451 comments) says:

    On the (slightly) OT issue of health bosses….

    I recently spent sometime in North Shore Hospital and I have to applaud the can do attitude there. There was a shortage of orderlies so I was wheeled around in my bed by 2 hospital administrators, who where not in the least bit ‘put out’. The nurses had far too many patients but maintained professionalism even with abusive patients.

    Well done

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Manolo (13,378 comments) says:

    The tobacco-nazis at large. Lame.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. dime (9,453 comments) says:

    goddam academics can be morons.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    farmerpete,

    In a perfect world people would be courteous, but given that we don’t live in such a world I would say it is the Cafe owners responsibility to ensure that smoke from outside stays outside and for a sports venue to ban smoking in places where large numbers of people are in close proximity to one another. Eden park during the world cup had a designated smoking area. Seemed to work quite well.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. mara (726 comments) says:

    Outdoor smoking ban my arse! In the event of the sheeple allowing such a thing, I would ignore it entirely. Being polite by nature I would simply move away from anyone verbally accosting me ; if they follow or attempt any form of physical coersion, after one warning, I would simply unleash my dog.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. gravedodger (1,516 comments) says:

    @ Weihana 11 15, aggree with your comment but in reference to your last sentence, The sort of numpty that came up with this tosh probably wouldn’t have children and if they did they would be being raised by someone else or on the street smoking as we speak.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. AlphaKiwi (686 comments) says:

    Banning smoking will probably lead to less street cleaners in the city as half the litter around is cigarette butts. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. trout (902 comments) says:

    In another part of the paper (from memory); 50% of the teachers in Kohanga Reo smoke. A good model???

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Yvette (2,692 comments) says:

    Why not just make cigarette companies add something to their products that kill people, then you don’t need to execute them?

    I thought that was the problem.

    Will the Health bosses and Auckland Council decline any further central government funding, for any purpose whatsoever, since it may include amounts from tobacco products tax?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. unaha-closp (1,112 comments) says:

    Add some eucalyptus oil to cigarettes so they don’t smell so bad.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Nookin (3,037 comments) says:

    Executions would solve the transport problem. We would the have an extra $2b to spend on other shit.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. m@tt (588 comments) says:

    You can’t urinate or defecate in those areas either.
    You can’t park up your caravan and camp
    It most of them you’d most likely not be allowed to consume alcohol

    In rejecting a ban on smoking in council controlled public areas you are supporting the rights of people to do what they want in those public areas. The Occupy movement will be pleased to have your support I am sure.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. somewhatthoughtful (452 comments) says:

    Just grow some balls and legalise pot already. It’s ridiculous that I can buy alcohol and tobacco at a bar but not a joint.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. cha (3,779 comments) says:

    I parked here at around 9am today and saw a couple of WCC staff out on a smoke break. Got back to my car at 11.30am and the same people were outside, again, having a smoke.

    Ban smoking outdoors?. Fuck yeah!, because my over the top rates are paying the fuckers to loll around having a fag in that nice wee garden.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    matt,

    Drinking and smoking is not comparable to urinating or defecating. But while it is true that alcohol cannot be consumed in most public places, it can be consumed indoors in specially designated areas. Smoking cannot be consumed indoors except in one’s own home and even then that right may be limited by a tenancy agreement.

    As for the occupy people, in my view they have used the public space for an excessive amount of time with no clear purpose in mind at the expense of everyone else who may want to use that public space. They have also had a negative impact on the environment which they occupy. Time for them to move on.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. KevinH (1,131 comments) says:

    Health officials will have to provide a fully researched evidenced based case to get their way. For instance , are children influenced by the sight of a person smoking a cigarette on the street?
    Is cigarette smoke harmful in urban enviroments? I could go on.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Tauhei Notts (1,609 comments) says:

    Those twerps who issued that press release.
    They are the sort of people who need prostitution to be available, but cigarette smokers be banned.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. plebe (271 comments) says:

    Can i do the shooting the executing,be the bringer of death, but i will let them suck death in,puff puff, why i do the deed.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. kowtow (7,636 comments) says:

    Health nazism.
    Don’t like smoke,ban it…..like fires in Nelson.Such bollocks.

    OK then ban aeroplanes ,cars and fucken busses.

    And if they care so much about children why not ban abortion?

    Too many bureaucrats with nothing to do.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. immigant (950 comments) says:

    Sometimes I wake up in the morning and the day seems so bright and beautiful. And then I open the Herald and read the headlines and in a rage, throw my cup of coffee at teh wall. While my children cower in fear, my wife asks me:

    “Immigant? What’s wrong?!”

    And I have to explain to her that there are adult people in this country, that get paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to worry about bullshit, like this fucking insane smoke ban while the city and country goes down the drain.

    Is there nothing?! Nothing else at all, that the City Council should be doing except worrying that people smoke outside building and in parks?!!!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. transmogrifier (520 comments) says:

    Don’t like this idea at all. I would guess most kids pick up the habit from parents and peers. I mean, what type of kid walks past a bunch of pallid office drones huddled together sucking on a ciggie as they enjoy 10 minutes of freedom from hunched-over drudgery in front of the glare of the computer screen and thinks “Wow, ,they’re cool! I’m gonna go get some smokes!”

    It’s as stupid as the idea that pops up every year or so to make it illegal to show anyone smoking in movies or TV shows.

    I can understand the banning of smoking in public stores and working environments (though the individual businesses should be able to make their own rules, really, without requiring government intervention) and other places outside where groups of people congregate in close proximity for a specific reason (e.g. bus stops) but a blanket ban is just draconian. If smoking is that bad, just make tobacco illegal. Otherwise, stop fucking around trying to do the job of a halfway decent parent.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. mikenmild (10,760 comments) says:

    I’d be happer about people smoking outside if they would stop chucking the butts everywhere – filthy habit that breeds filthy manners apparently.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. bc (1,334 comments) says:

    XavierG @ 11.13am says “Yes. Executions are the logical corollary of this policy.”

    Really? Executions logically follow on from a propsed ban on smoking in public areas outdoors? Really?
    That is mind boggling stupid.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. mikenmild (10,760 comments) says:

    bc
    Did you not read the next words from Xavier – “stupid strawman is stupid”? Perhaps he should have headed his comment ‘WARNING – SARCASM’.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. bc (1,334 comments) says:

    boutoux at 11.24am says “Why not just make cigarette companies add something to their products that kill people, then you don’t need to execute them?”

    Cigarette companies already do that. It’s just that it’s a slow kill that takes a lot of years to take effect.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. bc (1,334 comments) says:

    Perhaps you’re right mikenmild. When I read DPF’s post, I thought it was his lamest post yet – no one in their right mind would consider a proposed outdoors smoking ban to be anything like executing smokers.
    So yeah, sarcasm I think!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. camrun (49 comments) says:

    Weihana at 11:28am – “I want a government that respects individual freedom of choice . . . it is fair to regulate against smoking indoors because of its effect on others.”

    What about the freedom of choice for a business owner, (cafe/pub etc), to decide whether or not they allow people to smoke in their premises? It should be up to the owner of the business, or the building, to decide whether or not people can smoke inside. In regards to its effects on others, nobody is forced to frequent these places. I’m sure many places would choose to be smoke-free, and would appeal to a large customer base. However surely it should up to the owner to do their own cost-benefit analysis?

    Maybe a case can be made for regulating smoking in the workplace, where people may have no option but to share a single ‘smoko’ room.

    Disclaimer: I never have and probably never will smoke, but almost all of my friends do. It annoys me that we have to sit outside, especially in winter, just because a few people get off on telling other people what they can and can’t do.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. bc (1,334 comments) says:

    Oh get real, camrun. Do you really believe that smoking regulations are in place “just because afew people get off telling other people what they can and can’t do”? Yeah, like that’s the reason for it! Strange that you didn’t mention that smoking kills. That couldn’t be the reason could it?
    And isn’t wearing seat belts in cars a nuisance. I guess that they are there “just because a few people get off telling other people what they can and can’t do” too.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    camrun,

    You’re right nobody is forced to frequent these places. That’s if you believe going to work is a choice or not paying the rent is a legitimate option.

    Individual freedom of choice should always be subject to reasonable limitations. Outright prohibition is not reasonable in my view because it is possible to be a smoker, to be courteous and to not impose oneself on others.

    But if you smoke in a cafe or pub you are imposing yourself not only on other patrons, which to be fair are reasonably able to leave and find somewhere else, but more importantly you are imposing yourself on the staff who via their unskilled position are in an effectively powerless bargaining situation where, if no regulations existed to cater for their health and safety, employers would inevitably have them work in unsafe conditions.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Scott Chris (5,881 comments) says:

    As an ex-smoker, I rather enjoy the passing whiff of a well chosen cigarette. Was rather partial to the toasted tobacco varieties such as Camel and Marlborough till I switched to Port Royal at uni. And if I was feeling exotic and bohemian, I’d don a beret and suck an unfiltered Gauloises, getting the occasional black strand stuck between my yellowing teeth to compliment that look of continental bucolic chic.

    Of course, being only 12 years old at the time, everyone else was laughing at me, but I just wanted to look like an adult. Like a lot of kids.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Steve (4,499 comments) says:

    So you are still 12 Scott?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Steve (4,499 comments) says:

    Anyway, a lot of bitching moaning pricks here today.
    I say let the smokers smoke and pay the taxes, because if you ban smoking the TAX will have to come from another source ie you the non smoker. Don’t kill the goose that lays the golden eggs or you will regret it.

    I have been smoke free for over 3 years now (gave up for vertebrae surgery) I don’t miss it at all and the smell of smoke does not worry me.
    I do agree with Scott Chris, the smell of a cigar is quite pleasing but I would not try one

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. orewa1 (428 comments) says:

    Yup, great idea.

    While we’re at it, lets target obesity as well. A set of scales at the entrance to every park – if you are overweight, you can’t come in. A further refinement could be that anyone over say 120kg falls through into a man trap and is held underground for the “normal” people to laugh at.

    And why stop there? Anyone who drinks alcohol beyond a certain threshold. Anyone who is of certain religions. Anyone who voted for ACT, or for Winston. Truly, if you don’t conform, what right have you to enjoy “our” parks?

    The Council is onto something important here – my rates at work for me! Keep the ideas coming.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. tom hunter (4,428 comments) says:

    I always liked Bernard’s take on the matter:

    Fran: So what’s it like then? The fags and booze.

    Bernard: Well, to be honest, after years of smoking and drinking, you do sometimes look at yourself and think…

    Fran: Yep…

    Bernard: You know, just sometimes, in between the first cigarette with coffee in the morning to that four hundredth glass of cornershop piss at 3am, you do sometimes look at yourself and think…

    Fran: Yep…

    Bernard: … this is fantastic. I’m in heaven.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. mara (726 comments) says:

    Life is getting shittier for people with already few pleasures. Take supermarket workers for example. Once they had subsidised food in workplace cafes (smoking allowed). Then the food stopped. Then smoking stopped. Smokers outside please. Then special smoke-free rooms were built. Worked well. Then they were closed; all smokers outside in the rain again please. Then don’t smoke in view of customers. Soon they may only smoke in their cars if they have one. Then that will be made illegal. Still, by then they will all be Asians and other compliant immigrants who don’t rock the boat.
    Is it any wonder that, with all this shitting about by do-gooding policy making fascists, that society in general is getting angrier, less tolerant and more “troublesome.” Which then necessitates more laws and bannings which cause more aggro and disrespect which cause ………

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Paulus (2,503 comments) says:

    Thank goodness the Government have better things to do than follow the Clark control everything message.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. grumpyoldhori (2,410 comments) says:

    Oh arseholes, I’m a pipe smoker whose is about to have a Chinese flagged ship sit twelve miles off shore to sell duty free fags, oh yea, I’m sure the Customs would try and arrest the said ship, in their dreams.
    Fuck me the amount of people who believe if they give up smoking it will lead to eternal life for them on this planet is fucking amazing.

    Time we had cafes and bars for smokers only, you boring farts can just fuck off.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. camrun (49 comments) says:

    bc, a lot of things can ‘kill’ or are harmful to one’s health (takeaways, recreational fishing, car exhaust fumes), yet they are not subject to the strict regulations and prohibitions of smoking, largely because the social stigma is so much less. I believe it is still Labour Party policy to ban so-called ‘junk food’ in schools – “First they came for the tuck-shop pies, and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t at school.” Wait until they come for something you enjoy and see how you feel. I don’t even smoke, but I will defend to the (admittedly probably hastened due to the fact I hang out with smokers) death the right to do it. (Well not to the death, but I will loudly complain and write comments on blogs).

    In regards to seatbelts in cars, personally I don’t consider it a nuisance, and wouldn’t ride in a car that didn’t have one for me. I would question the judgement and sanity of anyone who chose otherwise. Arguably there is the possibility that the decision to not wear a seatbelt could be a danger to others. Also, in this country the reality is that the Government is heavily involved in the provision of healthcare, so can claim they have a mandate to pass laws that will reduce this cost.

    Weihana, interesting point regarding the imposition upon the staff of a business, and admittedly not one I had considered. Of course there are people who due to their circumstances do not have the luxury of choosing a different working environment. Maybe some sort of additional ‘hazard pay’ could be established for the workers of smoking bars/cafes?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Richard29 (377 comments) says:

    @Weihana
    “smoking is not comparable to urinating”

    Smoking:
    Imposes unpleasant outputs on bystanders.
    Smells.
    Delivers carcinogens into the air.

    Urinating:
    Imposes unpleasant outputs on bystanders.
    Smells.
    Delivers a sterile liquid onto the ground.

    One of the funnier analogies I heard at the time of the banning of smoking in restaurants and bars was from an anti smoking advocate who pointed out how unpopular swimming pools would be if they had a rope separating the ‘urinators’ section of the pool. :P

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. mara (726 comments) says:

    grumpyoldhori. Yes. Yes. Yes.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Ben Wilson (523 comments) says:

    Can’t agree with banning smoking outdoors. Stupid, mean idea. In some cases, it’s offensive to people in way they shouldn’t have to tolerate, which is why we have laws about being a nuisance, and why people have the power to say “hey, do you mind smoking that a bit further away?”. I do this when I’m stuck, for instance, in a crowd and someone close lights up. Never had a refusal yet. There’s no need to legislate good manners, at least not pressing and obvious need just yet. Perhaps if we have really, really crowded streets, like in Asia, then you might ban smoking in those circumstances, so long as there was somewhere people could go. But people standing alone on a street blowing their smoke up into the air, so that all that remains is a smell, should be left to kill themselves in peace.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.