Eat and breath

[Gob]

Canberra diners will breathe easier when smoking in outdoor eating and drinking areas is banned in just over a fortnight.


The ACT Government says 15.8 per cent of Canberrans smoke daily. It expects venue owners will be affected by the changes but says this, and the inconvenience for smokers, will be offset by the benefits enjoyed by the broader public.


Steve Dawn, who owns the Kingston Hotel, Civic Pub and Uni Pub, says he is delighted with the new rules.

''I think it's going to be an enormous boost for us,'' he said. ''Smoking's on the slippery dip. The bulk of people now do not smoke. I think it's fantastic.''


Holy Grail owner Ian Moldrum was also positive about the changes, although he predicted cigarette litter would increase outside venues.


From December 9, smoking will be banned in all outdoor eating and drinking areas and at underage functions.

The only exemptions will be venues mostly clubs and larger hotels that introduce designated outdoor smoking areas.


They must have 1.8m walls separating smoking from non-smoking areas, and must be explicitly designed to offer smokers a temporary refuge for a cigarette away from the general public. According to the legislation's explanatory statement, ''[they are] not intended to be a place to hang out and socialise. Consequently restrictions are proposed on what can occur in the DOSA [outdoor areas], eg, no entertainment and no food or drink may be ordered, purchased or served in the designated outdoor smoking area and no food may be consumed there.''


Matilda Smith, 19, and Julian Rowe, 18, were dismayed with the plans.


''It's a social thing,'' Mr Rowe said, celebrating his 18th birthday with a cigarette and drink at a Civic footpath dining area.


''It's something that goes hand-in-hand if you're a smoker; a beer and a cigarette.''


Ms Smith said, ''If I do have a cigarette I make sure I am out of the way of other people. ''If you're going to put the prices up, and stop people smoking inside and now say they can't smoke outside, why don't you just f---ing ban them?''


Ms Smith plans to have a ''farewell-to-smoking day'' on December 8.


''We're going to go to a cafe and smoke until we can't smoke any more.''


Australian Hotels Association ACT general manager Steven Fanner said he was unconvinced further smoking bans would improve conditions for hospitality staff.

''It's certainly not going to deliver anything more with health benefits or increasing the workplace safety for staff,'' he said. ''It's a feel-good move being imposed by Government.''


His main concern was that large numbers of people would leave licensed venues to smoke on the streets.

''You've got a large group of people that no licensees can take responsibility for,'' he said.


But Smokefree Australia Coalition spokesman Stafford Sanders said the reform was ''an absolute doozy ... an absolute priority reform''.


''It doesn't matter whether a workplace has walls around it or not, it's still a workplace.


''There is very good research on the adverse health impacts on second-hand smoke and there's very good research on exposure to second-hand smoke in partly enclosed and outdoor areas.''


As for civil libertarian arguments about smoking being a legal activity, Mr Sanders said, ''So is driving. And urinating. You try doing it in a restaurant and see how far you get. Try operating a chainsaw, try operating heavy machinery try doing those around dining. It's a nonsense argument.''

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/lo ... 03175.aspx

[@meric@nwom@n]

I live in a smallish Town called Plainfield. Plainfield has one of the most draconian non-smoking policies in the state. Basically you can't smoke in any eating or drinking establishments and there are some other public places that went non-smoking as well, like nursing homes. Oh woe the pitiful cries of the barkeeps who swore it would put them out of business. Au contraire, business boomed after the ban.

The ban is a good thing.

[Sean]

lol - So the ACT is finally beginning to catch up with the rest of the country?

[Jarlaxle]

I live in a smallish Town called Plainfield. Plainfield has one of the most draconian non-smoking policies in the state. Basically you can't smoke in any eating or drinking establishments and there are some other public places that went non-smoking as well, like nursing homes. Oh woe the pitiful cries of the barkeeps who swore it would put them out of business. Au contraire, business boomed after the ban.

Horseshit. Directly from several waiters: when smoking was banned, their tips TANKED.

[@meric@nwom@n]

Jarl, I had no idea you were in Plainfield! You should have stopped by or called.

Oh wait, you are talking about somewhere else because that sure as hell didn't happen here.

[oldr_n_wsr]

Have a place, away from others where I can have a cigarette or cigar after eating out and I will be happy to come back and take my seat and have coffee and/or a few more drinks. If you don't have that I will either not go to your establishment or if I do, I will leave immediately after dinner. Your choice, more or less money from me.

And it has been the experience of most resturant/bar establishments I have frequented (and have talked with and personally know the owners of) that since the ban on smoking here in NY city/state that business dropped 30-40% right after the ban and has not returned to those levels since (10-20% only).

How about a ban on perfumes for those of alergic to that? We ban peanut butter in schools what about us who are alergic to perfume?

[Long Run]

I don't smoke and hate having to smell second hand smoke. But it still seems like the tyranny of the majority to impose one result on business owners who want to attract smoking customers to their adult establishment (children do not have a choice and should not be required to endure indoor smoke at a business, even if they have to endure it at home). Whether smoking bans help or hurt business is a sideshow to the freedom of allowing consenting adults to do what they want (i.e., have a business that allows smoking, and be a patron at such business). I say this knowing I benefit not having to concern myself with whether a bar is smoking or not -- my convenience comes at the expense of all of the owners and smokers who would like to have a different result.

What we do know for sure is that when these bans go into effect, there are in fact business losers from the ban; there may also be winners, but it defies common sense to suggest that some businesses do not lose out as a result of the bans. Whether there is an overall rise or fall in net income after bans will depend on many factors, including location, weather, type of business, etc. What works out okay in a small city in the middle of Indiana may not work in a major city or in a similar sized city in another place.

[@meric@nwom@n]

I lived under the tyranny of smokers and their whims for years. It has not been that many years ago that all restaurants were stinky hell holes where smokers ruled. Screw that. It's over. This is the wave, ride it baby.

[Gob]

I lived under the tyranny of smokers and their whims for years. It has not been that many years ago that all restaurants were stinky hell holes where smokers ruled. Screw that. It's over. This is the wave, ride it baby.

+1

[Long Run]

I lived under the tyranny of smokers and their whims for years. It has not been that many years ago that all restaurants were stinky hell holes where smokers ruled. Screw that. It's over. This is the wave, ride it baby.

I guess revenge is as good a reason to have an property taking policy as any other.

[Crackpot]

[Sean]

I lived under the tyranny of smokers and their whims for years. It has not been that many years ago that all restaurants were stinky hell holes where smokers ruled. Screw that. It's over. This is the wave, ride it baby.

+1

Correct me if I'm wrong Strop but you were one of the tyrannical smokers weren't you?

[Gob]

Yep, and may return to being one one day, at which point my attitude will do yet another 180 backflip.

[Sean]

LMAO - the prerogative of the ex-smoker!

[Gob]

and wanker devious twat bastard...

[Crackpot]

Don't sell yourself short you're those other things too.

[Jarlaxle]

I lived under the tyranny of smokers and their whims for years.

Lie.

It has not been that many years ago that all restaurants were stinky hell holes where smokers ruled.

Lie.

[@meric@nwom@n]

I lived under the tyranny of smokers and their whims for years.

Lie.

It has not been that many years ago that all restaurants were stinky hell holes where smokers ruled.

Lie.

I am going to assume that you have lost your mind.

[Miles]

I have only one question, why should smokers have more rights than non smokers?

[Big RR]

And exactly what "more rights" do they have; it would seem that non smokers can make a choice not to smoke while smokers can make the choice to smoke. Yes, the nonsmokers may have to smell the smoke of the smokers, but then smokers may have to smell the perfume or BO of the nonsmokers; it's just the way life is. why do smelly people have more rights than non-smelly ones?