Thank you for smoking...?

julian · Post by **julian** » Sun Oct 28, 2007 11:07 am

Only a few days to go before ALL pubs, clubs etc go smoke free for good in South Australia. Although I can't wait to see what my favourite night spots are like without choking acrid smoke, I think the scene is likely to have a very different feel.
Don't get me wrong here, I loathe smoking and get really stuck into people I know that smoke, but I think that my local (to give an example) will likely be a very different place without the sickly sweet odour from the smokers.

Has any other state (or territory) moved to do the same thing, and if they have then what is it like? What was the transition like?

Suba · Post by **Suba** » Sun Oct 28, 2007 11:10 am

The tavern we go to has built an enclosed area just outside the main bar for smokers to go outside and have a puff , it's not covered so they arent being spoilt.

Mike.

bluesteel · Post by **bluesteel** » Sun Oct 28, 2007 11:10 am

tassie has been like it for a while now

absolutely love it!

Fatz · Post by **Fatz** » Sun Oct 28, 2007 11:36 am

i like the movie

vincentvega · Post by **vincentvega** » Sun Oct 28, 2007 1:18 pm

bugger the smokers. they will get over it. My smoking mates whinged for a few weeks then got used to having to go outside.

you will find it really strange the first few times you go out and the air is clear and clean and you dont stink like an ashtray when you get home!!

sven '2' · Post by **sven '2'** » Sun Oct 28, 2007 3:43 pm

try this arguement.

If had a tablet, that cost $14 a day, will make you transiently better or relaxed, that was additive, and has a odds on chance either primarly causing your death or contributing to it, would you take it?

most people answer no.

I'm into freedom of choice, but strongly believe it should be taxed high enough to cover the cost to the health budget / all funds to health.

Will await the 'my (insert relative) smoked 2 packets a day since they were 14 and died at 93' rubbish

Gannon · Post by **Gannon** » Sun Oct 28, 2007 4:45 pm

They brought in the No Smoking laws in july this year in NSW.

My girlfriend works at the local pub and we are both relieved that she no longer has to breathe passive smoke as she works.

We often wondered how many publicans/waitress's have developed lung cancer from passive smoke while they are working.

jsubie · Post by **jsubie** » Sun Oct 28, 2007 4:47 pm

I think it will be like going to AAmi stadium or the hospitals you will have to wade through the permanent cloud of smoke at all the entrances.

julian · Post by **julian** » Sun Oct 28, 2007 6:21 pm

The burden on the health system in oz from smokers is essentially incalculable, but has been estimated at around 1 in 4 beds in hospital with smoking related diseases. 1 IN 4!
But while cigarettes reap more in tax than they spend on health, the government will continue to make them freely available.
Sickening isn't it.
And this is the industry I want to end up in... Health that is!

sven '2' · Post by **sven '2'** » Sun Oct 28, 2007 6:27 pm

Julian,

Let me give the hot tip - separate clinical from policitical untill you choose a path in health management / policy.

Otherwise you will do your head in!

sven

Outback bloke · Post by **Outback bloke** » Sun Oct 28, 2007 7:24 pm

If the government was serious about stopping smoking they would ban it, especially if it is such a burden on the pocket of Australians. Seems the tax dollar earns more than the smoking costs.

I smoke but I do walk away from people when doing so. If people walk up to talk to me while I am smoking then that is there problem not mine. I don't go to pubs so I don't really care what the bans are.

All you non-smokers just remember that when you leave those pubs driving when under the influence that there is a chance you will kill some one too. Smoke or no smoke.

julian · Post by **julian** » Sun Oct 28, 2007 7:42 pm

Yes a good point, but argumentatively it is not really a valid point; smokers drink as well (I think there is even a stronger correlation between accidents and drink drivers if the driver is a smoker, but don't ask me for a quote...).
While a have great pity for people addicted to cigarettes and heap sh*t on those close to me that choose to do so, I would vigorously defend your right to that choice while cigarettes are still legal.
But I do think we need a proper and BIG public health campaign to dissuade people from smoking and more vigorously police underage smoking.

subiwidow · Post by **subiwidow** » Sun Oct 28, 2007 8:37 pm

I think it unfair to pick on smokers, they are aware of the dangers. But it an addiction. No one complained when years ago, sports games were being sponsored by the cigerette companys, it was in Magazines, on TV. They made it cool to smoke. It wasn't till it was to late and people started getting sick.

more vigorously police underage smoking.

They brought out heafty fines yeras ago. If you buy smokes and supply them to a minor it is about $1000 for the buyer. If the seller knows they buying for a minor and gets caught it was close to $2000. They don't do anything . My under aged son has taken up smoking, and there is nothing I can do. He works, he pays for them, he lost his grand father to lung cancer, and they know of the fines. I can't follow him ever where, or sew his lips together. Peer group preasure is a very strong thing.

Gannon · Post by **Gannon** » Sun Oct 28, 2007 10:16 pm

You cant ban smoking, imagine the black market it would open up.

julian · Post by **julian** » Sun Oct 28, 2007 10:50 pm

If the government made the radical step to ban smoking in this country and make sale, possession, and consumption of cigarettes illegal, then numbers of smokers would drop radically. Sure there would be a big underground market for cigarettes, but if you could only smoke at home in private, and couldn't get a fix at work etc then the chances of becoming or staying addicted would drop.

Putting nicotine patches on the PBS (pharmaceutical benefits scheme) would be a good start for a government who wanted to lower smoking numbers. For those smokers out their considering quitting, patches double your chances of being a successful quitter, and chances are doubled again by regular chats to the quitline or other help resources.

subiwidow wrote:My under aged son has taken up smoking, and there is nothing I can do. He works, he pays for them, he lost his grand father to lung cancer, and they know of the fines. I can't follow him ever where, or sew his lips together. Peer group preasure is a very strong thing.

Indeed peer-pressure is a persuasive thing, but at the end of the day it is still your son's choice to get the cigarette, put it in his mouth, and light it. I highly doubt his mates would look down on him if he said he wasn't going to smoke anymore.
Unfortunately your position is not unique as so many people continue to smoke from a young age, even though they may know someone that has DIED from the number 1 cause of preventable death in this country.
Although it is not my place to place judgement on the way you raise your children, I would encourage you to ask your son why he chooses to smoke.

Outback bloke · Post by **Outback bloke** » Mon Oct 29, 2007 6:08 am

I think there is even a stronger correlation between accidents and drink drivers if the driver is a smoker, but don't ask me for a quote

Well why say it? We try to have an intelligent conversation and it is remarks plucked from who knows where that turns it in to just another forum rant.

Although it is not my place to place judgement on the way you raise your children, I would encourage you to ask your son why he chooses to smoke.

This is real life, not TV where the parent asks a child why/what or where and they blurt out a tearful response. Have you ever actually tried talking to a 15 year old offspring of your own and having them answer you in depth about some thing they shouldn't be doing?

julian · Post by **julian** » Mon Oct 29, 2007 1:01 pm

Sorry, that was a stupid remark to say don't ask me for a quote. But to re-ignite the intellectual spark of this debate I have found a study (among others) on the NCBI (or Nation Centre for Biotechnology Information) website.

Quoting: "Heavy smokers...are more likely to drink and drive than those without these health-risk behaviors."

I am sorry but forget that on an essentially anonymous internet forum people often don't know each others backgrounds. I study Biochemistry, Pharmacology and Anthropology among other things so this kind of work is right up my alley

I have never had kids so I do speak from a naive perspective there, but grew up in a household where this sort of discussion was encouraged among 4 kids. Perhaps I have a distinctly distorted view on this subject.
Self reflection to follow.

BRUMBERTY · Post by **BRUMBERTY** » Mon Oct 29, 2007 1:37 pm

I have a point to bring up on this one...

The old Man had a good 45 or 50 years (and the odd sly one, still) on the big red cowboy smokes.

All three kids copped it in the car while growing up, all three kids eventually smoked.
Sisters have since quit, pregnancy does that to a girl.

Passive smoke is very powerfull.
Everyone has made fair points so far, I cannot really argue either way as I enjoy a smoke, usually a blend.
Tassie is a better place since these laws came online.
The music scene is the big winner, people want to go to pub gigs now.

There is no argument for not walking outside, it's polite.

BRUMBERTY · Post by **BRUMBERTY** » Mon Oct 29, 2007 1:41 pm

And.......... 'smokers are far more likely to suffer finger burns while nodding off'.

Or.... 'far more likely to burn balls/carseat while driving'

or....far more likely to have a bloody lighter when you non smoking buggers need one!

ends rant.

Gannon · Post by **Gannon** » Mon Oct 29, 2007 4:12 pm

BRUMBERTY wrote: far more likely to have a bloody lighter when you non smoking buggers need one!

Aint that true, if i ever need a cigarette lighter or a match to light the gas torch at work, just look for a smoker