Smoke-free?

[costargh]

"Adelaide would be the first smoke free city in the world, under proposed legislation to be debated in state parliament next year."

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=64589

For one day? Its ridiculous and serves no meaningful purpose.

[sheepz]

I think addicted smokers would just smoke in secret so there's not much point to the legislation. It's just so that it sounds good - smoke-free city.

[melanie.dee]

how the fuck would you enforce that?? cctv surveillance in every room of every house in the state? seems like a completely ridiculous idea to me

[costargh]

Yeh considering that the majority of smokers would claim an "addiction" it would be like banning someone who was addicted to caffeine from drinking coffee for one day and fining them if they do so.

[Collin Li]

It is also sending the message that the government has the right to decide what substances you take into yourself.

No, the government is not your mother.

[brendan]

"This legislation would not be about punishment but an opportunity for Adelaide citizens to experience a day without smoking," he said in a statement.

If it's not about punishment why the need for legislating for a ban and a fine? Those of us who believe in freedom must believe also in the freedom of individuals to make their own mistakes. If a man knowingly prefers to live for today, to smoke and to worsen his health, by what right do we prevent him from doing so? We may argue with him, seek to persuade him that he is wrong, but are we entitled to use coercion to prevent him from doing what he chooses to do? In a society based on free discussion, the appropriate recourse is for David Ridgway to seek to persuade smokers that their tastes are bad and that they should change their views and their behaviour, not to use coercive power to enforce his tastes and his attitudes on others.

[BA22]

Yes Brendan, but health organisations have successfully lobbied that the right to a healthy life of others supercedes the choice of smokers. Non-smokers do not have the choice not to breathe in second-hand smoke, therefore, they are technically being coerced into an activity that is not only unhealthy for them, but also one of which they have no control.

Blanket legislation is appropriate as it shows a level of social responsibility on a dangerous habit that has serious cost to the individual and community. Currently 2 of our National Health priority areas of cardiovascular health and cancer. Lung cancer is the most common type of cancer, strongly linked to smoking. Smoking also significantly increases the chance of developing cardiovascular disease. By limiting the occurence of smoking in public, we limit the risk of these diseases and reduce the spending associated for their medical care. I wish it only had an element of permanency about it

Despite the Utilitarian overtones, this legislation is for the greater good and entirely necessary, i don't think as a nation that we can continue to passively warn smokers of the risk to themselves and others. If this issue was put to a public vote, i think a blanket ban would be overwhelmingly supporrted. This is not a punishment, it's an act of social responsibility

[brendan]

Yes Brendan, but health organisations have successfully lobbied that the right to a healthy life of others supercedes the choice of smokers. Non-smokers do not have the choice not to breathe in second-hand smoke, therefore, they are technically being coerced into an activity that is not only unhealthy for them, but also one of which they have no control.

that is only applicable in public places.

This is not a punishment, it's an act of social responsibility

you could argue that it is an act of "social responsibility" but there is no denying that there is a penalty (i.e. punishment) for smoking involved in the proposal.

[BA22]

Is it though?

Parents who smoke may have a devestating effect on the children under their care, not only in pregnancy, but in the 18-20 years that the child lives at home.

[brendan]

Parents who smoke may have a devestating effect on the children under their care, not only in pregnancy, but in the 18-20 years that the child lives at home.

pregnancy is one thing, but a parent may do a million other things that might very well have a devasting effect on their children in the 18-20 years that the child lives at the home, but are we to outlaw all of those activities to? and then what about the people who do not have children?

[BA22]

Smoking is a large health issue, and with children a third NHPA area is brought into play, Asthma.

Yes Brendan, any activity that causes tangible, physical damage to children should be outlawed, why wouldn't we want that? However, i sense you have an example waiting for me . .

[costargh]

The fact is though that this legislation will only be a one or two day event, ie. the positive effect of such a proposal would be minimal, thus just a giant stage for Adelaide to say "Look we're taking a step in the right direction and giving the fines collected to a charity, how special are we".

If they were really serious about the issue they would propose legislation that would actually have a positive effect on peoples health.

[brendan]

Smoking is a large health issue, and with children a third NHPA area is brought into play, Asthma.

Yes Brendan, any activity that causes tangible, physical damage to children should be outlawed, why wouldn't we want that? However, i sense you have an example waiting for me . .

first of all that example only applies to parents, yet the proposed ban is not only restricted to parents - so what of those people who do not have children?

[BA22]

As i stated, it's an issue of social responsibility too, its a dangerous addiction, and like narcotics should be banned. The impact it is already having in developing countries, means we as industrialised nations must adopt a firm stance. This issue has global implications

[brendan]

social responsibility

well you have not defined the objective criteria for "social responsibility". in fact it seems to me to be nothing more than another convenient slogan like "un-Australian", "fair go", and "social justice".