...is that I'm allowed to smoke in my own environment.

Only six months now until smoking is banned in *all* pubs and clubs in Victoria and New South Wales. The principle upon which this law is based is a sound one. Smoking is bad for you. People have a right to go to a pub, and not be forced to endure cigarette smoke. No argument from me there.

However, there seems to have been a small lapse in rational thinking during the decision making process that led to this law. Somewhere along the line, someone forgot that we're actually free thinking, individual human beings, capable of making our own decisions.

Banning smoking in every single venue ignores this fact. It ignores the fact that if there were some non-smoking venues, and some smoking venues, everyone would be catered for. Everyone would be happy.

I have recently returned from Amsterdam (as I've mentioned before), where my theory of how a tolerant, free society would actually work, was confirmed. It's no longer a theory to me - I've seen it in practice.

Here's how it goes. You see a coffeeshop. You know that if you walk in, you will be met with a nice thick wall of marijuana smoke. If you do not wish to be met with this smoke, you say: 'good for them, not my thing', and you go somewhere else - somewhere...non smoking, perhaps! Of course if a wall of marijuana smoke is exactly what you want, then in you go, eternally grateful that those who do not share your tastes are nonetheless tolerant of them.

And everyone's happy! Now, I know its difficult, but try to apply that same concept to here at home. And I challenge any person to give me a legitimate reason as to why there couldn't be some (not all, SOME) venues that allow smoking, where smokers can go, out of everyone elses way, and enjoy their vice in peace.

And please give your 'legitimate reason' some objective thought.

Free thinking people well i know i am but most are labor,liberal morrons with a side chacer of unions who tell them what to do and think.

Maybe those who are complaining would do me the favour of not polution with their cars, so could you please place a hose on your exhaust pipe and shove it back into your car that way i dont have to breath your polution.

Then we come to factories, really it is all a joke whats next no farting, bad breath.

I am a non-smoker and although I don’t like being forced to breathe in other people’s smoke, I believe that smokers should have rights, too.

Smokers at workplaces, for example, should be offered an alternative space such as a smoking room which would be well-ventilated and equipped with a filtersystem, well away from the work spaces. Or an acceptable outdoors area where they can sit on benches. I don’t like the idea of smokers in workplaces having to stand outside on the street- it’s a bit demeaning.

I’m from Amsterdam so I know what you’re talking about, and I can’t see anything wrong with some café’s that allow smoking as long as there are signs outside to warn people beforehand. “Beware of smokers” hehe.
If there are enough café’s in an area, then some could cater for smokers and others for non-smokers.
If there are filtersystems and/or adequate ventilation it probably will be manageable for non-smokers to spend some time with smoking friends in a smoke zone without choking.

Oh you smokers will love this one. I don’t smoke generally and nobody is allowed to smoke inside the house as we have children, but I have been known, if I am out, and everybody else is having one to join in.

I haven't been on speaking terms with a family member for years because I refused to ban smoking in my home outside in the backyard.

It all came to a head when we were holding a party and this person expected me to ban smoking in the backyard of my home because he didn't smoke and it offended him, he said that my failure to do so meant that I didn't respect him and he cut me out of his life because of that. I told him that if he didn't like it move away!

I also told him that in his house he can make his rules but he cannot come to my house making rules and demanding I do what he says. We no longer talk.

Unbelievable don’t you think?

And exactly the kind of arrogant attitude that led to these stupid laws in the first place. Thanks Jolanda!

There is no justification in free society for a ban on smoking.

Unfortunately we live in a society that has become accustomed to being pandered to by consecutive governments, whose members' only objective is to be re-elected so that they can continue to live well at the expense of the working public.

Special interest groups, usually clothed as do-gooders of one variety or another, are able to persuade these poor, weak-willed pets that their future will be better served by caving in to their bullying, destructive tactics.

The rest of us simply shrug our shoulders and make the best of it that we can, knowing only that those sour, sad complainers are actually having a wretched, unhappy and unfulfilled life.

If they weren't, why do they feel the need to mess with everybody else's?

For the record, I am a non-smoker.

I think what a person puts into their own body is their own choice or atleast it should be. I myself don't smoke but I have done in the past. So long as a persons actions don't harm others either directly or indirectly then I can see no reason for Government interference. How a person chooses to live their life should not be dictated by Governments except where absolutely necessary in the interests of protecting citizens.

Having said that I am personally in two minds about tobacco. On the one hand it is only harmful to the smokers in open area's. Similarly in pubs and cafes a way of ensuring staff and patrons choose to inhale secondary smoke seems a realistic answer.

Yet on the other hand tobacco is one of the most addictive drugs known. People have a very hard time quitting once they decide to and seeing others smoking is a trigger for craving. So is seeing promotion signs and stacks of cigarettes at every newsagency etc. I wouldn't be too bothered if Tobacco was completely banned. It would certainly reduce the hospital beds used to treat aging smokers.

Marijuana however should be completely legalised. From what I've learned it actually improves more than harms peoples health.

Jolanda is right.
A smoking ban on outdoor areas doesn't make sense at all. If a person standing next to me outdoors is smoking and the wind happens to blow my way, all I have to do is move a little.

The plan (not sure if these were actually serious plans) to ban smoking in outdoor areas such as streets, parks and beaches is a silly one.
I realise that the cigarette butts thrown on the beach is a real concern, but so is all the rest of the litter left behind on beaches. Should eating/drinking in parks and on beaches therefore also be banned? People really need to be educated to pick up behind them, whereas it's on beaches, in parks or in the street, whereas it's cigarette butts or other litter.

If there were smoke rooms/outdoor area's at workplaces or free-smoking café's people wouldn't put butts out in the street.
Parks and beaches should have more bins and more signs to remind people to use them.

I've always wondered what will become of the more rabid anti-smoking crusaders after the social war is over and they declare victory.

Surely that won't be enough for them, once they've had a taste of victory.

Who or what will be in their sites next? Those with poor fashion sense? Self-abusers? Free-thinkers? Repeat overdue library book offenders?

There are rights, manners and responsibilities in society and if everybody plays their part, all should be OK. Once one group assumes the right to decide on behalf of another group is generally where trouble starts. Tolerance really is a two-way street.

Best wishes and compliments of the season to all OLO contributers - smokers and non-smokers alike.

WayneSmith: I'm completely with you on marijuana (I'm sure my view on that was already pretty obvious), but let's not make our case based on false claims that marijuana improves health. Although to be fair, it has been used as traditional medicine, most noticeably in Chinese medicine, for longer than you can imagine (get this: it's used to treat constipation AND diarrea!).

The case for the legalisation of weed is an easy one. The indisputeable fact is that it is less dangerous in every way, short term and long term, than alcohol. You can quibble on the details of that forever, but thats the fact of the matter. You can even argue there's much less pot *related* dangers when compared to alcohol, such as violence, car accidents, etc.

I could go on but I'm getting off track.

In relation to the topic, I must say I'm surprised that no one has disagreed yet. If we all agree, whats with this stupid new law? Help me out here, it just doesnt make any sense....

Spendocrat,
I assume that the ones who disagree are staying away as they have no reasonable arguments to back up their opinion.
I hadn't ready Wayne's comment before I posted my last comment.

Wayne,
you make a good point about the staff inhaling smoke. This might have played a big role in the banning of tobacco in public places in the first place (staff can sue employers).
The only answer I can think of to this problem is for the staff to be smokers or to accept (and sign for) the risk they are exposed to. I'm really a proponent for filter systems that will reduce the risks.

As I've said, I'm also a proponent for smoke rooms/area's in workplaces.
Now these people stand in the street, having their smoko, in view of everyone including ex-smokers (or people trying to quit), impressionable teenagers and children. This would all be hidden if there were smoking rooms.
Under 18's can't enter pubs anyway so they won't be exposed to smoking 'rolemodels', as opposed to seeing these smokers in the street.

I think that soft drugs should be legalised as well- it makes it safer to use because it's easier to control something that is legalised; then you can have safety standards, instructions, control, recommended dosages, etc.

Sorry Wayne.

The British Medical Journal respectfully disagrees with your statement "Marijuana ... actually improves more than harms peoples health."

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/326/7396/942#B4

There are dozens of supporting articles if you have the patience to read them.

To pretend that smoking dope is somehow safe is simply wrong. It carries with it not only a greater bronchial impact - according to a study at UCLA "lung damage caused by four marijuana cigarettes were equal to the damage caused by 112 tobacco cigarettes" - but also an increased predilection to psychosis - "Psychotic symptoms more likely with cannabis" New Scientist Dec 2004.

There has been enough propaganda around for smokers to assess for themselves the risks they are taking.

Clearly the same level of understanding does not exist on the dangers of marijuana.

Or perhaps one of the symptoms of smoking dope is self-delusion?

Wayne, if smoking realy does kill, we should make it mandatory
from age 40, or so.
It would make much more economic sense to have these old farts die of related diseases at 75, rather than continue using up resources, economic & medical for another 15 or 20 years.
I'm getting close to that age, & the increasing rate of my consumption of things medical, indicates that my not smoking, is going to cost you a fortune

The issue of staff in smoking venues is a valid one (although anyone who looks at the facts over the hype knows that the dangers of second hand smoking are negligible at best. The risk is there, but there's plenty higher risk jobs around. Just ask Alcoa).

In these instances where staff have a problem, I don't see why a compromise can't be reached. Let's say I own a small pub. I have no problem with smoking, so I allow smoking in my venue. The pub gets popular, I have to hire a bartender.

Me: Now you know it will be a smokey environment, right?
Applicant: No, I didn't know that. I hate smoke.
Me: Next.

Or....

Me: Now you know it will be a smokey environment, right?
Applicant: Yeah, that's cool.
Me: Sign here.

Or I can go: Right, bartender No. 1 - your beat is the non-smoking area and the outside part. Bartender No. 2 (who doesnt mind smoking), you take care of the rest.

The point is, I really struggle to see an instance where two adults cant find a way to work around these issues. These are social issues, not legal ones. Why bring the law in? Are we really that incapable of taking care of ourselves?

Just because I made the stupid decision to smoke during my youth, an inherently stupid person this does not make me.

..yeah.

PS: WayneSmith (re marijuana): see what I mean, overstate your case and the anti-pot brigade (in this case Pericles) is all over it.

Pericles: you can talk about the dangers of weed all you want, and if I could be assed (lack of motivation caused by....), I'd be able to find a whole bunch of dangers about...say, milk, too. Anything in excess is dangerous. End-O-Story.

Certain, specific, uncommon health implications for over-use or long-term use does not justify making illegal something that grows naturally and unaided from the ground, all over the world, and serves a gazillion wonderful purposes. If you applied that same logic across the board, there wouldn't be much left legal.

You dope-heads simply prove my point.

While every smoker on the planet acknowledges the health hazards of tobacco, marijuana still encourages denial.

You would have been far more convincing if you had admitted that yes, you were fully aware that cannabis is a health hazard, but hey, it's your body and you choose to use it anyway.

For your information I have the same attitude towards weed as I have to tobacco - I choose not to use it myself, but have no problem that fully-informed adults do. If you stop with the paranoia for a moment (another symptom?) reflect on the facts, and avoid the knee-jerk response that anyone who points out the realities must be the enemy.

Pericles – I’m unable to comment on whether or not I’ve proved your point, as it’s not very clear what your point is. If you are saying that marijuana is bad for you, you get no argument from me. If you look closely, I never tried to make any such claim. My question was simply: So What?

In a world with more health hazards than anyone can keep track of, why single out marijuana? Occasional use has very little, if any, negative effects. Prolonged, excessive use…well, duh, of course it’s going to be a hazard. Same with nurofen plus. Same with fatty food. Soft drink. Coffee. Time in the sun. Time out of the sun. Mobile phones. Driving. Drinking tap water in Richmond. Help me out here. What exactly is your point?

If you have no problem with others choosing to smoke weed, then you must be on our side, i.e: for legalisation. That’s all I’ve been arguing for.

And yes, paranoia is a known symptom. I’ve been a heavy smoker for years now (I’m young, give me a break. I used to be an alcoholic, this is much, much better for me) – and that particular symptom has never affected me personally. Something I have noticed is a lack of ‘sharpness’ to my memory, but that certainly doesn’t concern me as much as getting my stomach pumped for drinking too much. And it’s definitely not so bad that I can’t remember the last time we went head to head on this topic….around a year ago, I believe. Let me jog your memory: I won.

Joke, lighten up.

Anyway, if you want to talk about the ‘reality’ of weed, the real reality…it’s as follows: Marijuana is bad for you. Alcohol is worse for you. Cigarettes are worse still (these aren’t debateable points, as they’ve already been well and truly established as fact. Deal). I’m guilty of all three vices, yet for one of them, I’m considered a criminal. Which one? Oh, the least dangerous one. Bizarre, no?

Interesting how legislation has again bashed up Joe Citizen while the big smokers are encouraged to puff away, polluting everything for miles around, any place and anyone!

So while the sheep are rounded up and dictated to, the big end of town are rewarded for puffing their uncontrolled, carcinogenic smoke out of their pollutant stacks where they're constantly in denial of the health impacts on Joe Citizen, whilst parroting: "Our chemical emissions are within the regulatory boundaries".

What regulation? What boundaries? What legislation and what enforcement?!

I think we need to distinguish between “private” and “public” venues.

Most property is private, a home or work place is owned / operated by private individuals.

Who ever owns the property should make the decision. In Jolanda’s case, her house, her rules, if it offends some then, they can get over it or leave.

Quasi-public venues, pubs, clubs and restaurants etc. The licencee / facility operator should make up his/her own mind. He is the one who will bear the commercial risk of losing business form one camp or the other.

Public spaces, owned / operated by council, the council should decide.

My “hidden agenda”, I have none. I smoked for 25 years until I had a heart attack and ended up in an ICU. I have not smoked since. I can appreciate both sides of the debate however, I do not want to control the ability of smokers to indulge their vice nor do I want to control the rights of gamblers or drinkers. I do not even draw the line at crack-heads. Let them smoke their crystal-meth, however, if they indulge they should bear the consequences of being shot in the head as the only effective remedy for their psychotic episodes.

Smoking and non-smoking venues is a really good idea. It would also be an opportunity for revenue raising if smoking venues had to have a permit of some kind. What is the logic behind this total ban?

I can imagine a chain of smoking theme cafes serving smoked meats, cheeses, teas and so on, specialist tobaccos I guess, for cigarette smokers.

As a society we're getting less and less realistic about substance abuse of all sorts. We've refused to do anything about the availability of sniffable fuels or holding the fast food industry to account, industry pours vast quantities of garbage into our water and air every day, we'd rather see people die than consider safe injecting spaces, and we prefer to punish smokers than set standards for the tobacco industry.

None of it makes any sense. Vegemite has been banned in the US but they've decided cloned animal meat is safe for human consumption. WTF?

Col,

Does a non-smoking person really get to choose to enter/not enter a 'private' venue where smoking has been allowed by the owner? What about the case of small children who, at their parents' discretion, are taken to smoke-filled environments, including poorly ventilated houses - child abuse, no less. I have taught so many children who show up to class with dry coughs and clothes smelling like stale smoke because of their parents' choices. Not to mention the empty lunch-boxes because the family's money bank is tied up in a tobacco habit.

What about meetings or other events that take place in 'private' venues where smoking may have been allowed by the owner, that are for whatever reason compulsory to attend by those from unrelated or loosely related organisations?

Unless we get rid of it outright, there will always be that thin line. At the end of the day, me not smoking doesn't affect the health of anyone, but a single smoker affects the health of everyone in the vicinity, so it makes perfect sense to impose very strict limitations on their ignorant behaviour.

You want to talk about 'choice'? It was their choice to fall victim to the multi-billion dollar tobacco giants through peer pressure and stupidity in the first place. Go and stand outside any public hospital, you'll see the sliding doors with smokers going in and out all day long. It's bad enough that our hospitals are filled with these kinds of people and it's bad enough we have to fund it, while those in need of other kinds of medical treatment wait in an endless line. So I see no reason why such weaknesses should be imposed on the bulk of the population under any circumstances. These new laws are the first step in the eventual eradication of one of the most pointless and costly habits in history.

In QLD the new laws have been wonderful. I can breathe fresh air for once and the only people who really have a problem with it are the minority - the moronic smokers themselves.

Wokers where I worked had 7-8 smoko breaks a day consisting of 20 minutes a piece which added up to more than 3 lunch breaks a day, while we non smokers made up for the decrease in staff, which put extra pressure on us, they had a great time talking about the NRL game or the sex they had on the weekend, all the while we non smokers had to take up the slack for them not doing their jobs.They had their recreacion time while we non smokers made up the shortfall in production.
We should have had an extra week's holiday to make up fot the time and production of the smokers, it was/is unfair and until the practise is stopped by enforced law, always will be. The extra pressure drove me to a nervous breakdown, which would not have occurred had a policy of equal work for equal pay existed. Smokers are the first stop in lost production, and also pass on passive smoking to the rest of us, they should be flogged in public for the stress they cause non smokers

Tubley “Does a non-smoking person really get to choose to enter/not enter a 'private' venue where smoking has been allowed by the owner?”

Yes they get to choose, unless they have been kidnapped and dragged their forcibly.

“Not to mention the empty lunch-boxes because the family's money bank is tied up in a tobacco habit.”

A lot of people make dumb decisions, maybe having children in the first place.

It is a thin line which separates most things. For instance, it is a thin line between freedom of speech and vilification. My personal values will always err to the freedom side of the line.

“It's bad enough that our hospitals are filled with these kinds of people and it's bad enough we have to fund it, while those in need of other kinds of medical treatment wait in an endless line. So I see no reason why such weaknesses should be imposed on the bulk of the population under any circumstances.”.

Should we deny treatment to every drug addict and alcoholic because their indulgence is destructive?
Should we deny treatment to the following

obese
anorexics
schizophrenic and depressed
those who participate in dangerous sports,
those who are to blame for their own accidents?

Denying medical treatment causes several things happen / questions to be raised

1 What if the person has private medical cover
2 Who is competent to judge the level of care required to be expended on anyone

Based on your assertion of “weakness” anyone who ended up in hospital could probably be classified as being weak and thus worth the of denial of service.

Finally, the last time I looked, a public health system was just that, a public health system. It is there to HELP people. It should not be run by a bunch of administrators whose first response to a problem is to blame the accounting and budgeting system (a loathsome habit of the inept).

If you want to suggest public hospitals should all be closed because they only serve the weak, then the first thing I ask, where is your compassion?

Hooray! Col's most recent comment is one with which I completely agree - as was his penultimate one (without the gratuitous jibe about shooting drug users). I think that the current legislative orgy in all states around tobacco smoking exemplifies nicely the worst excesses of the 'nanny-state'.

With reference to marijuana, somewhat less surprisingly I find myself in agreement with Pericles: of course smoking dope by consenting adults should be legal, but to try and argue that it is harmless flies against the facts and ultimately plays into the hands of the wowser prohibitionists who have effectively taken over health and social policy development in this country.

Thanks CJ. That was exactly the point I thought I was making until spendocrat put doubt in my mind.

Pretending that marijuana brings with it no health hazard is precisely the stick the killjoys will use to beat it with.

And Col, that was a masterpiece of sanity. Respect.

I quickly want to second that: Col, your last post and the one before that (minus the shooting scene) were just, in one word, wonderful.

I wish everyone great health, wealth and sanity in 2007.

I'm off now to put my party dress on and hope it will still fit me tomorrow.

I will see you all in the New Year!

Pericles, Pericles!

Does marijuana do harm? You say yes. I note you resort to name calling, generalisations (eg " every smoker on the planet acknowledges"!) and righteous glorifying which demonstrates your own bias and need to put down people who make their own choices. Could I suggest you take Tapp's suggestion and funnel the exhaust from your vehicle back into your car's interior? It does harm others mate so....

Is there anything you do which has a risk of harm and thus is to be avoided? Doing nothing is a health risk, as is being condescending and demanding on blogs.

A few have asked what is next on the agenda. Alcohol is there right now, just read. You know it's coming so stock up before the ban. Don't panic, drink up and it'll all go away.

To Shonga. Those nasty, lazy smokers wasting company time. Did you spend your days watching and timing them? Or were you busy dobbing them in or drinking coffee. Maybe going to the bank in work time? Any personal phone calls? Cast that stone Shonga, just hope it's not a boomerang.

Although I genreally think it's up to adults to investigate for themselves whether a drug is harmful to use or not and then decide to take the risk of using it or not, I do agree with tubley on one thing:
that children should have the right to be protected from 'passive' smoking.

There is one group of adults who, in my opinion, should not be free to smoke or consume alcohol or do other drugs: pregnant women.
Research has pointed out that it has or can have a negative effect on the unborn baby. No recreational drug is worth risking a baby's health for.

Women who use drugs should give up drugs before trying to become pregnant; if they don't want to give up drugs they should not become mothers. Their partners should take care not to smoke around their wife/girlfriend when planning to start a family.

spendocrat,

Try finding the blind, double blind and triple blind tests on the effects of smoking - there aren't any.

The original tests were done on little mices, who were kept in little enclosed perspex boxes and had tobacco smoke pumped into the little box every second of every day for the life span of the little mices. At the end of 2 years the little mices were autopsied and found to have tumors on their lungs. These little mices did not live in their natural environment, or eat their natural food, nor did they drink from natural occuring water resources. Last time I looked, I wasn't a little mice :-)

Here in Australia, we could have to best of the best from around the world and make it an outstanding country to live in - pity the pollies don't catch onto this :-(

I like the idea of the establishment putting up a sign saying whether it allows smoking and then the individual has to make the choice whether to enter or not. The question is this - Are the majority of people capable of making decisions regarding their own and their childrens welfare ?

OK Col etc, so what about situations where there are 2 private building next to one another, with one allowing smoking and the other not? The smoke from one drifts to the next, rendering the other choiceless.

What about private institutions that share the same floor space? For example a smoke free restaurant next to a bar where smoking is allowed? Who is then obligated to build a wall in the middle?

What about multi-story buildings with certain rooms on certain floors smoke-free and others not? And will smokers and non smokers alike need to check every building before booking?

So you see the Pandora's box that you propose be opened? It is hard enough to enforce a blanket law on smoking let alone upholding selective ones. Get real! Most non smokers enjoy the assurance from the new laws that protect the health of the majority from the stupidity of the minority.

'The smoke from one drifts to the next, rendering the other choiceless.'

BS. If that ever actually happened, its an easily rectifiable situation. Mostly though, you would need a TONNE of smoke to get out of Venue A, travel through the open atmosphere, enter Venue B and still have a discernable effect.

'For example a smoke free restaurant next to a bar where smoking is allowed? Who is then obligated to build a wall in the middle?'

Proper ventilation takes care of this problem. Next.

'What about multi-story buildings with certain rooms on certain floors smoke-free and others not?'

What about them? They wont have any effect on each other, assuming there's proper ventilation.

'And will smokers and non smokers alike need to check every building before booking?'

Only if they want to get fussy about it - entirely up to them. Ah, the beauty of freedom.

'So you see the Pandora's box that you propose be opened?'

Not. At. All.

Oh, and re: weed...for the last time, there is NO claim here (apart from one unfortunate sentence early on, which continually gets pounced on while the real arguments are ignored) that marijuana is harmless. No one is making that claim. I just can't see any rational logic behind it being against the law. I don't think any sensible person could.

I think the underlying element that we all seem to forget here is that smoking is a really stupid thing to do. It is a habit practiced only by the intellectually inferior minority, especially now that we are blatantly aware of the health and social damages it causes. There is no way that the rest of society should have to put up with it in any context, end of story.

tubley, we are all aware of the stupidity of smoking. We can accept that as a given. And to call someone intellectually inferior simply because they made a stupid mistake at 16 years old and developed an addiction, well, that accusation in itself is obviously pretty stupid. Geez, lack of knowledge yet piles of certainty. Always a deadly combination.

The point is that freedom also equals the freedom to do stupid things, make mistakes, learn from them, etc. Get it?

Wanna ban everything stupid? You have no small task on your hands there. May I suggest starting with mainstream television?

In large buildings, the solution would be to keep the building smoke-free except for one communal smoking room (on every floor if it's a huge building) with good ventilation where people can sit and relax instead of stand in the street.

No matter how unhealthy smoking is, we need to let people making their own choices.
We can offer smoke zones, quit-smoking courses and non-smoke zones; we can educate school kids about the dangers of smoking, and we can educate the public about it, too.

But at the end, people should be free to make their own decicions.

SHONGA's comment should be listened to as well- in many cases it is true that smokers get more breaks than non-smokers.
It may encourage people to start smoking to relieve stress ;)

The solution is perhaps to manage workers better; not to prohibit smoking.
What can be done about it? Any suggestions?

I propose that all workers are allocated the same amount of free time (say 60 minutes) and need to use some form of check-in, check-out timing system every time they leave and enter the room (e.g. office).

If smokers need to smoke, say, 6 times a day, then they can take 6x 10 minutes.
Non smokers can take their free time in little breaks or they can take one long break of 60 minutes.

Payment can be adjusted for people who have been on breaks for longer times than the allocated time.

Oh tubley, “OK Col etc, so what about situations where there are 2 private building next to one another, with one allowing smoking and the other not? The smoke from one drifts to the next, rendering the other choiceless.”

Back for a second bite of the cherry?

Let’s assume for the smoke to “drift” there must be some “wind force”, otherwise it would settle where it was and dissipate (dilute) in the atmosphere.

So what happens with the wind force? Well the effect on smoke is to ensure it dissapates quicker than if it were to simply settle.

On a purely practical level, you would have to have a lot of people smoking a lot of cigarettes, continuously, for the resultant smoke to affect the environment in an adjacent building.

Oh, I see spendocrat beat me to the punch, so to speak. Well said Spendocrat.

As for “It is a habit practiced only by the intellectually inferior minority,”

I used to smoke and only gave it up because I was told my life expectancy was 5 years max. if I continued (that was 18 years ago).

You suggest I am intellectually inferior?

My partner smokes, her IQ, 136

That puts her in the top ½ % of the population.

What is your IQ tubley, you know the IQ which makes you presume someone with an score of 136 is “intellectually inferior”?

Lots of people make lots of wrong decisions and do dumb things. I do, all the time despite my IQ being higher than my partner (Alpha Male thing, any one who was not “intellectually inferior” should have guessed that already).

However the “personal growth” the real reason we are here, depends upon people making mistakes and learning from them. No one learns by being forced to follow the dictates of the state. No one grows. Nothing evolves and innovation and invention is stifled.

Better that people are free to screw up for themselves than risk me dictating what they were allowed to do and screwing them up because I got it wrong.

Humility tubley, humility!

When I was a boy, my father was smoking 60 cigarettes a day and our house stank. I hated it and so did my mother. Then my elder sister joined in and the house stank even more.

When I was 10, my cousin gave me a cigarette. I didn't like it, couldn't finish it and never tried again. When I was 13, my father gave me some very good advice about not smoking, in a measured, sensible manner, and reinforced my intention to never start. One year later, in 1948, at the young age of 50, he was diagnosed with lung cancer. His doctors told him, yes, in 1948, that it was almost certainly due to his heavy cigarette smoking.

In two years, he went from being a young looking, good looking man, with the body of a well muscled athlete, to a haggard looking living skeleton. Radiation therapy was not as refined then as it is now and he used to come home from treatment with rectangular patches of what looked like burnt skin on the front and back of his body. He died at 52.

My elder sister, a glamourous, fun-loving woman, must have been well and truly hooked by then, because she carried on smoking heavily and died of lung cancer at 62.

I don't know what my father's or sister's IQs were, but I would say undoubtedly high. Maybe it runs in the family [enough said!].

Talking of IQs, one time I was flicking through an old copy of the Guinness Book of Records and saw a photo of the man with the highest IQ ever recorded. And guess what? He was smoking.

cont

I was called up in 1952 and did 2 years in the Royal Navy. The cigarettes were almost free and our living and working spaces were constantly polluted. Everywhere I worked for the next good many years was smoke filled. When I went to work in the Pilbara in the 1960s to get money in a hurry and establish myself in Australia, both my work space and living area were constantly smoke filled.

In those days, the cinemas, theatres, dance halls, pubs, clubs, public transport, restaurants, even the hospitals and doctors' surgeries were all polluted with smoke. Along the way, it had become the concensus of the medical profession that smoking, and passive smoking, were indiscriminate killers, but the lies and money of Big Tobacco still controlled the hearts and pockets of the so-called decision makers in government and the bureaucracy.

This is not a criticism of smokers in general, because most of them would have got themselves hooked long before they were old enough to be able to make a rational decision on something as important as a harmful addiction, something which would have a high chance of giving them a whole range of serious health problems before eventually killing them. And costing them a fortune along the way. No, it's a criticism of the callous creatures of Big Tobacco and their apologists in the media and advertising industries and of course in politics.

cont

In WA, we're told that smokers now number less than 25% and, of those, about 80% have tried, so far unsuccessfully, to stop. From those figures, we could perhaps deduce that only about 5% of smokers actually want to smoke. As many OLO posters will know from my comments on various subjects, I am generally a freedom of choice person and I respect a person's right to smoke. But as far as I am concerned, smokers have no right whatsoever to pollute other peoples' lungs. That went on far too long, so is it any wonder that many of us who lived through those days are so pleased to see a change in priorities?

As for still allowing smoking in workplaces such as hotels etc, then why should anyone be expected to work in such a environment? It's easy to say that prospective employees have a choice, but non-smokers who really needed a job would probably have to compromise both their principles and their health, rather than not have enough money to survive on. Besides which, in WA it's now govt policy to use smoking bans in hospitality places to encourage and assist smokers [who wish to do so] to quit, something which, at least theoretically, should please 80% of them.

The Boys Light Up

Let me tell you about my mountain home
Where all the ladies names are Joan
Where husband works back late at night
Hopes are up for trousers down
With a hostess on a business flight
Taxi in a Mercedes drive
I hope that drivers coming out alive
The garden is a dorsetted
That Lady - she's so corsetted
She's got 15 ways to lead that boy astray
He thinks he's one and only
But that lovely she's so lonely
She pumps himfull of breakfast
And she sends him on his way
What a sing song dance
What a performance
What a cheap tent show
Oh no no no no no

Chorus ~
Then The Boys Light Up
Then The Boys Light Up
Then The Boys Light Up
Then The Boys Light Up
Light Up
Light Up

Silently she opens the drawer
Mothers little helper is coming out for more
Strategically positioned
Before the Midday Show
Her back is arched those lips are parched
Repeated blow by blow
Later at the party all the MP's rave
About the hummers she's been giving
And the money that they save
To her it is skin lotion
For him promotion to
That flat in Surfers Paradise with the ocean view
What a sing song dance
What a performance
What a cheap tent show
Oh no no no no no

Then The Boys Light Up
Then The Boys Light Up
Then The Boys Light Up
Then The Boys Light Up

Then The Boys Light Up
Then The Boys Light Up
Then The Boys Light Up
Then The Boys Light Up
Light up
Light up

Then The Boys Light Up
( then the boys light up

Then The Boys Light Up
Light up
Light up

Then The Boys Light Up
( then the boys light up

Then The Boys Light Up