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.