Rundle Mall - A Smokers' Paradise - No more

[Ben]

I'm against this.

Reasons?

[Hoops]

I'm for a ban in the mall itself.... But I believe the side streets should be fair game.

[Shuz]

My reason being that if people don't want to be around smokers, then the choice is bloody simple - don't be around them! Don't whinge to the Goverment to force smokers out of the area - this is just another of a string of stupid ideas which people will just ask to be overturned in the future anyway.

Retailers will complain of loss of trade - they will complain about a 5% loss in sales, because theres 5% of customers gone, even if hypothetically, 20% of the population are smokers, there will be a selection who will protest against their right to smoke in a public place and not go anymore.

What I am getting frustrated by is society's inability to be more vocal towards each other, rather than shifting the blame or shifting the action taken onto someone else. If you feel that a smoker shouldn't be in your place, with all politeness, either move away temporarily, or just ask if they can do that elsewhere.

[Wayno]

i don't agree with this either...

[Ben]

My reason being that if people don't want to be around smokers, then the choice is bloody simple - don't be around them!

That is a poor arguement in any sense. So all non-smokers should not go to Rundle Mall... ok yep that's fair. Atleast smokers can move to the alleys. Try walking down Rundle Mall on any given day without walking behind 100 smokers or more. It's disgustiong especially when your purchasing new goods or wanting to use one of the eateries.

[Shuz]

We'll you'd be walking behind me then wouldn't you?

Why should smokers have to be banished to the alleyways? You are advocating that there be a caste system in society, that smokers should be put away at the expense of nonsmokers, for your benefit of a clean-air environment? Same thing could be applied to motorists, telling them to keep away from the roads so you can have the benefit of a clean-air environment? Get real - smokers have just an equal place to be in society as nonsmokers - It all comes down to choice of life that differentiates you from me.

What I'm trying to suggest is that smokers and non-smokers should have a mutual respect for each other. Smokers should be advised to smoke in a relatively sparse location or around other smokers, being respectful of others. The same principle applies to non-smokers, as they should be advised to move away from smokers if praticable, or politely speak out for themselves if they don't want smokers around. Advisory measures would be the best way to approach this issue, so to create a better understanding, not a better restriction (for they oppose the ideals of freedom and equality) between the two opposing sides.

[Ben]

What I'm trying to suggest is that smokers and non-smokers should have a mutual respect for each other. Smokers should be advised to smoke in a relatively sparse location or around other smokers, being respectful of others. The same principle applies to non-smokers, as they should be advised to move away from smokers if praticable, or politely speak out for themselves if they don't want smokers around. Advisory measures would be the best way to approach this issue, so to create a better understanding, not a better restriction (for they oppose the ideals of freedom and equality) between the two opposing sides.

You have the choice of smoking in rundle mall or not and the location of the mall, however if i simply have to get from a - b and there is a smoker in the way i am unable to avoid them. You are right there should be designated smoking areas but these should be enforced by the law to ensure there usefulness. Simply asking people nicely to do something is proven not to work but saying if you don't you will recieve a fine seems for some reason to make people actually do what is asked of them (the majority)...

And on a side point... Shuz you are only young... quit while you can .... gets much much harder the older you get

I think being a non-smoker my opinion is biased and i admit that, however it's interesting to note that Anne Moran who IS a smoker is endorsing and suggesting this legislation.

[Shuz]

If you're suggesting that enforcement by fiscal punishment from smoking in the mall, you are merely punishing a smoker's choice to smoke. That would be like if I punished your choice to skateboard in the mall.

Which is another law, already in place that infuriates me is the restriction of skateboards, scooters, etc. in the mall. That in itself is punishing a person's right to use their skateboard as a form of transport/leisure activity.

You could argue that a selective minority have abused the right and used it to deliberately cause intentional harm to others. But I think in the instance in which a minority (smokers) are already outnumbered by a majority, there should be no precendence set for an even smaller representative of that minority to seek reason for restriction of their lifestyle choice.

This is where I can fairly argue that you as 51% of the majority, are taking away the rights of 49% of the minority because an even smaller minority, unfortunately, abuse that right. But I can argue in the same context, that there would be a minority within the majority who seek to abuse their right to have a place in society, by deliberately and intentionally to butt out a smoker's cigarette, or to take away someone's skateboard.

[Norman]

It's all part of a continous effort to stamp out smoking... which is why I support it.

[omada]

Surely smokers can do without one of their filthy tar ridden cylinders for an hour or so?

I support this also, it may do some good and help people stop smoking.

Notice my avatar BTW

[Shuz]

It's all part of a continous effort to stamp out smoking... which is why I support it.

Well if you didn't notice, the first signs of stamping out drinking are starting to eventuate... How would you feel about that?

[Ben]

It's all part of a continous effort to stamp out smoking... which is why I support it.

Well if you didn't notice, the first signs of stamping out drinking are starting to eventuate... How would you feel about that?

I would be fine with it. I don't need to have a drink to have a good time but if i feel the need to drink i am happy to do it at home. It is not a right to drink in public but a privilage as is smoking.

However what you do in your private yard and house is your own right.

[Norman]

It's all part of a continous effort to stamp out smoking... which is why I support it.

Well if you didn't notice, the first signs of stamping out drinking are starting to eventuate... How would you feel about that?

I don't think they are stamping out drinking, they are just regulating it a bit more in the public environment. Do I support it? I'm haven't made up my mind yet.

I also believe drinking is more socially acceptable than smoking.

[Hoops]

If you're suggesting that enforcement by fiscal punishment from smoking in the mall, you are merely punishing a smoker's choice to smoke. That would be like if I punished your choice to skateboard in the mall.

Which is another law, already in place that infuriates me is the restriction of skateboards, scooters, etc. in the mall. That in itself is punishing a person's right to use their skateboard as a form of transport/leisure activity.

You could argue that a selective minority have abused the right and used it to deliberately cause intentional harm to others. But I think in the instance in which a minority (smokers) are already outnumbered by a majority, there should be no precendence set for an even smaller representative of that minority to seek reason for restriction of their lifestyle choice.

This is where I can fairly argue that you as 51% of the majority, are taking away the rights of 49% of the minority because an even smaller minority, unfortunately, abuse that right. But I can argue in the same context, that there would be a minority within the majority who seek to abuse their right to have a place in society, by deliberately and intentionally to butt out a smoker's cigarette, or to take away someone's skateboard.

A smoker smoking in rundle mall is the equivilent of a random guy with a knife cutting you . Both damaging to your health, Sure you can avoid the random guy with a knife but say he is in between you and your destination. You then have your libertys taken away from you by someone else. Lets say One smoker effects 2 people?(id say a fair estimate) That smoker is being selfish to the extent that there choice is Detrementing the health and welfare of 2 others.

As for the skateboarders being restricted that is a fantastic move, Generally you have the situation where (in cars) some idiot is swerving between lanes dangerously coming horribly close to injuring many people with there stereo pumped.
If they want to skateboard go skateboard at a skate park or where its not dangerous to others health and well being.

[Shuz]

You're comparing smoking to murder, or attempted murder at that...

There's no denying that when smoking, your 'drift' goes with you and into the air. However - I seriously doubt that given the enormous quantities of 'clean air' substances (oxygen) per square cubic metre, that the additional properties of second-hand drift would adversely impact on the 'cleanliness' of that space - taking up a meagre <0.1% or less, still providing you with a substantial sample of quality clean air to breathe from. I would believe that walking adjacent a main road (in face of car emissions) would be more detrimental to your health than smoking. To believe that 'second-hand' drift is as detrimental (health-wise) as first-hand inhalation, is just a load of BS. Unless someone will willingly show me some scientific data that proves my argument (and scenario wrong) I will withdraw my statement and re-examine my actions, but for the time being I stand by my opinion and belief.