4 ms·

> And this is why people vote Trump. Irrelevant and nonsensical comment is irrelevant and nonsensical. > I never mentioned second hand smoke, it's irrelevant

by cyphar 10y ago

> And this is why people vote Trump. Irrelevant and nonsensical comment is irrelevant and nonsensical. > I never mentioned second hand smoke, it's irrelevant to the conversation, if the science is there then ban it where it harms others. Australia does this for instance. GP said that smokers are "doing no harm to anyone but themselves". Since secondhand smoke is known to kill and otherwise harm non-smokers I would very much argue that smokers are doing harm to others. Hence why parent brought up secondhand smoking. And that's why Australia has laws against smoking indoors (outside your home) and near public places where people have no choice where to stand (such as near bus stops, on some promenades and other similar places). Unfortunately, there are no laws against smoking on busy sidewalks (in NSW) and the pitiful "3m from the entrance" laws don't actually mean you can enter or leave some cinemas without running into a wall of carcinogenic and toxic smoke. Not to mention that people routinely break the law and smoke near bus stops (which as someone who catches public transport, this pisses me off no end and I enjoy telling smokers to fuck off when they decide to increase the cancer risk of the people around them). I have no issue with people that smoke in their own homes. But people who decide to smoke on public walkways where other people are walking past are simply disgusting for harming others because of their habit.

exodust 10y ago
Actually there are some laws here which protect residents in apartment blocks from suffering the second-hand smoke of neighbours smoking on their balconies. I'm currently putting up with my neighbor's smoke which enters my apartment on a daily basis. He smokes many cigarettes in a day and it wafts from his balcony to mine and comes inside. I haven't taken action yet, mainly because I'm not looking forward to taking action.
- cyphar 10y ago
  Really? In which state do you live? In NSW I don't believe there's laws against smoking on balconies (though I don't live in apartments, so I don't have first-hand experience with this).
  - exodust 10y ago
    I live in Vic, but I was reading about NSW laws dealing with this problem... From an SMH article... "Tenants who create too much smoke when barbecuing their lamb chops or sausages on unit balconies could soon face fines of up to $2200 under proposed changes to strata laws. The same goes for smokers if the smoke from their cigarettes or cigars drifts into neighbouring units."
    - brokenmachine 10y ago
      "proposed" changes. I'm living in the same situation in NSW. There is no recourse that I know of, unless your strata has a non-smoking by-law, which almost none do. The proposed changes to strata laws will AFAIK only apply to new developments. We are currently looking to move since some addicts moved in next door, but there is no guarantee the next place we move to won't have the same problem. Asthma attacks caused by a selfish person's addiction are no fun. The government is ignoring the suffering of non-smokers forced to live near these disgusting addicts.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
aaron695 10y ago
> > And this is why people vote Trump. > Irrelevant and nonsensical comment is irrelevant and nonsensical. No I find this totally on topic. We are specifically talking about smoking practices that do not harm others being banned in Australia. Yet people are continuously bringing up passive smoking, something that does harm so totally off topic, but this is their argument. A classic method of the Left, diffuse and confuse. We also know smokers cost the tax payers less. This has been shown in numerous studies, yet once again people pull out it cost tax payers money argument. Basically a lie, but they will not accept the facts. It's impossible to bring in logic. For any non-Australians, Australian basically stopped anything related to passive smoking many years ago, legislation now is all about smoking that causes noone else harm. (The article even mentions talk of banning people born after a certain date!) Australians care little about fundamental rights, it part of their culture of being apathetic. But they hate to know this, hence the kick back, plus they get to bully a minority with immunity, also an Australian trait.
- cyphar 10y ago
  > We are specifically talking about smoking practices that do not harm others being banned in Australia. Smoking in a private residence is not banned in Australia. > Yet people are continuously bringing up passive smoking, something that does harm so totally off topic, but this is their argument. Most of Australia's bans are to make secondhand smoking something that can be entirely avoided by non-smokers. Taxation is a separate issue, and there are valid arguments against taxation of products like tobacco and alcohol. The only thing mentioned in the article which is not related to this goal is discussions about age discrimination for tobacco sales. Personally I think such a law would not be a good idea, simply because it would increase the demand for black market tobacco. The right way of combating the public health epidemic of smoking is through social stigmatisation. And luckily it's worked (I'm in the younger generation, and smoking carries far more of a stigma than it did in previous generations). And believe it or not, but plain packaging does actually work. At least, it did for me (the images on packets scared the crap out of me as a child). > bully a minority with immunity, also an Australian trait. As someone who came from a country where non-smokers are the minority, I definitely prefer living in a country where you can actually go to the CBD and also being able to breathe. Maybe the "bullying" is earned, when a person is negatively affecting public spaces. Not to mention that you keep talking about fundamental human rights but you've yet to explain what right is being infringed. The right to consume any substance is actually not a human right -- though maybe you would like it to be? In which case, lets fix all of the human rights violations in impoverished nations where starvation is common before we start discussing tobacco.

by cyphar 10y ago

exodust 10y ago

Actually there are some laws here which protect residents in apartment blocks from suffering the second-hand smoke of neighbours smoking on their balconies. I'm currently putting up with my neighbor's smoke which enters my apartment on a daily basis. He smokes many cigarettes in a day and it wafts from his balcony to mine and comes inside. I haven't taken action yet, mainly because I'm not looking forward to taking action.

cyphar 10y ago
Really? In which state do you live? In NSW I don't believe there's laws against smoking on balconies (though I don't live in apartments, so I don't have first-hand experience with this).
- exodust 10y ago
  I live in Vic, but I was reading about NSW laws dealing with this problem... From an SMH article... "Tenants who create too much smoke when barbecuing their lamb chops or sausages on unit balconies could soon face fines of up to $2200 under proposed changes to strata laws. The same goes for smokers if the smoke from their cigarettes or cigars drifts into neighbouring units."
  - brokenmachine 10y ago
    "proposed" changes. I'm living in the same situation in NSW. There is no recourse that I know of, unless your strata has a non-smoking by-law, which almost none do. The proposed changes to strata laws will AFAIK only apply to new developments. We are currently looking to move since some addicts moved in next door, but there is no guarantee the next place we move to won't have the same problem. Asthma attacks caused by a selfish person's addiction are no fun. The government is ignoring the suffering of non-smokers forced to live near these disgusting addicts.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]

aaron695 10y ago

> > And this is why people vote Trump. > Irrelevant and nonsensical comment is irrelevant and nonsensical. No I find this totally on topic. We are specifically talking about smoking practices that do not harm others being banned in Australia. Yet people are continuously bringing up passive smoking, something that does harm so totally off topic, but this is their argument. A classic method of the Left, diffuse and confuse. We also know smokers cost the tax payers less. This has been shown in numerous studies, yet once again people pull out it cost tax payers money argument. Basically a lie, but they will not accept the facts. It's impossible to bring in logic. For any non-Australians, Australian basically stopped anything related to passive smoking many years ago, legislation now is all about smoking that causes noone else harm. (The article even mentions talk of banning people born after a certain date!) Australians care little about fundamental rights, it part of their culture of being apathetic. But they hate to know this, hence the kick back, plus they get to bully a minority with immunity, also an Australian trait.

cyphar 10y ago
> We are specifically talking about smoking practices that do not harm others being banned in Australia. Smoking in a private residence is not banned in Australia. > Yet people are continuously bringing up passive smoking, something that does harm so totally off topic, but this is their argument. Most of Australia's bans are to make secondhand smoking something that can be entirely avoided by non-smokers. Taxation is a separate issue, and there are valid arguments against taxation of products like tobacco and alcohol. The only thing mentioned in the article which is not related to this goal is discussions about age discrimination for tobacco sales. Personally I think such a law would not be a good idea, simply because it would increase the demand for black market tobacco. The right way of combating the public health epidemic of smoking is through social stigmatisation. And luckily it's worked (I'm in the younger generation, and smoking carries far more of a stigma than it did in previous generations). And believe it or not, but plain packaging does actually work. At least, it did for me (the images on packets scared the crap out of me as a child). > bully a minority with immunity, also an Australian trait. As someone who came from a country where non-smokers are the minority, I definitely prefer living in a country where you can actually go to the CBD and also being able to breathe. Maybe the "bullying" is earned, when a person is negatively affecting public spaces. Not to mention that you keep talking about fundamental human rights but you've yet to explain what right is being infringed. The right to consume any substance is actually not a human right -- though maybe you would like it to be? In which case, lets fix all of the human rights violations in impoverished nations where starvation is common before we start discussing tobacco.