Light up or leave

The Daily Telegraph ^ | August 14, 2006 | David Fisher

[SheLion]

NON-SMOKERS are being banned from drinking in outdoor smoking areas in pubs and clubs under draconian council rules.

Some councils are forcing licensed venues to hire bouncers to enforce the bans, costing tens of thousands of dollars a year, while preventing non-smokers from using outdoor areas.

It has raised concerns about discrimination against non-smokers and suggestions that councils are going beyond the State Government's legislation and imposing their own rules.

The Daily Telegraph has learned that at least two councils – Fairfield and North Sydney – have already employed the tactic when approving development applications from premises wishing to comply with the NSW laws.

The outdoor spaces are being built to comply with the total indoor smoking ban at licensed premises that comes in to effect next July.

But those laws do not exclude non-smokers nor ban drinking in those areas.

While many councils are imposing special conditions, by far the harshest is Fairfield Council.

The council's determination notice regarding Mount Pritchard club Mounties' development application for a 40-person terrace says: "The outdoor terrace area shall be used for the exclusive purpose of patrons smoking. A security guard shall conduct regular patrols within the terrace area at all times to ensure that the terrace is for smoking purposes only."

The council document goes on to say, "there shall be no bar service or consumption of food within the terrace".

Mounties CEO Greg Pickering said the restrictions raised questions of discrimination.

"Could you imagine being told you must be a smoker to use a particular area of a club?" he said.

Fairfield Council has imposed the same or similar conditions on other clubs, including Cabra-Vale Ex-Servicemen's Club, St Johns Park Bowling Club and Canley Heights RSL.

Australian Hotels Association president John Thorpe has said publicans, including himself, were facing enormous difficulties getting DAs through.

Another council placing strict conditions on outdoor areas is North Sydney.

Local club Norths has had a terrace designed by acoustic engineers who specified 3m high walls and special sound proofing materials – but that is not enough.

"The council did not even look at the acoustic report showing the terrace noise would be even lower than the council's own requirements," Norths CEO Hans Sarlemyn said.

The club has been told the terrace will have to close at 9pm on weekdays and 10pm Saturdays and Sundays.

[SheLion]

Congratulations to those councils it's about time! The smoker has been discriminated against for years now the shoe is on the other foot.

[SheLion]

[boxerblues]

It has raised concerns about discrimination against non-smokers


lol the smoking Nazi's have booted us out of just about every establishment now we are being stalked by the non smokers and its suddenly discrimination

[Madame Dufarge]

Could you imagine being told you must be a smoker to use a particular area of a club?" he said.

The anti-smokers have been shrieking about second-hand smoke death rays for years now.

Am I to understand that they now want to voluntarily go amongst the smoking lepers?

What about the effects of second-hand whining and moaning on the smokers? Don't they deserve to be "protected" too?

The concept of a two-way street is apparently too difficult for the Nazis to assimilate.

[383rr]

"Could you imagine being told you must be a smoker to use a particular area of a club?" he said.


It just PROVES that it will never be enough. These people want NO compromise. They already got their way everywhere else. Now they want to make this an issue?

"It has raised concerns about discrimination against non-smokers and suggestions that councils are going beyond the State Government's legislation and imposing their own rules."

What a joke. Discrimination against non-smokers.

The outside area is for smokers. THEY wanted it to be this way. Now they want to go outside and complain?

Give me a break.

[Izzy Dunne]

The dangers of secondhand fresh air, I suppose.

[Calpernia]

>>>>Some councils are forcing licensed venues to hire bouncers to enforce the bans, costing tens of thousands of dollars a year, while preventing non-smokers from using outdoor areas.<<<<

This nugget here is very understated.

All these NGO funded programs come with agents to enforce the NGO funded rules (READ: UN!) or requirements to hire them.

These NGO funded enforcers are trained to implement UN law.

This is a transcribed flyer of a law office near my home.

They train enforcers of the Animal Task Force laws:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1562040/posts
NJSBA Animal Law

---

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1563271/posts
Healthy People 2010

OR

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1561077/posts
Model School Nutrition Program

The Food Program being implemented into all our schools that receive federal funds brings with it enforcing agents of this program and a FOIA that releases our children's data to the grantor.


I wish people will stop focusing on the 'smoking vs. non smoking' parts and start looking at the force that is making these laws and rules. Smoking is only ONE focus area of Healthy People 2010. There are 28 focus areas with numerous sub categories to them.

We are under UN rule people. WHY and how do we stop it?

[HEY4QDEMS]

It has raised concerns about discrimination against non-smokers

ROTFLMAOAPMP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Publius6961]

Careful She-lion. I smell a trap.

Either this is satire, or it's a devilish new tactic being attempted by the anti-smoking gestapo.

If serving of food or drink is not allowed in the outdoor area, it impacts the utility of the area and the premises' profit.
Further, by defining "smoking" as having a lit cigarette going continuously (an absurd definition), it impacts everyone smoker and non-smoker alike.

Don't know about Australia, but in the U.S. that is clearly within the no-no actions of any authority: arbitrary and capricious,.

[INSENSITIVE GUY]

I hope this starts a trend worldwide and yes,non-smokers should be discriminated against!Non-smokers are just a bunch of mentally disturbed health freaks.Businesses for smokers only would be a real slap in their arrogant,da*n little faces.

[cripplecreek]

NON-SMOKERS are being banned from drinking in outdoor smoking areas in pubs and clubs under draconian council rules.

Oh the horror.

[CSM]

"Could you imagine being told you must be a smoker to use a particular area of a club?" he said.

Could you imagine being told you must be a non-smoker to use a particular area of a club? Does this hypocrit even realize how dumb he sounds? If it is acceptable that the government can impose it's preferences on private property, then why is it wrong for the property owner to impose restrictions that are well within the law?

These gnatzies are now proving that it IS ALL ABOUT CONTROL, NOT HEALTH!

[Androcles]

I know where my tourist dollars are going next Easter!

[Moonman62]

The council document goes on to say, "there shall be no bar service or consumption of food within the terrace".

I think you've been tricked by some sensational editorializing.

Us non-smokers could care less if we've been banned from a smoking area in any case.

[Madame Dufarge]

If serving of food or drink is not allowed in the outdoor area, it impacts the utility of the area and the premises' profit.

The wording is kind of ambiguous, but the regulations could be interpreted as drinking is allowed, but drinks can't actually be served in the smoking areas. The regulation specifically prohibits the consumption of food, but prohibits only bar service.

The council document goes on to say, "there shall be no bar service or consumption of food within the terrace".

[Bigh4u2]

It's never been about forcing smokers outside.

It's always been about forcing smokers out. Period.

They want no place for smokers in their utopian world.

[joshhiggins]

Congratulations to those councils it's about time! The smoker has been discriminated against for years now the shoe is on the other foot.

I don't see this as intended to discriminate against non-smokers so much as smokers are now being forced to be separated from their non smoking friends even when their friends don't mind being around second hand smoke.

It looks like the smoking nazis can not tolerate it that any non smoker might actually choose to go outside to visit with their smoking friend.

Musn't allow even a hint of tolerance towards smokers.

[Eastbound]

Moth, meet Flame! BZZZZT!

[P-40]

Could you imagine being told you must be a non-smoker to use a particular area of a club?

I've yet to see an establishment that tries to say you must be a non-smoker to come inside...only that you cannot smoke inside. I can't see how you would enforce the former outside of a smell test.

[SheLion]

lol the smoking Nazi's have booted us out of just about every establishment now we are being stalked by the non smokers and its suddenly discrimination.

I know it. That is what "I" was thinking.

Before, we had our smoking lounges indoors.  Then, when they kicked us outside, then they started screaming that they had to "walk through smoke" to access the building.  Well, what in the world did they expect?

We were happy in our smoking lounges, out of site from everyone else, but now that they kicked us outside, that still isn't good enough for them.  I'm fed up!

[SheLion]

The concept of a two-way street is apparently too difficult for the Nazis to assimilate.

See?  The shoe is on the OTHER foot and now they can't stand it.  LOL

[SheLion]

The outside area is for smokers. THEY wanted it to be this way. Now they want to go outside and complain?

Give me a break.

Yep.  The shoe is on the other foot and they can't handle it.

[CSM]

Ah, the justification of hypocricy. Don't let the nannystatism get you down.

[Just another Joe]

Us non-smokers could care less if we've been banned from a smoking area in any case.

So THAT'S why you support smoking bans under force of law, supported by junk science, lies, and tobacco money, to take the right of a business owner to allow smoking at their establishment.

[P-40]

Ah, the justification of hypocricy. Don't let the nannystatism get you down.

Are you denying that a smoker is allowed into the establishment?

[CSM]

No. A growing number of smoker bans are taking place. They are celebratedy by the nannies. You might not have heard of them, but they are becoming more prominent.

[dalereed]

"there shall be no bar service or consumption of food within the terrace".

If they institute that here i'll just eliminate restaurants as a place to dine.

I only go to ones with outside patios where I can eat and smoke now.

[P-40]

You might not have heard of them

We have them here. Smokers are not banned though, just smoking inside. We never had it apply to nightclubs before though.

[CSM]

Smokers are being banned by employers. Even if they smoke at home during non work hours. I agree, they have the right to do that, but if the government passed the legislation I would have a huge problem with it. Just like I have no problem with a private bar/restaurant setting a no smoking policy, but the government dictation is a trampling of the property owner's right to make that call.

[JamesP81]

Pretty soon, the govt will be examining your personal habits (if they aren't already) to determine how much taxes in social security you'll have to pay for health care down the road that you won't receive because social security will be bankrupt by then.

What many otherwise intelligent people here don't seem to understand is that there is no end to this nanny statism if we don't draw a line somewhere.

[Roccus]

When NYC first started mandating 'non-smoking' areas in restaurants, the smoke nazis would sit and linger in the smoking sections thereby rendering them inaccessible to smokers. In two restaurants that I used to frequent the smoking sections would often be full (with nary a cigarette in sight) while the non-smoking section would be completely empty.

[CygnusXI]

Fact: It's about "Ewww it stinks!"

Fiction: Second hand smoke.

Any questions?

[P-40]

Smokers are being banned by employers.

That is always an odd one. If the employer pays the health care costs, you can make an argument for hiring non-smokers. You could do the same for not hiring the elderly, obese workers, mountain bike riders, etc. Think what it would be like under national health care...

I have no problem with a business having a no-smoking policy and generally only eat at restaurants that ban it indoors and outdoors but I do have a problem with the government banning consumption of a legal product if a business is okay with it.

[CSM]

"I have no problem with a business having a no-smoking policy and generally only eat at restaurants that ban it indoors and outdoors but I do have a problem with the government banning consumption of a legal product if a business is okay with it."

We are on the same page here, but that is not where the anti's stand. They pushed for governmental banning in the club, now the clubs are doing something that the anti's don't approve of, yet still protects non smokers from SHS exposure. They are hypocritics and they make it known in this example. In addition, they are showing that it is not about health, but about control!

[P-40]

They are hypocritics and they make it known in this example.

I would not put too much stock in this example as it sounds more like they are having a problem with outdoor areas being overrun with people that would rather be outside but not have the smoke...and who are putting pressure on their council and it is going way off target when the business and the council start to talking. Hard to say without knowing more about the area.

The smoking ban passed here, barely, but I doubt many of the voters that approved of it actually go to clubs. I did not vote for it even though I would not go to an indoor club because of the smoke. Then again, I don't drink, don't like crowds, and don't like loud music...so I don't think the clubs found me all that profitable a patron.

[SheLion]

Us non-smokers could care less if we've been banned from a smoking area in any case.

Well, I guess not ALL non smokers feel that way, otherwise, there wouldn't be this article!

[Madame Dufarge]

I only go to ones with outside patios where I can eat and smoke now.

Same here. Of course, in Maine, we have about a one-month window of opportunity before it gets too cold ;-)

[SheLion]

They want no place for smokers in their utopian world.

That's right.  We were quite happy with our indoor smoking lounges, out of the view of the world.  But then we were kicked outside.  That's still not good enough for the anti's.  Now, they want us "25 feet" away from the damn buildings!  Something has got to give!

[SheLion]

It looks like the smoking nazis can not tolerate it that any non smoker might actually choose to go outside to visit with their smoking friend.

It can be looked at that way, of course.  But I know all my life, I have had non-smoking friends and we all hung around together and smoking was never an issue with anyone.

[SheLion]

Pretty soon, the govt will be examining your personal habits (if they aren't already) to determine how much taxes in social security you'll have to pay for health care down the road that you won't receive because social security will be bankrupt by then.

Well, that's why most of us have good health insurance.  When I get sick, my insurance pays for me.  No one else.  Just me.

[Bigh4u2]

I think it's time for smokers to force the local governments to either make allowances for tax paying smokers or ban cigarettes COMPLETELY by making it illegal!

But they won't do that!


These people would throw a fit if smoking was made illegal and all that tax money disappeared.

[SheLion]

Same here. Of course, in Maine, we have about a one-month window of opportunity before it gets too cold ;-)

Oh boy.  Ain't that the truth!

[SheLion]

These people would throw a fit if smoking was made illegal and all that tax money disappeared.

That's why most people are learning the truth!  It's not about health reasons at all.  But the MONEY!!!!

[JamesP81]

Well, that's why most of us have good health insurance.

As do I. Still, it's a criminal offense that they tax us for something we aren't going to benefit from. My taxes would be a third less if I could opt out of social security, and I would if I had the option.

[RandallFlagg]

LOL! This is beautiful!

Every, "Smoking Area," sign I see, I write in pencil:

NO
ANTI-SMOKERS
ALLOWED
(non-smokers are okay)

Looks like someone else caught on.

[Bigh4u2]

And If an owner puts a roof on that patio, it's considered an 'enclosure' and part of the indoors. Hence. NO SMOKING!

[P-40]

When I get sick, my insurance pays for me. No one else. Just me.

If you are getting your insurance through your employer, they are generally footing most of the bill.

[SheLion]

Looks like someone else caught on.

LOL!!!

[SheLion]

And If an owner puts a roof on that patio, it's considered an 'enclosure' and part of the indoors. Hence. NO SMOKING!

OOps...there IS a roof over it. hehe!

[joshhiggins]

t looks like the smoking nazis can not tolerate it that any non smoker might actually choose to go outside to visit with their smoking friend.

I'm sorry I think I misspoke. I meant to say it is the anti smoking Nazis that are trying to prevent nonsmokers from even socializing with a smoker while he /she has a smoke.

Let them try to tell me I can't "second hand smoke" with my friends.