Rita Panahi: Smoking is vile, but it’s not illegal

AS new anti-smoking laws come into effect, many people are delighted, but how much do we restrict a legal practice, asks Rita Panahi.

THE marginalisation of tobacco terrorists has advanced further with new anti-smoking laws coming into force across Victoria on Tuesday.

Smokers have been banished from all outdoor dining areas including pubs, bars, cafes, food fairs, street festivals, restaurants and hotels; anywhere food is served will be free from second-hand smoke, bringing Victoria into line with other states.

No longer will cancer stick enthusiasts monopolise prime alfresco dining areas during the warm spring and summer nights.

With the latest changes to the Tobacco Act 1987, there’ll be no risk of breathing in poisonous smoke as you enjoy a light brunch or romantic dinner.

NEW LAWS BANNING SMOKING IN OUTDOOR DINING AREAS IN VICTORIA ON THE WAY

VICTORIAN COUNCILS FAIL TO FINE ANYONE CAUGHT SMOKING NEAR HOSPITALS

I normally abhor nanny state policies but I make an exception when it comes to smokers, not just because of the noxious fumes they emit but their habit of treating the world like their personal ashtray.

Wherever you travel, no matter how beautiful and remote, you’ll see evidence of the smokers who were there before you. Otherwise pristine beaches and mountain ranges are littered with filthy butts that spoil the natural environment.

I have to admit smokers are entitled to ask just where they can enjoy their filthy, yet entirely legal, habit. Picture: AFP

Whether you are at a beach, park, in a car on the freeway or on a crowded footpath in the city, you will see smokers dispose of their rubbish on the ground without a thought. Even when there are plenty of bins nearby they more often than not opt for the ground or the gutter. It is infuriating that their litter will be floating in the bay before too long. Less than 14 per cent of us smoke, but butts account for about half of all litter. According to the National Litter Index “cigarette butts remain a disproportionate percentage of all litter counted in Australia”.

Putting to one side the maddening incidence of littering among nicotine groupies, the other obvious benefits of increased bans are improved health for both smokers and nonsmokers.

And yet even I have to admit smokers are entitled to ask just where they can enjoy their filthy, yet entirely legal, habit.

Not only is smoking banned in outdoor dining areas — unless the eatery invests in four-metre buffer zones or installs plastic walls to protect nonsmokers — near playgrounds, at sporting grounds, between the flags at patrolled beaches and a variety of other public and private spaces, it is also banned in cars where a child is present. And there have even been calls for similar bans in homes where children live.

Cancer Council Queensland is among health bodies pushing for increased restrictions on smoking.

Cancer Council Queensland chief executive Chris McMillan.

“We’re calling for community support today to help protect Queensland’s next generation from potential illness and disease caused by smoke drift,” said chief executive Chris McMillan.

“Making your home totally smoke-free is the only way to protect your children from the harmful effects of tobacco smoke.”

Even smoking outside has been deemed unsafe by Cancer Council Queensland as smoke can drift inside. Soon there’ll be no safe spaces for smokers; indeed, some in the community are more receptive to heroin injecting rooms than smoking in the park.

THE government has long claimed that exorbitant taxes on cigarettes are due to altruistic reasons, not as a means of raising revenue.

That argument falls apart when you look at how dependent governments have become on the billions smokers contribute to the national coffers.

If it were purely a health measure, we would have gradual bans, not higher excises.

When the dangers of asbestos were fully realised, the government banned the importation, sale and use of all products containing the material; they didn’t just impose a tax.

There’s no denying that governments are net beneficiaries of the vast sums smokers provide, even when you take into account the increased healthcare costs.

Senator David Leyonhjelm has criticised Victoria’s latest smoking crackdown. Picture: Kym Smith

Liberal Democratic senator David Leyonhjelm has long championed the contribution of smokers to the economy, even thanking smokers for smoking during a speech in parliament.

“Your generosity to the nation’s Treasury is truly staggering … generous smokers pay 17 times as much as you cost,” he said.

On Tuesday the senator criticised Victoria’s latest smoking crackdown, arguing that it should be up to individual businesses whether they welcome or shun smokers.

“Just as a private individual has the right to dictate whether visitors or guests may smoke in their loungeroom or their car, so too the owner of a bar or restaurant should have the right to determine whether smoking should or should not be permitted on their premises,” he told the Herald Sun.

“Some people may prefer that a particular venue is non-smoking, others may prefer that it is smoking, but the rule for a particular venue should be made by the venue’s owner.

“Many of us may not like smoky environments and we may not like them for a number of reasons — some of us may not like the smell, some of us may be concerned about long-term health risks from passive smoking. But no one forces us into those venues.

“If there is a demand for smoke-free venues, then operators will make them smoke-free to attract more clientele.”

Thousands of eateries across Victoria are affected by the changes, particularly those in areas where smoking is most prevalent.

Restaurant and Catering Industry Association boss John Hart says that most restaurants will opt for no designated smoking areas but sees the bans as unpopular in ethnically diverse areas where a cigarette and coffee is a part of cafe culture.

Rita Panahi is a Herald Sun columnist

[e-mail]

@ritapanahi