Sensational-Adelaide.com

Idea for Adelaide?
We still have alfresco dining areas in the city where smokers can puff away, right next to non-smoking diners who have to put up with second-hand smoke or move away/inside or go elsewhere.

Apparently there is a lot of support in Melbourne to extend smoke-free areas into a widespread ban in the CBD.
The Victorian Premier has opposed the idea as 'totally unreasonable' and impossible to implement.

Melbourne CBD may become smoke-free

MELBOURNE'S city centre could become completely smoke-free within three years after a cigarette ban in a laneway was dubbed a success.
..
Melbourne city councillor Richard Foster said there was overwhelming support to extend smoke-free areas following the test in city laneway The Causeway.
"I think we're going to actually attract people to Melbourne by being one of the first in the world to go smoke-free," Mr Foster told Fairfax Radio.

Under the plan, smoking would be banned for pedestrians, footpath diners and city workers in the area bounded by ...

There could be designated shelters for smokers.

News.com
http://www.news.com.au/national/breakin ... 6918302974

Lol, how often does this topic come up on the forum?

Aside from a handful of over sensitive complainers, i think smoking has been restricted sufficiently in most of Australia that the two species can happily co-exist. Im not a smoker but I dont see why businesses shouldnt be allowed to cater for smoking customers if they wish (within the bounds of the law, of course). A lot of places where i dine outside have voluntarily declared the areas non-smoking.

The government is already considering banning smoking in outdoor eating areas:

http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j ... X0BPjTreMQ

Although to look at the language in the 'discussion' paper, it doesnt sound like there's going to be much of a 'discussion' at all and the ban is already fait accompli.

Yep, can't wait for this to be implemented.

Sick of standing/walking behind someone at the traffic lights inhaling their cancer producing toxins because they've got no self control

So long as they don't ban e-cigarettes it doesn't bother me

Howie wrote:So long as they don't ban e-cigarettes it doesn't bother me

Makes you wonder who is behind the attempt to ban e-cigs.

It's usually just ignorant people, if it looks like smoke they think it is dangerous. E-cigs produce vapour like a kettle would, so if they ban e-cigs then are kettles and hot showers next? But whats happened in wa has alot of people worried.

Then on top of this you have tobacco companies and pharmaceutical giants that want to push ineffective nicotine replacement therapy.

Anyhow sorry for going off topic, short version - "don't ban e-cigs".

Yes the court decision in WA is batty. Something like, "if it has a hand to mouth action then it looks like tobacco, and therefore is governed by the same laws." What's next for the hand to mouth decision? Coffee... cup goes from hand to mouth... food? fork goes from hand to mouth.

Interesting discussion under this article from the Cancer Council, who seem to have lost their purpose. Lots of non-reasons and then a "maybe" it gives you cancer. Short on and actual evidence.
http://www.cancer.org.au/news/blog/prev ... ettes.html

The World these days seems to ignore science, relying on gut feelings and rhetoric. Weirdness.

Although I oppose a ban on ecigs, I'd like to point out that they are dangerous. Unlike showers and kettles, the vapour they produce has significant adverse health effects and contains carcinogenic components.

Aidan wrote:Although I oppose a ban on ecigs, I'd like to point out that they are dangerous. Unlike showers and kettles, the vapour they produce has significant adverse health effects and contains carcinogenic components.

Citation required.

Also consider the difference between generation one and generations two and three of the technology. Mostly they contain fogging agents (like they use in nightclubs), medical grade nicotine, food flavourings (like you find in food) and water. Although I will grant that vaporising these compounds and inhaling them may be different to oral ingestion.

Aidan wrote:Although I oppose a ban on ecigs, I'd like to point out that they are dangerous. Unlike showers and kettles, the vapour they produce has significant adverse health effects and contains carcinogenic components.

Sounds like misinformation that the tobacco industry puts out. Where did you hear this?

Do you know whats in e-juice? It's a mix of vegetable glycerin, polyethylene glycol, nicotine and food flavouring. There is nothing that combusts in the vaporiser so no co2 as well as no second hand smoke.

Whereas cigarettes contain over 4000 chemicals and smoke lingers for up to 16hrs in the air, plus cigarette butts left behind are toxic, i know what i'd choose. I think vaporisers should be encouraged by our politicians and the cancer council.

Howie wrote:

Aidan wrote:Although I oppose a ban on ecigs, I'd like to point out that they are dangerous. Unlike showers and kettles, the vapour they produce has significant adverse health effects and contains carcinogenic components.

Sounds like misinformation that the tobacco industry puts out. Where did you hear this?

SMH a few months ago I think, but I don't have a reference for it.

Do you know whats in e-juice?

AIUI it depends on the brand.

It's a mix of vegetable glycerin, polyethylene glycol, nicotine and food flavouring. There is nothing that combusts in the vaporiser so no co2 as well as no second hand smoke.

Whereas cigarettes contain over 4000 chemicals and smoke lingers for up to 16hrs in the air, plus cigarette butts left behind are toxic, i know what i'd choose. I think vaporisers should be encouraged by our politicians and the cancer council.

Nobody credible is claiming ecigs are anywhere near as dangerous as cigarettes, but you don't have to choose either.

I remember that study, the researcher even did an ama and conceded there has been significant changes in ecig design since the study. He still stands by the fact that under rare circumstances toxins produced were real (no one could challenge that) but as most mods these days are voltage regulated and people know more about building appropriate coils they should not be in a situation where super heating the element could give off the same toxins. The TL;DR version is, new ecigs different game the risk is two tenths of bugger all now.

Aidan wrote: AIUI it depends on the brand.

Most experienced vapers mix their own. Half vg, half pg, 100mg/ml nic of your choosing, and add recommended flavours (eg. Steep the juice with a green tea bag and you end up with green tea flavoured ejuice).

Otherwise you can get Adelaide mob vapoureyes to mix them for you from organic ingredients grown in the Adelaide Hills.

monotonehell wrote:

Howie wrote:So long as they don't ban e-cigarettes it doesn't bother me

Makes you wonder who is behind the attempt to ban e-cigs.

Governments thats who. E-Cigs are something that they currently cannot tax/havent worked out how to tax. WA Gov Co. are using the very poor excuse of something that looks like a tobacco product but isnt "regulated" a such, in order to deem it illegal. Its pretty contradictory, stupid and irresponsible of the WA Gov. to have done this when there is currently such little research out there on e-cigs.

fairly plain and simple.

spiller wrote:Governments thats who. E-Cigs are something that they currently cannot tax/havent worked out how to tax. WA Gov Co. are using the very poor excuse of something that looks like a tobacco product but isnt "regulated" a such, in order to deem it illegal. Its pretty contradictory, stupid and irresponsible of the WA Gov. to have done this when there is currently such little research out there on e-cigs.
fairly plain and simple.

The interesting thing in WA is that it was a court decision, not a legislative decision. Although I suppose in such a case only the Crown would make a submission, so there would not be anyone to advocate for the "other side".