Idiot Smoker Nearly Causes Fire Onboard

[browski]

Imprisonment is not the only form of punishment. Generally they deal with offences like this by the application of fines. eg NSW $250 for an individual upto $10000 for a business. Victoria $122 upto $6100. Those are far from trivial numbers for the business.


Sent from the Throne

It is trivial if it has never been or cannot be enforced.
I'm not real clear on the penalty though. Are you saying that the airline itself (as "the business" controlling the venue) would be fined, and then the individual (the transgressor) would also be fined around $200?

 

[medhead]

It is trivial if it has never been or cannot be enforced.
I'm not real clear on the penalty though. Are you saying that the airline itself (as "the business" controlling the venue) would be fined, and then the individual (the transgressor) would also be fined around $200?

Your post talked about smoking in a restaurant, I'm not sure how airlines are involved. The ban on smoking in restaurants can be and, I assume, has been enforced.


Sent from the Throne

 

[juddles]

I think this is going a tad off topic (my posts included). I hope we can all agree that someone chucking a lit cigarette in a bin full of paper is an idiot, whether it be in a plane or in a restaurant.


As for the penalty - for chucking it in the bin and starting a fire - that should be severe. But if they had a naughty smoke on a plane and properly put it out, well then in my humble opiniion that offense is no more serious than infringing on the laws about smoking in any public place - so instant jail is a bit over the top.

 

[freepyjamas]

So has anybody ever been imprisoned (or even arrested) for smoking in restaurant? I'm guessing it has to be treated with the same trivial nature by the authorities.

Different rules on planes. Refuse to do as a waiter instructs you, and at worst you get kicked out. Try the same behaviour on a flight, and you'll be met by the Feds. You get a very short leash on flights.

 

[juddles]

Different rules on planes. ..... You get a very short leash on flights.

I understand the concept, but what is the reality here? If someone lights a smoke, gets sprung, and immediately and politely puts it out, what actually happens?

 

[SeatBackForward]

I understand the concept, but what is the reality here? If someone lights a smoke, gets sprung, and immediately and politely puts it out, what actually happens?

Smoking policy onboard Qantas flights
Question
Can I smoke onboard any Qantas flights?
Answer
No. Australian law prohibits smoking on all Qantas flights. Smoking is not permitted anywhere on the aircraft, including lavatories.

From: Smoking policy onboard Qantas flights

It says LAW, so if caught, you have actually committed an offence.

 

[anat0l]

I understand the concept, but what is the reality here? If someone lights a smoke, gets sprung, and immediately and politely puts it out, what actually happens?

A few people get puzzled as to why the culprit lit up the cigarette in the first place, and the thought of what might've happened if they didn't spring the culprit!

Doing something wrong because the reality might be that nothing serious will or can happen doesn't make it right.

 

[juddles]

From: Smoking policy onboard Qantas flights

It says LAW, so if caught, you have actually committed an offence.

Yes, I understand it is ¨breaking the law¨. So is smoking in a restaurant, or walking your dog without a leash on a ¨dogs on leash¨ beach. Does anyone know what the actual stipulated penalty is?

 

[SeatBackForward]

And just because im having a slow day, this is from the

Agreement to Ban Smoking on International Passenger Flights -
Implementation - Amendment of Regulations

Further to the discussion of the Agreement to ban smoking on all non-stop
passenger flights between Australia, the United States and Canada (see
Aust YBIL, 1995, vol 16, p 451), on 22 February 1995, the Minister for
Transport, Mr Brereton, issued the following news release:

Smoking will be banned on all non-stop passenger flights between Australia, the
United States and Canada from 1 March 1995.

Announcing the ban today, Federal Transport Minister, Laurie Brereton, said
that the Air Navigation Regulations have been amended to implement an
agreement reached late last year between the three countries.
The ban will be extended to all Australian international flights regardless of
destination from 1 July 1996.

"The Federal government is very concerned about the adverse health effects
of active and passive smoking on people in all walks of life, and these effects are
accentuated in enclosed environments such as aircraft cabins," Mr Brereton said.

The government banned smoking on all domestic-flights within Australia in
1987 and extended these bans to all services operated by international carriers
between airports within Australia from October 1990.

The decision to ban smoking implements an International Civil Aviation
Organization (ICAO) resolution which Australia had sponsored in 1992.

Mr Brereton said that Qantas and Ansett had both endorsed the proposal.
Mr Brereton said smoking cost the Australian community at least $6.8
billion a year, including more than $600 million directly spent on health care.
"The recently formulated National Health Policy on Tobacco, supported by
the Commonwealth and all State and Territory governments, commits all
signatories to eliminate or reduce the exposure of Australians to tobacco. The
elimination of smoking in workplaces, enclosed public buildings and other
environments such as aircraft is an important component of the policy," Mr
Brereton said.

Source: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/AUYrBkIntLaw/1996/17.pdf

So it was a Workplace health reason primarily.

 

[juddles]

A few people get puzzled as to why the culprit lit up the cigarette in the first place, and the thought of what might've happened if they didn't spring the culprit!

Doing something wrong because the reality might be that nothing serious will or can happen doesn't make it right.

I know I will get flamed a tad here, but feel the need to stand up against mythical positions.

The reason that the person lit the cig in the first place is that they are addicted to a very powerfully addictive drug that is made freely available by the government.

And as for what would have happened if they were not sprung? They would have enjoyably finished their smoke, disposed of it in the PERFECTLY SAFE ashtray, and on their departure from the toilet they would have left a lingering odour far less unpleasant to the next user of the cubicle than the average tourist with their travel-ravaged bodily functions.

 

[medhead]

And just because im having a slow day, this is from the



Source: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/AUYrBkIntLaw/1996/17.pdf

So it was a Workplace health reason primarily.

And a public health reason.

On the topic of what happens if caught in an aircraft, I expect the usual police response will happen. They will make a judgement and apply the penalty that they deem appropriate. I would assume there is a fine available to police (as well as warnings, etc).


Sent from the Throne

 

[SeatBackForward]

Yes, I understand it is ¨breaking the law¨. So is smoking in a restaurant, or walking your dog without a leash on a ¨dogs on leash¨ beach. Does anyone know what the actual stipulated penalty is?

Unsure if this is the most current (I'm just net surfing here, not some legal guru):

AIR NAVIGATION REGULATIONS 1947 - REG 25
Smoking in aircraft

(1) A person shall not smoke anywhere in a prescribed aircraft.

Penalty: $500.

(2) The operator of a prescribed aircraft shall ensure that provision is made in the aircraft whereby a notice indicating that smoking is prohibited is displayed at all times while passengers are on board.

Penalty: $2,500.

(3) A failure by the operator of a prescribed aircraft to comply with the requirements of subregulation (2) does not affect the operation of subregulation (1) in relation to any person on board that aircraft.

(4) Subregulations (1), (2) and (3) apply in relation to air navigation generally.

(5) The notice required by subregulation (2) must be:

(a) legible; and

(b) displayed in a conspicuous place in the aircraft.

(6) In this regulation:

"Australian international carriage" has the meaning given by subsection 27 (2) of the Act.

"open-use charter aircraft" means an aircraft that is engaged in a charter operation, except:

(a) an aircraft that is engaged in an operation for the purpose of a service described in paragraph (c) of the definition of charter operation in subsection 3 (1) of the Act; or

(b) an aircraft that is chartered for the purpose of an operation for which tickets are not available for purchase by the general public.

"prescribed aircraft" means an aircraft that:

(a) is a regular public transport aircraft, or an open‑use charter aircraft; and

(b) is engaged in:

(i) the carriage of passengers between airports in Australian territory; or

(ii) Australian international carriage (except the carriage of freight only).

Source:AIR NAVIGATION REGULATIONS 1947 - REG 25 Smoking in aircraft

 

[anat0l]

Yes, I understand it is ¨breaking the law¨. So is smoking in a restaurant, or walking your dog without a leash on a ¨dogs on leash¨ beach. Does anyone know what the actual stipulated penalty is?

A quick naive search on Google and AustLii yields under s 1a of Civil Aviation Regulations (Cth) 1988 Reg 255:

A person must not smoke in an aircraft toilet. Penalty: 50 penalty units

At last check, at the federal level 1 PU = $110, so fine of $5,500.

I suppose if you have that kind of money to burn - fine, light up!

I know I will get flamed a tad here, but feel the need to stand up against mythical positions.

So we are both guilty of the same thing.

The reason that the person lit the cig in the first place is that they are addicted to a very powerfully addictive drug that is made freely available by the government.

Addictive it may be, but they still don't have to smoke, much less in a place where it is punishable by law. One can argue the morality of the government's duality of allowing the sale of cigarettes and yet placing significant boundaries on its use when its addictiveness is noted (except according to the tobacco companies, who still "maintain" that there is no plausible link between smoking and health).

And as for what would have happened if they were not sprung? They would have enjoyably finished their smoke, disposed of it in the PERFECTLY SAFE ashtray, and on their departure from the toilet they would have left a lingering odour far less unpleasant to the next user of the cubicle than the average tourist with their travel-ravaged bodily functions.

That's assuming the best case scenario. Plausible, but not assumed to be that all the time.

 

[medhead]

With all the taxes and restrictions on their sale and use it is difficult to agree that ciggies are made freely available by government.


Sent from the Throne

 

[SeatBackForward]

Ultimately smoking is a choice (yes at some point in time it was a choice) and the addiction argument makes for a convenient excuse IMO. If you can't take the length of time of a flight without needing a smoke, then the choice of travel needs to be re-evaluated. Smoking is evasive, even as a non-smoker I am still effected by smokers, and I certainly don't want to that in a pressurised cabin having no choice about breathing it in.

 

[anat0l]

With all the taxes and restrictions on their sale and use it is difficult to agree that ciggies are made freely available by government.

Well, for most intents and purposes it's freely available, i.e. it can be obtained relatively easily, you don't even need a special permit to obtain them (unlike other kinds of drugs). Not to mention the Government does make a healthy (pun intended) scratch on the taxes levied. Though, on another level, point taken.

The problem is that they can't completely ban cigarettes (i.e. the production / importation); I believe someone will pipe up that that is undemocratic or something (you can restrict many things but you can't outright ban them).

 

[browski]

Well my feeling was that it was one of those joke laws that nobody respects because it is never enforced.........but then I found this.
$500 seems a bit light considering a carton of cigs in Australia cost $2000.

Man fined for smoking on plane - ABC Kimberley WA - Australian Broadcasting Corporation

 

[BAM1748]

Showing my age, but I certainly remember smoking flights, row 40 back smoking but if you were in row 39 you were safe from the smoke......not.

But anyone flown on a north African airline, anyone seen people with those camping butane stoves down the back cooking their own on board meals. I do think they have banned those big curved daggers though. :shock:

 

[AVC]

Probably best to put that urban myth in the same category as standing up on aircraft (when taxiing after landing) where many people believe it is an aircraft safety issue. (Makes you wonder why they don't hiss at pax who are standing on the bus which collects them from the plane)

In buses they have handles, rails and straps for standing passengers. And there are still injuries caused by falls on buses. If the pilot hits the skids due to a runway incursion while your pulling your 7kg bag out of the overhead, somebody is going into the hurt locker. I always stay in my seat till we are at the gate.i don't even like taking off my seat belt in flight.

Some people may think I'm really cough about safety in moving vehicles, as I always have every one restrained, including my dog in a harness when the vehicle is moving. Then again, I've seen what happens to someone's face when it hits the dashboard at thirty kilometres an hour. It's not a pretty sight.

 

[dajop]

Wonder what would/should happen if the guy was caught smoking, talking loudly on his mobile phone in the aircraft toilet even though the seatbelt sign was switched on, whilst his children were running up and down the cabin uncontrolled yelling and screaming.