City of Melbourne to ban smoking

[Hvr]

Now we have to assume no one can smoke in public responsibly.

They never could, it's just now we're standing up to their selfishness.

 

[pauly7]

Great move, again Melbourne setting the (positive) trends.

 

[Renato1]

In Melbourne they used to allow smoking after 10pm in the Over 28 night clubs. They banned smoking, and most closed down (I guess the former patrons have all largely gone to apps or Adult Matchmaker to try find partners). Youngsters are unaffected as they still go to their venues with Exstacy and GBH.

Then they banned smoking with a cup of coffee outside cafes. So where once cafes would pick hundreds of dollars every day with all their tables full, they now get a fraction of that revenue from their largely empty tables.

Word eventually gets out overseas that the place is a dud. Like it or not, smokers tend to like spending money, and more often than not are the life of the party.

If one smokes, would one be more likely to go to dud places in Australia or USA, or to lively places like Europe or Bali?

Funny how all this banning of smoking coincides with apostolic-like preaching of gender fluidity.
Regards,
Renato

 

[p--and--t]

In Melbourne they used to allow smoking after 10pm in the Over 28 night clubs. They banned smoking, and most closed down (I guess the former patrons have all largely gone to apps or Adult Matchmaker to try find partners). Youngsters are unaffected as they still go to their venues with Exstacy and GBH.

Then they banned smoking with a cup of coffee outside cafes. So where once cafes would pick hundreds of dollars every day with all their tables full, they now get a fraction of that revenue from their largely empty tables.

Word eventually gets out overseas that the place is a dud. Like it or not, smokers tend to like spending money, and more often than not are the life of the party.

If one smokes, would one be more likely to go to dud places in Australia or USA, or to lively places like Europe or Bali?

Funny how all this banning of smoking coincides with apostolic-like preaching of gender fluidity.
Regards,
Renato

Interesting comments. Would like to see some evidence to back up your assertions.

A couple of months after the initial smoking bans at tables and chairs where food was served, the ABC put to air interviews of owners in busy local streets a couple of kms from the cbd who initially lobbied against the regulations and subsequently who reported hiring additional staff due to increased patronage, increased sales and customers lingering longer.

Of course that was many years before the economy started heading south and all businesses depending on discretionary money are consequently suffering. Nothing to do with the smoking bans.

BTW: When I go for my morning walks, I have to steer around cafes in the city that make good coffee because of the queues waiting to go in.

 

[Renato1]

Interesting comments. Would like to see some evidence to back up your assertions.

A couple of months after the initial smoking bans at tables and chairs where food was served, the ABC put to air interviews of owners in busy local streets a couple of kms from the cbd who initially lobbied against the regulations and subsequently who reported hiring additional staff due to increased patronage, increased sales and customers lingering longer.

Of course that was many years before the economy started heading south and all businesses depending on discretionary money are consequently suffering. Nothing to do with the smoking bans.

BTW: When I go for my morning walks, I have to steer around cafes in the city that make good coffee because of the queues waiting to go in.

I wonder if the ABC thought to interview people who'd closed down after the ban? It's not impossible that with less places available, the survivors would do better.

The biggest outdoor cafe in Mt Eliza, which was always full of patrons outside, is now a Thai restaurant. At the time of the ban, Channel 7 showed a place in Oakleigh where patrons complained that it used to be full outside, and now had only three or so people there. No matter where I go in Southeastern suburbs, there is no difficulty getting a table for coffee. In small shopping areas which used to always small shops which had people sitting down having coffees and cigarettes in their few tables.outside, well, they're always empty now.

The then ultra popular Venue 28 Doncaster, Croxton Park Over 28s, Chelsea Heights Over 28s - all of which used to be almost standing room only after 10pm - all closed after the smoking ban. Funny about that.
Cheers,
Renato

 

[GSP]

The then ultra popular Venue 28 Doncaster, Croxton Park Over 28s, Chelsea Heights Over 28s - all of which used to be almost standing room only after 10pm

Some 5 star places right there folks - only places to be seen in Melbourne.....

 

[Happy Dude]

The then ultra popular Venue 28 Doncaster, Croxton Park Over 28s, Chelsea Heights Over 28s - all of which used to be almost standing room only after 10pm - all closed after the smoking ban. Funny about that.
Cheers,
Renato

Surely killed off by Tinder et al?

 

[Renato1]

Some 5 star places right there folks - only places to be seen in Melbourne.....

You obviously never went there.

Great place to take girlfriends to, free glasses of champagne on entry, great buffets at two of them, and abundant security guards made all three the safest places to be in Melbourne - never saw an incident there. People had to dress up, or they wouldn't be allowed in.

Never had a dud night there. But I understand that some people would rather be enjoying caviar and sushi in five star places.
Regards,
Renato

 

[Renato1]

Surely killed off by Tinder et al?

No, Adult Matchmaker was around back then, before it became a sex/swingers thing.

Put it this way. Cost to get in per person at Chelsea was $10 and $15 at Doncaster. If you went in prior to 10pm, you got a glass of champagne and a great buffet meal for free. Also, if you had a voucher from the local paper, price of entry was halved before 10pm.

Despite these incentives to come at smoke-free time, at 10pm when smoking started, most patrons - males and females - would arrive and swell the crowd numbers two or three times, and the places would start really humming and coming alive.

Smoking was banned, and those smokers went elsewhere.
Regards,
Renato

 

[33kft]

One of the problems when we discuss subjects which involve the will and liberty of the people is that it's far too easy to take the black and white approach.

Smoking is bad for your health and the health of others, this is undeniable.

As a public official, there's next to no friction when it comes to restricting smoking in the city. This is hardly a brave call to make.

The problems come in when you challenge the will and liberty of the people. I'm not a smoker so this isn't a personal crusade, but it's been a hallmark of the human condition for as long as there's been such a construct. Banning smoking outright is an approach, but it is hardly the only approach.

Personally, I'd prefer a nuanced approach, as many global cities are taking (note how few have outright banned smoking). Continue to reduce the designated smoking sites within the city (and police them for revenue, of course), apply social stigma to the practice and restrict entirely and perpetually for those who are not yet of age. Grandfather the habit out of society without socially isolating those who formed the addiction, some of whom used to watch their favourite football or formula one team sponsored by their cigarette brand.

A bit of nuance doesn't hurt - chess is not played with only two pieces and government owes somewhat of a debt to society off the back of past behaviours that were borne of a lack of true understanding of the medical impact that smoking had on society. Before we get too high and mighty, let's remember that the last cigarette sponsorship of sport was completely phased out only on Oct 1, 2006. We've come a long way but we can hardly turn our back on those still caught up in a practice which is perhaps 2 generations away from extinction, in this country, at very least.

 

[p--and--t]

I am on a distribution list on the subject from the MCC.

In their published information, they are only talking about banning smoking in a few very specific precincts which comprise a very small coverage (a few percent) of the city

There has been no mention that I can recall of any city wide ban alleged by the op.

The official line as published is as follows:

The City of Melbourne is committed to protecting the community from passive smoking by expanding smoke-free areas in and around the city.​

​

The smoke-free areas project began with a smoke-free pilot in one of Melbourne's well-known laneways, The Causeway. After a successful six-month trial in 2013, the laneway became permanently smoke-free in May 2014.​

​

The project has seen a total of 11 smoke-free areas implemented across the municipality.​

​

This includes Bourke Street between Elizabeth Street and Russell Place (including Bourke Street Mall), which will become smoke-free from 4 October 2019. This decision was made following community consultation that revealed 83 per cent support for the project from businesses and individuals.​

​

Separately the state government has smoking bans around entrances to premises such as hospitals, schools any venue serving food.