Well done to the Frankston City Council. I am not against people smoking but i dont think i should have to walk through it. One of the worsed places i have experienced this, is the Queen St Mall in Brisbane. Due to the traffic (around $37m per year) and being outdoors, its one big ash tray. The Brisbane City Council should do the same thing.

Does that mean they will also ban the sale of cigarettes? Funny how everyone wants to ban smoking but will continue to sell them - seems a bit of a contradiction.

please,please can all the councils of australia do the same-this product needs to used in private.if they dont do it we should all start taking legal action against councils that dont look after their ratepayers.

Well put Ian!

just another way of reducing the consumer base on these strips, who's behind this, i know big shopping centers will be happy. we already live in police state, just another nail in the coffin of our civil liberties.

These bans further demonize a population around 1/3 of the population. This is right out of the playbook of these special interest groups that benefit from already too high taxes! They know the mere mention of smokers raise the ire of anti-smokers. Tobacco Control organizations like the American Cancer Society, ASH, Tobacco Free Kids, etc., have become nothing but Perception Management firms. They are PAID to CREATE "truth". Created truth is controllable. Smoke free advocates try to sell the success of smoke free initiatives, laws, and taxation, but never tell of the amount of money the states lose, nor do they report truthfully of the damage it causes to business owners. There is NO business without an owner! I know many professionals (educated) who will NOT work under smoke-free rules and have quit! So how many of the brightest and best has the professional world lost due to the preference of those less educated? How many business owners have lost everything due to those with their snobby anti-smoker bullying? We need to get rid of these lawmakers who keep giving special interest anything they want.

I hope that the Frankston Council puts the same effort into banning drug dealers, users and no hopers who hang around the streets that they are putting into banning smokers.

So fed up with having smoke blown in my face in the streets. Smokers are inconsiderate of people who are allergic and they chuck their butts and litter everywhere. The rangers are too busy booking parked cars to concern themselves anymore- seems that civic pride and public health are of minor importance while they chase the holy dollar.

last I heard tobacco was legal, we are becoming a Police state with big brother knowing what's best, the government think that they can regulate to rescue everyone, next they should ban cars because of the filthy exhaust fumes, fence off the oceans because someone might get stuck on a sandbar and sue the council (true story) fence off the rivers because someone might dive into a submerged log (true story).

one by one our civil libities are being taken away, Peter is right they cant stop the drug dealers and users but they will stop the law abiding citizens who respect the law regardless of whether they agree with it.

This country is being taken over by loonie lefties.

me, well I abide by the law, own a business. employ 25 people , pay plenty of tax and do the right thing but Ive just about had enough. its all getting too hard.

Smoking bans are financed by big pharma money funneled into health organizations to an end, to control and push their cessation drugs. Besides the various grants the ACS gets from RWJF (As of last on-line financial report, RWJF owned 42,343,491 shares of J&J stock).
The more J&J's stocks increase, the more money and power RWJF has, the more "studies" they fund, the more "advocacies" they create, the more laws they get created to sell more of their products. It keeps going.
They also get tens of millions of dollars in grants from the Federal Government, which they then turn around and use their 501(c)(4) (ASC CAN) to lobby the government for more money, for increased taxes against consumers and for laws which drive the need for more J&J over-the-counter products. They also run their own smoking cessation program. The ACS needs to get back to "finding a cure in our lifetime", instead of the wasting the donations they have. According to their 2008 Consolidated Division 990s, they spent $390,305,361 on salaries, pensions, benefits and payroll taxes while spending a mere $4,406,038 on research. They spent more than 4 TIMES the research amount attending conferences ($18,158,259).

Marbee you have completely mis-stated about a thousand facts.. I'm not going to bother with all of them, it would take too long.. But one that struck me as particularly ridicualous is your statement "special interest groups that benefit from already too high taxes"... cigarette tax revenue is around $7 billion a year, that sounds like a lot.. but considering that tobacco and its related problems costs the australian community about $30 billion every year, I dont think any one is greedily rubbing their hands together about your so called "too high taxes"

Johnny Mac: Can you present proof of the $30 billion? Or is it more propoganda designed to legitimize these taxes? Much like the newly exposed global warming debacle, which is nothing but an excuse for the government to legitimize the extreme taxation it would bring, the second hand smoke issue is nothing more than a way to control a huge segment of the population, perhaps as much as 1/2 of it or more. The newly created obesity 'crisis' that has kids feeling guilt, not love, is nothing more than a way for big pharma's controlled governments to further limit our choices and thus our very freedom!

Marbee is right about who and what is behind the smoking bans. Their plan was many years in the works and slowly they've built up to deceits being believed per their PAID for by GRANT studies to fit THEIR profit agenda. One needs to look at the computer generated numbers when it comes to so called damages and who is behind that too.

FYI: Tobacco is IN the SAME food group as potato, tomato, cauliflower, green pepper, chili’s, egg plant and other foods. They ALL contain nicotine. Are those the next bans?

In the USA, since 1981 there have been 148 reported studies on ETS, involving spouses, children and workplace exposure. 124 of these studies showed no significant causal relationship between second hand smoke and lung cancer. Of the 24 which showed some risk, only two had a Relative Risk Factor over 3.0 and none higher. What does this mean? To put it in perspective, Robert Temple, director of drug evaluation at the Food and Drug Administration said "My basic rule is if the relative risk isn't at least 3 or 4, forget it." The National Cancer Institute states "Relative risks of less than 2 are considered small and are usually difficult to interpret. Such increases may be due to mere chance, statistical bias, or the effect of confounding factors that are sometimes not evident." Dr. Kabat, IAQC epidemiologist states "An association is generally considered weak if the relative risk is under 3.0 and particularly when it is under 2.0, as is the case in the relationship of ETS and lung cancer. Therefore, you can see any concern of second hand smoke causing lung cancer is highly questionable." Note that the Relative Risk (RR) of lung cancer for persons drinking whole milk is 2.14 and all cancers from chlorinated water ranked at 1.25. These are higher risks than the average ETS risk. If we believe second hand smoke to be a danger for lung cancer then we should also never drink milk or chlorinated water.

Marbee is right about who and what is behind the smoking bans. Their plan was many years in the works and slowly they've built up to deceits being believed per their PAID for by GRANT studies to fit THEIR profit agenda. One needs to look at the computer generated numbers when it comes to so called damages and who is behind that too.

FYI: Tobacco is IN the SAME food group as potato, tomato, cauliflower, green pepper, chili’s, egg plant and other foods. They ALL contain nicotine. Are those the next bans?

In the USA, since 1981 there have been 148 reported studies on ETS, involving spouses, children and workplace exposure. 124 of these studies showed no significant causal relationship between second hand smoke and lung cancer. Of the 24 which showed some risk, only two had a Relative Risk Factor over 3.0 and none higher. What does this mean? To put it in perspective, Robert Temple, director of drug evaluation at the Food and Drug Administration said "My basic rule is if the relative risk isn't at least 3 or 4, forget it." The National Cancer Institute states "Relative risks of less than 2 are considered small and are usually difficult to interpret. Such increases may be due to mere chance, statistical bias, or the effect of confounding factors that are sometimes not evident." Dr. Kabat, IAQC epidemiologist states "An association is generally considered weak if the relative risk is under 3.0 and particularly when it is under 2.0, as is the case in the relationship of ETS and lung cancer. Therefore, you can see any concern of second hand smoke causing lung cancer is highly questionable." Note that the Relative Risk (RR) of lung cancer for persons drinking whole milk is 2.14 and all cancers from chlorinated water ranked at 1.25. These are higher risks than the average ETS risk. If we believe second hand smoke to be a danger for lung cancer then we should also never drink milk or chlorinated water.

If people want to smoke, that's their choice. But why should they be allowed to inconvenience those of us who choose NOT to smoke?!

This ban has nothing to do with the arguments about smoking and health issues - it's all about law-making because it is NECESSARY to afford some protection from selfish smokers who stand on the street side forcing passersby to inhale their dangerous second hand smoke.

If all smokers exercised respect for those who chose NOT to smoke then these bylaws wouldn't be necessary. Smokers have only themselves to blame and should shut up and butt out (pun intended)!

Ron: You're correct that it's a personal choice, but why do you think your choices should rule over a property owner's? Do you have any money invested? Do you pay any of their bills? Smokers have now been forced outside, but now that's not good enough either. The laws have unintended consequences.
And quoted from this article: And what we're trying to do is get people talking, young people as well, about the fact that smoking is and can be deadly."
Smoking IS and CAN BE deadly? So which is it?
It IS propoganda! There has NEVER been a death certificate listing smoking as cause of death, it CANNOT be proven. There are too many other factors, like auto exhaust.
It's never been about health, just profit for big pharma with cessation products, their own brand of nicotine, and the public has fallen for it hook, line, and sinker.
We have given up freedom for pharma profits!

It IS a brilliant marketing scam however, using our own emotions against us, and convincing governments they need to protect us from ourselves. When will the sheeple open their eyes and realize it!

Fascinating observation Marbee. Do you still believe that if you sail over the horizon your yacht falls off the edge of the world?? If you believe smoking is harmless, I'm sure you believe the earth is flat.

I did NOT say whether or not smoking itself is harmful or harmless. But that is an individual choice. But harm from walking past a smoker is another thing. You know that surgeon general's report on second hand smoke?
www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/secondhandsmoke/
DEBUNKED!
Health Facts And Fears
ww.acsh.org/factsfears/newsID.800/news_detail.asp
Everything else:
DEBUNKED!
www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv21n4/lies.pdf
AND:
www.google.com/search?q=SECOND+HAND+SMOKE+DEBUNKED&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&client=firefox-a&rlz=1R1GGGL_enUS318

For this we give up freedoms that we've had for hundreds of years!

If the paranoid threat from smoke were real we certainly wouldn't have any firefighters, or meat-smokers, or wood heater manufacturers, or bar-b-que eateries, or .... and the list goes on! How can anyone believe this second hand smoke propoganda with all of the proof that there is to the contrary, just like global warming? Those creating it could convince YOU the world is once again flat. How on earth did people survive to this point when they had to use fire and smoke to live!

Johnny Mac: Smokers pay far more in extra taxes than they extract in health care compared to nonsmokers. Even the New England Journal of Medicine agreed with this long before all the taxes went skyrocketing in the last ten years! Read "Taxes, Social Costs, and the MSA" at:

http://pasan.thetruthisalie.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=7

and check out the more recent and detailed article, "Do Smokers Cost Society Money?" from the Associated Press at:

http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/business/45025207.html?sort=last%20to%20first

for more confirmation.

Most smokers are fairly considerate, but they are being pushed too far into the gutters. One day we may find that they will no longer be at all considerate, but just the opposite, and I will not blame them one bit! I know many professionals (educated) who will NOT work under smoke-free rules and have quit! So how many of the brightest and best has the professional world lost due to the preference of those less educated? How many business owners have lost everything due to those with their snobby anti-smoker bullying? Smokers Welcome, Non-Smokers Welcome, Anti-Smokers Buy Your Own Business, You Are Not Welcome!

Hmm... Contradiction in terms here: "brightest and best has the professionals" and "smokers".... ??

Marbee, I love your passion and i have to agree that these laws are drakonian. No different to the idea that plain brown packaging for cigarettes will actually reduce smoking. The idea that smokers are actually influenced and duped by the pretty packaging on cigarette packs is luidicrous.

Yet those lobby groups continue to influence government policy pushing for point of sale bans, plain packaging and in Victoria even banning smoking in vehicles. The idea that an 18 year old will be fined for smoking in a vehicle with a 17 year old while the 17 year old can legally smoke in the same vehicle is a joke.

Why not get serious and do something that may actually make a difference.
-Why not go all out and just ban smoking for under 18's. That will make a difference to reducing teenage smoking.
-Why not fix the price of tobacco products to discourage discounting and reduce the upsurge of black market products.
-Why not stop major supermarket chains from offering free petrol with tobacco products purchases especially when our laws state that retailers cant even give away a free keyring with tobacco purchases.
-Why not just make the tough decisions and stop pussy footing around with stupid unfounded ideas that are on the agenda of special interest groups and any logicaly thinking person would know are nothing but a half baked attempt to look like your doing something without really trying.
-What fool really thinks that raising taxes on tobacco will reduce smoking? Its no different to the government acting like a drug pusher. Raising the prices when they fully know the addicted will always pay. Its criminal.

As for smoking in the streets, i feel sorry for the retailers in Frankston as they are destined to go in the same way as the humble hotel...a slow death as the people protest quietly the erosion of their civil liberties. I guess the cars will be banned next, better ban trees and plants because the pollen causes hay fever. Why not ban the sun as that causes skin cancer. For heavens sake its a joke really!

Domenic Greco: I agree. Now they talk about banning natural supplements. In days past, farmers would grow herbs and make concoctions to help them after a long sluggish winter. These recipes would get their blood and systems in order to work for spring planting. Why on earth do the people allow these idiot politicians to enact legislation to intrude on common sense! The reason is that big pharma and the government does not profit from nature and will do use propoganda to legitimize their interest.

How about the simple fact that smoke stinks, and most non-smokers can't stand being around it?

Why should you have the right to partake in an activity that directly impacts on the majority of others?

So smoke stinks, so do bar-b-ques, perfumes, de-odorizers, auto exhaust, etc. A room full of smokers won't hurt you, but a car running surely will!
Putting on perfume impacts others, should we ban it?

Scott: To answer your question - Because this is supposed to be a 'Free Country', where people have the right to do what they wish (if legal)! - a word for which I'm beginning to lose respect in some areas just the same...

Insofar as partaking of an activity that directly impacts on the majority of others - what about drinking alcohol to excess and becoming loud, obnoxious, abusive, and even violent; toxic vehicle fumes etc (as Marbee states); and the major concern of young people partaking of illicit psychosis-inducing, instant-death causing drugs, which can make them capable of committing crimes against innocent people, because they are literally 'out of their minds'?

What about people creating and watching violent pornographic videos - but of course this doesn't impact on our society?? much!! What about the new Abortion Bill in Victoria which allows the killing of babies up until birth?? This has a definite negative effect on the babies, as well as their mothers!

Sadly we have become a society so extremely tolerant of what is truly evil and damaging, yet so many are intolerant of mere cigarette smokers?!?

What really stinks is our current society basically!

Back to this (benign by comparison), small-minded, petty, intolerant, paranoid grief of people worried about a waft of cigarette smoke - please let's get real and focus on the real issues of concernl!

Quote:- "This ban has nothing to do with the arguments about smoking and health issues - it's all about law-making because it is NECESSARY to afford some protection from selfish smokers who stand on the street side forcing passersby to inhale their dangerous second hand smoke."

Ron, you may be too young to realise, but the reason people smoke OUTSIDE, is because they have been banned from smoking INSIDE since 1996! (which for two hundred years was ALLOWED). But even casting smokers outside in the cold is not enough to please some people apparently! You want us to give up altogether? What about if WE don't want to? I guess Hitler or Stalin would say "You have no choice!!" Hmmm... But now our government is planning to ban smoking even outside!

Hitler and his ilk banned cigarette smoking in Nazi Germany I think circa 1939. Funny how now in Germany people have not accepted smoking bans!! Hitler also over a period of time insidiously instilled a feeling into the public that Jewish people were akin to vermin. Eventually the people became indoctrinated into believing that, and that's why there was not enough outcry over them being 'exterminated'!!

Google worlds oldest smokers, you'll find ALL the worlds oldest people are or were smokers! The benefits of smoking tobacco have been common knowledge for centuries, and big pharma knows this and would wipe out the competition. From sharpening mental acuity to maintaining optimal weight, the relatively small risks of smoking have always been outweighed by the substantial improvement to mental and physical health. Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, Tourette's Syndrome, even schizophrenia and cocaine addiction are disorders that are alleviated by tobacco. Tobacco shows promise to prevent colon and prostate cancer and the endorsement for smoking tobacco by the medical establishment is good news for smokers and non-smokers alike. The revelation that tobacco is good for you is trumped by the pharmaceutical industry's plan to substitute the natural and relatively inexpensive tobacco plant with their overpriced and ineffective nicotine substitutions with 98% failure rates for quitting for 1 year or more. Big pharma has spent billions demonizing the pleasure of smoking using social engineering and profits from bans that destroys private businesses and pits one population against another. Follow the money! I read an article about a boy that OD'd on Nicorette gum given at school without parental knowledge. So, in a legal drug pushing scheme, pharmaceutical nicotine is pushed on 12 year old kids trumping parental autonomy. If anyone doubted that the anti-smoking, anti-overweight crusade leads back to Johnson & Johnson, open your eyes people!

Because I'm a "blow in", I get no comments - huh?

Paula, it seems you have made some arguments that the anti's just don't want to tackle, they are clueless when it comes to free will.

Marbee, I agree, and I think we've silenced them because we've beaten them with reality!

Loved your words "social engineering" - so apt!

Yes, think you're right there Marbee!

If we can stop one child from smoking by removing smokers out of a public location then I’m for it. If we can give the perception that Frankston want new business and old business in a clean environment we have very little to lose. If smokers have to walk just a little further and maybe take in our incredible view while they contemplate how we all are working together to improved Frankston’s perception in others eyes why not.
Leadership and sacrifice is what our youth need to see and hear and those (hopeless dead beat druggies) believe it or not are our children too and one day will come out of their comers and really need our strength and tolerance.