Who Enforces Smoking Laws? (Victoria)

mroarsome on 06/04/2017 - 10:02
Last edited 06/04/2017 - 10:30 by 1 other user

In August 2017, new smoking laws will be introduced that prevent smoking in outdoor areas of restaurants here in Victoria. I am delighted with this new law, literally counting down the days til I can eat outside without smoke or ash all over my food/coffee.

However, talking with a colleague who smokes, he said the new laws won't stop smokers like him lighting up at restaurants. No one will enforce the laws as smokers are the only ones that sit outside.

He has a valid point, from what I have read there is nothing about who is going to enforce these rules and what the fines will even be (if any at all). Vic Police have bigger problems to resolve than to enforce smoking laws and I doubt restaurant owners are going to turn away paying customers who happen to smoke.

Will the new smoking laws even make a difference come August?

Food & Grocery

Comments

  • k-rokfm on 06/04/2017 - 10:17
    +5

    Going from ACT laws and rules, I would say that it is up to the restaurant/premises to enforce the rules through wait staff and/or security. It would be in their interests to this as if they are caught allowing people to smoke then they could face fines and potential loss of premises licenses.

    I would say unless there is a police officer present/called for an unruly patron then the person smoking would be unlikely to face a fine

  • John Kimble on 06/04/2017 - 10:24
    +5

    To answer your question I am not sure who enforces it. But I've noticed it has made a difference in Sydney; best example in Pitt St Mall. There are still the odd few smokers here and there, but there aren't giant clouds of smoke at every lot of chairs there used to be anymore.

    I don't have the money to go to restaurants much these days, but when I have there has been no one really smoking outside too.

    Winner, winner! Dinner consisting of poultry!

  • chumlee on 06/04/2017 - 10:58
    +16

    It would be great if smokers could comply with the law but considering how many cigarette butts i see on the ground i doubt a lot of smokers have enough courtesy and respect for others to comply

    • John Kimble on 06/04/2017 - 11:00

      Yep, my one of my pet hates.

  • one man clan on 06/04/2017 - 11:05
    +3

    It worked in Sydney, don't see why it would be any different in Melbourne. I think your friend is being naive.

    • KaTst3R on 06/04/2017 - 13:07
      +2

      I dont think smokers really care about the law. I see people lighting up while sitting on seats with "no smoking signs" on Pitt St all the time. So for restaurants, unless the owners take action, I dont think anyone will stop the smokers.

      • one man clan on 06/04/2017 - 14:18

        Owners will take action though - maybe not immediately, but within a short time. They'll give a grace period and then start cracking down. People are way more offended by smokers than smokers are offended by people asking them not to smoke. As a business owner, you'd be turning away more customers if you have people smoking in a non-smoking area than telling smokers not to smoke.

  • Gronk on 06/04/2017 - 11:07

    I am delighted with this new law, literally counting down the days til I can eat outside without smoke or ash all over my food/coffee.

    That doesn't sound exaggerated at all, not even slightly. Are you equally precious about the gases being vented from the rear of the vehicles passing within metres of your chosen dining spot? I'd be more worried about that personally ;)

    My guess is that it won't be actively enforced, not by the police anyway - council officers can issue fines for open containers and that sort of thing so maybe it'd fall to them.

    Edit: Non smoker here btw, I just don't find it as offensive as some.

  • supnigs super skids on 06/04/2017 - 12:02

    Smoking laws.. non smokers enforce it. It's etiquette.. would you be brave enough to let off a loud ripper at a restaurant which everyone notices?

    Same goes for smoking

    • k-rokfm on 06/04/2017 - 12:07
      +4

      No.. But a silent but deadly ill go for any day of the week

      • Adz81 on 06/04/2017 - 13:09

        Oh, shit yes! Crop dust the entire place :D

    • kywst on 06/04/2017 - 13:55
      +2

      would you be brave enough to let off a loud ripper at a restaurant which everyone notices?

      I'm the sort of person that would let one rip in an elevator with only one other person and look them straight in the face and say "Did you say something?". I don't smoke around others though as I don't feel it's fair to them - call it utilitarian.

      • buckster on 06/04/2017 - 14:54
        +1

        lol'd big time

        • kywst on 06/04/2017 - 16:49

          Even one person makes it worthwhile.

  • Adz81 on 06/04/2017 - 13:15
    +2

    In SA it was always up to the venue to enforce it, with the Boys in Blue having the ability to issue fines (to both the venue and smoker) if they did a walk through and found people contravening the laws.

    As far as "I doubt restaurant owners are going to turn away paying customers who happen to smoke", you'd be surprised… The owners know that they're in for a massive pain in the tits if (and when), people lodge a complaint to any authority (and they will).

  • onetwothreefour on 06/04/2017 - 13:29
    +1

    I just wish that Sydney Trains employees would enforce the no smoking rules on platforms.

    • mouseketeer on 07/04/2017 - 09:18

      Bus stops too

    • xoom on 07/04/2017 - 22:37

      Yes not seeing much enforcing of this in front of paramatta train station right at the bus stop. With no smoking signs everywhere.

      Some smokers just dont care.

  • picklewizard on 06/04/2017 - 14:19
    +5

    Typical arrogant selfish smoker response; you can only be happy that people with such disregard for others are doing their best to remove themselves from the gene pool.

    I'm hoping that the public will simply shame them; I always call people out who light up at bus shelters/tram stops. One even responded with "but you're eating an ice cream" which still makes me scratch my head…

    • kywst on 06/04/2017 - 14:35
      -6

      Being militant toward smokers isn't necessary. Maybe try asking nicely rather than kicking off a storm in a teacup. One could argue that you should exhibit the same behavior toward vehicle emissions while you wait at that public transport stop. Do you?

      • John Kimble on 06/04/2017 - 15:07
        +4

        What? And be the weird crazy guy yelling at cars passing by?

      • picklewizard on 06/04/2017 - 15:29
        +1

        What the f—k are you on about?

        Despite the fact that I would 'ask nicely' because I'm a decent person (versus those who are deliberatley disobeying the law), I shouldn't have to ask at all if what they're doing is in contravention of the law. That's kind of like approaching someone in the street breaking into a car with a nice 'scuse me mate, would you mind not doing that?'

        Who said anything about being 'militant'? The person who openly and willingly flouts smoking laws with an attitude of 'who's gunna stop me' is the one being militant.

        How are vehicle emissions relevant here? It's not illegal and far less offensive than smoking.

        • kywst on 06/04/2017 - 15:49
          -2

          What the f—k are you on about?

          The same thing you're on about but without resorting to hyperbole.

          Despite the fact that I would 'ask nicely' because I'm a decent person (versus those who are deliberatley disobeying the law), I shouldn't have to ask at all if what they're doing is in contravention of the law.

          Would you ask nicely? Based on my limited interaction with you I'd be inclined to think otherwise. The law around smoking was established on the grounds of medical concerns and legislation is new and somewhat controversial.

          That's kind of like approaching someone in the street breaking into a car with a nice 'scuse me mate, would you mind not doing that?'

          It's nothing like that at all if you live in the real world. Hyperbole is not a good tool to make a point.

          Who said anything about being 'militant'? The person who openly and willingly flouts smoking laws with an attitude of 'who's gunna stop me' is the one being militant.

          You're clearly emotional and butt hurt. Militant: favouring confrontational or violent methods in support of a political or social cause.

          How are vehicle emissions relevant here? It's not illegal and far less offensive than smoking.

          So you're telling me that your gripe with smokers is that they are breaking the law? Not that their second hand smoke can damage your health? Separate emotion from your response else risk looking like an idiot.

          The relevance is the impact to health and similarities in efficacy.

        • picklewizard on 06/04/2017 - 16:08

          @kywst:

          resorting to hyperbole

          Yeah fair, but at the end of the day, it's a breach of the law; for the sake of argument let's compare it to pubic deification, which I feel is a reasonable comparison (it's illegal, offensive, hazardous to health and smells like shit).

          Would you ask nicely?

          Yes, but try to avoid judging me based on extremely limited information.

          legislation is new and somewhat controversial

          Anti-smoking legislation has never been a topic of great controversy; it's largely welcomed because there's very clear argument for it and literally none against.

          favouring confrontational or violent methods

          So deliberately flouting the law with an attitude of 'who's gunna stop me' isn't confrontational?

          So you're telling me that your gripe with smokers is that they are breaking the law?

          Yes. It's offensive, there's a growing movement against it, and as such, it's been legislated. So what was once just offensive but not illegal is now both offensive and illegal, and I've every right to expect it to not occur, and object when it does.

          Your entire argument is invalid - replace 'bus shelter' with 'inside a restaurant/office/pub'. It's an identical situation - it's still somewhere that was once legal, and is no longer. If someone lit up in a restaurant, be assured I wouldn't be polite. In a bus shelter, I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and approach the situation accordingly.

        • kywst on 06/04/2017 - 16:41

          @picklewizard: My argument is valid and sound. You've somewhat redeemed yourself but you still appeal to emotion; you just aren't being emotional. Furthermore, you've cherry picked your response instead of addressing all points only to say that my entire argument is invalid based on your comparison to smoking in an enclosed space vs. effectively smoking outside in public.

          I'd be willing to continue this as a discussion but I don't feel that's a good use of my time based on your fallacious reasoning.

          Thanks for playing.

  • singlemalt72 on 06/04/2017 - 14:41

    Tell your colleague he is a (profanity).

    • singlemalt72 on 06/04/2017 - 14:44

      But seriously, It's been the law here in NSW for a while and I have not seen a single person lighting up in a banned area - most smokers accept the change and instead you need to hold your breath running the line of smokers outside the pub.

  • tomsco on 06/04/2017 - 14:52

    No one will enforce the laws as smokers are the only ones that sit outside.

    Would that be because non-smokers don't want to be smothered with cigarette smoke? Perhaps if it gets enforced, non smokers might actually be able to eat outdoors as well.

    • weezlebub on 06/04/2017 - 16:47
      +2

      It's probably more to do with the weather … who, other than a smoker, would want to be outside in the Victorian weather??

      • tomsco on 06/04/2017 - 18:46

        Haha, very valid point :p

        Although we have had a few nice days this week.

  • mooboy on 06/04/2017 - 14:57

    The easy solution would be to make the venues enforce it, and give the council the power to fine the venue if they don't. Councils (with money to be made) will be much more likely to enforce it than the police.

    But, this doesn't stop my most hated thing - of getting stuck walking behind someone smoking. Really wish they'd ban smoking in the CBD except for some designated areas.

    • John Kimble on 06/04/2017 - 16:54
      +8

      Fat and/or drunk people don't (usually) have a direct and immediate impact on everyone else's personal space and comfort, plus secondhand smoke is proven to be detrimental to others' health…standing near a fat and/or drunk person (usually) doesn't.

      My uncle is a heavy smoker and his wife died of lung cancer a few years ago…she never smoked once! He still smokes! Can't believe it…

      PS - I Imagine a fat drunk smoker would be a triple threat!

      • weezlebub on 06/04/2017 - 16:58

        sorry for your loss

        drunk people can be prone to violence
        fat people are a drain on public services

        at least smokers are more likely to contribute and work than alcoholics or morbidly obese people :)

        • John Kimble on 06/04/2017 - 16:59

          Hence the "usually" haha

  • DisneyPrincess on 07/04/2017 - 01:48
    +2

    In Queensland. they're call Enviromental Health Officers. The same people who investigate sickness outbreaks in restaurants, check bacteria levels in water (particularly after the floods), ensure pharmacies appropriately dispose of expired or inappropriately stored drugs (eg: breach of cold chain after an extended power outage), etc. They do actually do go out on blitzes and issue fines for breach of smoking laws if enough people complain about a specific location. Individual people can get on the spot fines, and the proprietor can fined for not enforcing it too (I think they get an offical warning too).

    In qld, they're a branch of Queensland Health. I assume it's something similar in other states.

  • Triple J on 07/04/2017 - 09:39

    In our area it's the supermarket staff that smoke out the front of the stores either leaning on the trolleys or sitting on the seats in their break times smoking .Really good look for both Coles & Woolies.

  • tik tok on 07/04/2017 - 09:42

    City councils rangers take care of it in Darwin.

  • aretsa9 on 07/04/2017 - 11:50

    Re: motor vehicle emissions, this article (http://www.epa.vic.gov.au/your-environment/air/vehicle-emiss…) states that motor vehicles are the major source of urban air pollution in Victoria.

  • ozzie freddo on 07/04/2017 - 20:29

    We should feel sorry for smokers, they are not in control, rather their brains are held hostage by the nicotine molecules that have taken up residence and demand more nicotine be consumed.
    It will be good though to not have their addiction affect our outdoor eating experience any more.

  • [Deactivated] on 08/04/2017 - 00:59

    I didn't know about this law. It will be a good thing for me, more outdoor seating for me when I have the dog with me :-) sorry smokers

  • fredblogs on 08/04/2017 - 10:55

    WIsh they'd ban smoking while walking on a crowded footpath, blowing smoke into all the people walking behind.

    • xoom on 10/04/2017 - 18:52

      one of my pet peeve also. i get they want to smoke but other people end up inhaling this also.

  • BuyoTheCat on 08/04/2017 - 15:27

    I wish smokers stop dumping the butts on the ground.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join