No Smoking in NSW National Parks

[Bytemrk]

Well this is going to get interesting.

No smoking in NSW national parks | NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service (http://www.nationalparks.nsw.gov.au/safety/no-smoking-nsw-national-parks)

I can see some of their points... but policing it will be a nightmare I would have thought.

I'm a non smoker, so it won't impact me directly - but I can see some pretty unhappy people over this one.


How long until it spreads out of NSW?


Folks - please don't let comments on this get political.....I don't want to be deleting posts.

[stealth]

Going to be alot of people congregating outside the entrance like they do now at city buildings?

[rovercare]

It means that the non smokers will support it, not realizing that its a loss of personal rights and will be even more upset when the day comes it encroachs on something they wish to do:D

[Slunnie]

I think its a great thing for health and for the environment.

[vnx205]

The article linked in the first post presents a fairly convincing argument about the need for such a measure.

As for smokers' rights, why is their right to smoke a more important right than my right to drive on whichever side of the road takes my fancy? :)

[Mick_Marsh]

It means that the non smokers will support it, not realizing that its a loss of personal rights and will be even more upset when the day comes it encroachs on something they wish to do:D
Point 1 - If a large number of smokers didn't discard their cigarette butts in a thoughtless and irresponsible manner, such measures probable would not need to be taken.
Point 2 - If a smoker has a personal right to smoke a cigarette, surely a non smoker has a personal right not to breathe second hand cigarette smoke.

[rovercare]

Point 1 - If a large number of smokers didn't discard their cigarette butts in a thoughtless and irresponsible manner, such measures probable would not need to be taken.
Point 2 - If a smoker has a personal right to smoke a cigarette, surely a non smoker has a personal right not to breathe second hand cigarette smoke.

I don't disagree, 'tis a 2 edged sword though;)

Wait till the ban something you wish to do personally

[Bernd VonCrashen]

People will still smoke in the parks, though hopefully this will encourage them to be more conscious about putting them out safely and placing them into their rubbish they collect. That in itself will help with reducing fire and rubbish issues hopefully:)

[DiscoMick]

If some smokers didn't litter or chuck butts out their windows this wouldn't be necessary. I support it. Its tough on responsible smokers, but why should the public's desire for a clean and safe national park be endangered just because a minority of smokers are irresponsible?

Sent from my GT-P5210 using AULRO mobile app

[Mick_Marsh]

I don't disagree, 'tis a 2 edged sword though;)

Wait till the ban something you wish to do personally
They already have. Several things.
I just have to put up with it, I'm told.

[Mick_Marsh]

If some smokers didn't litter or chuck butts out their windows this wouldn't be necessary. I support it. Its tough on responsible smokers, but why should the public's desire for a clean and safe national park be endangered just because a minority of smokers are irresponsible?

Sent from my GT-P5210 using AULRO mobile app
There must be a lot more smokers than I thought.

[rovercare]

If some smokers didn't litter or chuck butts out their windows this wouldn't be necessary. I support it. Its tough on responsible smokers, but why should the public's desire for a clean and safe national park be endangered just because a minority of smokers are irresponsible?

Sent from my GT-P5210 using AULRO mobile app

Not sure on the need for us to drive fossil fuelled vehicles for pleasure either, but hey, who knows what's next on the "banned" list:D

[Slunnie]

Not sure on the need for us to drive fossil fuelled vehicles for pleasure either, but hey, who knows what's next on the "banned" list:D
Are you suggesting we will be forced into coal powered fuels of the future instead of oil power. :lol2:

[Mick_Marsh]

Are you suggesting we will be forced into coal powered fuels of the future instead of oil power. :lol2:
Hey, that's a good idea.
My next bush basher
https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2014/11/435.jpg (http://s1074.photobucket.com/user/mick_marsh_AULRO/media/Echuca/2013/DSC_2843.jpg.html)


It's got lots of torque.

[p38arover]

The turning circle won't be that great but it will smooth out the road for you.

[Bernd VonCrashen]

Interesting they don't ban glass bottles! Cigarette butts and glass bottles are two most common items i find, followed by some food wrappers. Glass bottle can also create fires or injuries!

Unfortunately there are some inconsiderate and thoughtless people out there who litter in any form. Sometimes i think people do this on purpose believing someone will pick up after them.

Nothing is as annoying as finding a nice quiet campsite and having to pick up rubbish before you even setup.

It must be too hard to put things in the rubbish, thats why they throw it in the too hard basket, the bush!

[Mick_Marsh]

The turning circle won't be that great but it will smooth out the road for you.
In truth, I don't think I'd be too concerned about the turning circle or lack thereof.

[gaz]

Being a non smoker myself but regular travel with friends that do smoke and have chipped them on more than one occasion for the way they discard their bumpers!! maybe National Sparks and Wildfires have good reason.

[Lotz-A-Landies]

NSW Ministry of Health facilities have been smoke free zones for the last decade. The angst it created with smokers made it neigh on impossible to enforce, the staff who were required to enforce the ban were constantly getting abused for doing their job as required by the MoH.

In the last few months dedicated outdoor smoking areas have been re-instated.

Now NP&WS may have bush fire prevention and reduction of toxic waste in the park rather than the health of the park visitors as their aim, but I fear they will get the same resistance. The only difference is that park rangers probably wont hesitate to issue the fines.

[Tote]

Expensive, too many rules, most areas fenced off, does anyone go into NSW national parks anyway?:wasntme:

Regards,
Tote

[billy bob]

Be interesting next ski season.
All the resorts are in National Parks

[worane]

I may Be hopelessly wrong , but I thought National Parks belonged to ALL Australians. I do not smoke any more but I cant see any thing wrong with people who are stupid enough to still do it (Except for their litter and the fire risks. I guess that is where all this stems from

[303gunner]

Sure they do, but so too do Hospitals, Schools, Police Stations, Prisons, Railway Stations and trains, Bus Stops and Buses, and Taxi Ranks, and you can't smoke there either (well, prisons from next year).

[vnx205]

I may Be hopelessly wrong , but I thought National Parks belonged to ALL Australians.

That is probably right, but that does not mean that all Australian can enter and do as they please.

They are not allowed to cut down trees, damage signs, or drive in closed off areas.

Any smokers who claim that smoking doesn't affect others or the environment has obviously not read the article linked in the first post.

For example:
Cigarette butts contain hazardous chemicals such as nicotine, cadmium, arsenic and lead that are partially filtered out during smoking. When a butt is discarded, these chemicals leach into the environment, contaminating our waterways and land.
Cigarette butts contain over 4,000 chemicals, including 43 known carcinogens such as ammonia, nitrogen dioxide, formaldehyde, hydrogen cyanide and arsenic.
Cigarette butts are made from cellulose acetate, a form of plastic. They aren't made from cotton wool or paper.
Cigarette butts can also be ingested by our wildlife, wash into waterways, and spoil the beauty of our natural places.

[Bigbjorn]

NSW Ministry of Health facilities have been smoke free zones for the last decade. The angst it created with smokers made it neigh on impossible to enforce, the staff who were required to enforce the ban were constantly getting abused for doing their job as required by the MoH.

In the last few months dedicated outdoor smoking areas have been re-instated.

Now NP&WS may have bush fire prevention and reduction of toxic waste in the park rather than the health of the park visitors as their aim, but I fear they will get the same resistance. The only difference is that park rangers probably wont hesitate to issue the fines.

At our local Junior Rugby League Club we found hoses and buckets of water quite effective when used outdoors around the spectator areas. "Oh, sorry. We thought you were on fire." A solution for recalcitrant smokers in the indoors bar was to have a very large footballer take the cigarette from the offender and extinguish it in their drink.

After half a season everyone from a visiting club knew not to smoke there.

[Bytemrk]

At our local Junior Rugby League Club we found hoses and buckets of water quite effective when used outdoors around the spectator areas. "Oh, sorry. We thought you were on fire." A solution for recalcitrant smokers in the indoors bar was to have a very large footballer take the cigarette from the offender and extinguish it in their drink.

After half a season everyone from a visiting club knew not to smoke there.


Not overly subtle....but I can see it being effective. ;)

[Eevo]

Expensive, too many rules, most areas fenced off, does anyone go into NSW national parks anyway?:wasntme:


ha, i was just thinking the same about SA.
but i guess these rules are there for a reason. people keep destroying the park.

[boa]

Well done for teaching your club and the young that assault, is the best way, to solve a problem. We'll done in improving the skill of bullish way's. You should be very pleased with you're self. But I feel sorry for the message you sent to the young.

[PhilipA]

We will probably be wondering what all those people are doing with their heads in camp fires . LOL
Just roasting marshmallows officer.
Regards Philip A

[JDNSW]

While I can support the intent behind banning smoking in national parks, I have a problem with yet another unenforceable law. I regularly drive through the national park adjoining my place, and I probably average seeing a ranger once or twice a year. The nearest parks office is over 100km away. On the other hand, I see other people in the park perhaps even less frequently.

John

[DiscoMick]

There must be a lot more smokers than I thought.

I meant that most smokers are responsible, but a minority are irresponsible. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

[Mick_Marsh]

I meant that most smokers are responsible, but a minority are irresponsible. Sorry if that wasn't clear.
That was quite clear. I was pointing out there were an awful lot of people smoking and acting irresponsible so there must be an extremely large number of the population that must smoke.
I don't know whether you notice the cigarette butts littering the ground but there are quite a lot of them. Especially around car parks where smokers empty their vehicles ash tray on the ground before driving off.

[Nat111]

That was quite clear. I was pointing out there were an awful lot of people smoking and acting irresponsible so there must be an extremely large number of the population that must smoke.
I don't know whether you notice the cigarette butts littering the ground but there are quite a lot of them. Especially around car parks where smokers empty their vehicles ash tray on the ground before driving off.
Well I wont hold back. The majority of smokers are irresponsible. Never have I seen one put out a cigarette and walk to a bin that was more than 3 steps away from them, they'll just step it into the ground. Their car ashtrays are used for coins, and I believe they are the major reason for bushfires. I work on the roads, and can be 200km from the nearest town, but can still find a large amount of cigarette butts in the near vicinity. Have you ever come across a smoker that carries a portable ashtray with them so they don't have to litter? Me either. You can only imagine what kind of squaller some of them actually live in. Not one ounce of support for them from me!

[p38arover]

Have you ever come across a smoker that carries a portable ashtray with them so they don't have to litter? Me either.

Oddly enough, yes. My son used to carry one when he was out and about on his bike. Maybe we beat anti-littering into him. :D

[gusthedog]

I used to carry a butt bin with me when I smoked too. But then I realised smoking made you smell like arse and deterred most members of the opposite sex. :D Gave up quick smart after that ;)

[Lotz-A-Landies]

That was quite clear. I was pointing out there were an awful lot of people smoking and acting irresponsible so there must be an extremely large number of the population that must smoke.
I don't know whether you notice the cigarette butts littering the ground but there are quite a lot of them. Especially around car parks where smokers empty their vehicles ash tray on the ground before driving off.The currently published rates for smoking in Australia are: 20.4% for males and 16.3% for females (http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/~/4125.0main+features3320Jan%202013 (http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/4125.0main+features3320Jan%202013) )

I agree with Mick, if the majority of smokers are responsible, then the small minority who are irresponsible must have a huge chain smoking habit.

Actually I think a lot more smokers are responsible than DiscoMick admits: Responsible for cigarette butt litter
Responsible for toxins entering the environment.
Responsible for a significant proportion of human causes of bushfires
Responsible for a significant number of house fires

[Eevo]

Well I wont hold back. The majority of smokers are irresponsible.

its simple.
their satisfaction over everything else.

[Discomark]

Sounds good in theory but only a very few will take notice and how will they enforce it.
Smoking is banned on the train platforms in Sydney and they make regular announcements warning of fines with signs everywhere etc but there are still half a dozen people smoking at the end of the platform where I catch the train every day. Never seen any of the Station staff or Transit cops approach them so can't see how a NPWS ranger is going to enforce a no smoking policy in a National park.

[Mick_Marsh]

Sounds good in theory but only a very few will take notice and how will they enforce it.
Smoking is banned on the train platforms in Sydney and they make regular announcements warning of fines with signs everywhere etc but there are still half a dozen people smoking at the end of the platform where I catch the train every day. Never seen any of the Station staff or Transit cops approach them so can't see how a NPWS ranger is going to enforce a no smoking policy in a National park.
Take down their particulars and issue the fine.
They may find themselves inconveniently walking when the Sherifs stop them for a chat.

[303gunner]

Sounds good in theory but only a very few will take notice and how will they enforce it.
Smoking is banned on the train platforms in Sydney and they make regular announcements warning of fines with signs everywhere etc but there are still half a dozen people smoking at the end of the platform where I catch the train every day. Never seen any of the Station staff or Transit cops approach them so can't see how a NPWS ranger is going to enforce a no smoking policy in a National park.
Why would station staff or transit cops approach anyone smoking? They have no legal authority to ask anyone to put out their cigarette, and in fact doing so could place them at risk of abuse or assault and is an OH&S risk. They are directed specifically NOT TO.


The only people who can ask someone to stop smoking in a public place are Police Officers or NSW Health Inspectors (http://www.health.nsw.gov.au/news/Pages/20140811_00.aspx), as the legislation is a health initiative, not a public transport initiative.


As NPWS Rangers will be authorised to issue fines within national parks (as they already are now, for other offences), so they will no doubt be approaching people and handing out fines.

[justinc]

The currently published rates for smoking in Australia are: 20.4% for males and 16.3% for females (http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/~/4125.0main+features3320Jan%202013 (http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/4125.0main+features3320Jan%202013) )

I agree with Mick, if the majority of smokers are responsible, then the small minority who are irresponsible must have a huge chain smoking habit.

Actually I think a lot more smokers are responsible than DiscoMick admits: Responsible for cigarette butt litter
Responsible for toxins entering the environment.
Responsible for a significant proportion of human causes of bushfires
Responsible for a significant number of house fires
...And responsible for the high costs of the public health system...:mad::mad:


jc

[rovercare]

...And responsible for the high costs of the public health system...:mad::mad:


jc

Actually, smokers input more into the tax system than the theoritical cost from what I am lead to believe, also smoking related illness is very much like speed related accidents, the box gets ticked a lot more often than it should

[rovercare]

Take down their particulars and issue the fine.
They may find themselves inconveniently walking when the Sherifs stop them for a chat.


Haha, sheriffs don't chase piddly fines, the sheriffs office is a business you know;)

[Discomark]

Why would station staff or transit cops approach anyone smoking?
Fair comment on Station staff but Transit cops (Transport officers) have the authority to issue fines for smoking at stations and its thier job to enforce the rules.
Fines - Sydney Trains (http://www.sydneytrains.info/travelling_with/conditions_of_travel/fines)

[Lotz-A-Landies]

Actually, smokers input more into the tax system than the theoritical cost from what I am lead to believe, also smoking related illness is very much like speed related accidents, the box gets ticked a lot more often than it shouldSignificantly Not true

"Tobacco smoking is the leading cause of preventable illness and death in Australia, accounting for eight% of the total burden of disease in 2003. Total smoking-related costs to society—including those for healthcare and lost productivity, and intangible social costs—were estimated at $31.5 billion in 2004–05." http://www.aihw.gov.au/~ (http://www.aihw.gov.au/publication-detail/?id=10737420497&tab=2)

versus Tax revenue

"It shows the government collected $5.45 billion in tobacco excise in 2011/12, down from the $5.79 billion Treasury estimated in the May budget." ~news/national/tobacco-tax-revenue-falls-by-341m/~ (http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/national/tobacco-tax-revenue-falls-by-341m/story-fndo48ca-1226480197863?nk=0e575a458033cf29348e151cb504f3eb)

[rovercare]

Significantly Not true

"Tobacco smoking is the leading cause of preventable illness and death in Australia, accounting for eight% of the total burden of disease in 2003. Total smoking-related costs to society—including those for healthcare and lost productivity, and intangible social costs—were estimated at $31.5 billion in 2004–05." http://www.aihw.gov.au/~ (http://www.aihw.gov.au/publication-detail/?id=10737420497&tab=2)



Skewed figures much? which percentage is health alone?

The net cost of smoking to the health system is therefore $318.4 million, a figure that hardly makes a dent on the $8.85bn the government was expecting to collect from smokers this year, even without the additional revenue from the proposed excise increase.

By far the largest and most speculative component is $19bn in "intangible costs", the hypothetical cost of pain and suffering and the "valuation of life" -- an estimate of the loss of productive capacity from a premature death.

Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/columnists/a-numbers-game-of-blowing-smoke/story-fnhulhjj-1226689781351)

Plenty more info out there

You just stick with adding 19bil made up money to the bill to justify those claims for social acceptance:)

[rovercare]

17.2 The costs of smoking - Tobacco In Australia (http://www.tobaccoinaustralia.org.au/17-2-the-costs-of-smoking)

Read the whole thing, the "costs" are made up social costs, what about those whom will replace one bad habit with another, not many studies on the costs of food addiction, obesity, what about a porn addiction? that's right, we just happily add speculation to something that has been made socially unacceptable.......sheeple, happily on the bandwagon will it affects something closer to our own heart, again, fossil fuelled powered vehicles anyone?

See how you feel when they start banning cars older than 10 years or atleast taxing them of the road, these things cause plenty of harm aswell, but you know, its not soically unacceptable like smoking.......yet;)

[rovercare]

His secretary Sir Humphrey says banning smoking would leave the government out of pocket, since cigarette taxes paid a third of the cost of the National Health Service. "We are saving many more lives than we otherwise could because of those smokers who voluntarily lay down their lives for their friends," Sir Humphrey said. "Smokers are national benefactors."

:D

[303gunner]

Fair comment on Station staff but Transit cops (Transport officers) have the authority to issue fines for smoking at stations.
Fines - Sydney Trains (http://www.sydneytrains.info/travelling_with/conditions_of_travel/fines)
Transit Officers are only empowered to issue on the spot fines for offences covered in the Passenger Transport Regulation 2007 and the Rail Safety (Offences) Regulation 2008. This does include smoking on trains, and under covered areas of platforms and underground stations. Go to an open area of the station, or to the entrance and they cannot issue a fine. They may say something, and many people will believe that, but they do not have the power to enforce smoking in those areas. Others have long been aware of the limits of the rail regulations, and open areas of platforms have become the "smoker's zones".


NSW Health is responsible for the Smoke-free Environment Act 2000 (http://www.health.nsw.gov.au/tobacco/Pages/smokefree-legislation.aspx). This was amended in 2013 to greatly expand the application to a much wider area of Public Places, including many areas of and approaches to railway stations that are not covered by rail legislation. As it also applies to dining areas and children's play areas, it can also apply within National Parks too, particularly urban ones such as Sydney Harbour, Lane Cove and The Royal.


Enforcement of the Smoke free Environment act got off to a slow start, as from 2000 to 2013, it was only enforced by 30 Dept of Health Inspectors. From 3 Jan 2014, an amendment included NSW Police as able to issue fines, but only for transport related areas (train, bus, ferry and taxi).

[Lotz-A-Landies]

17.2 The costs of smoking - Tobacco In Australia (http://www.tobaccoinaustralia.org.au/17-2-the-costs-of-smoking)

Read the whole thing, the "costs" are made up social costs, what about those whom will replace one bad habit with another, not many studies on the costs of food addiction, obesity, what about a porn addiction? that's right, we just happily add speculation to something that has been made socially unacceptable.......You can't consider the balance sheet on smoking without the social costs, the fact that smokers almost always end up with some form of lung disease cant be discounted.

Lung diseases increase the numbers of days the worker takes off, that lost production is a loss of tax revenue, when the lung diseased person is no longer able to work they go on welfare an expense on tax revenue. That other persons have to stop work to care for a person disabled by smoking related lung disease is a loss of production and tax revenue, they go on a disability support pension another expense on tax revenue. If the person didn't smoke in the first place they wouldn't have the smoking related lung disease and both they and their partner would not be a burden on tax revenue.

The rest of your argument is irrelevant and nothing to do with the smoking and National Parks discussion.

[rovercare]

You can't consider the balance sheet on smoking without the social costs, the fact that smokers almost always end up with some form of lung disease cant be discounted.

Lung diseases increase the numbers of days the worker takes off, that lost production is a loss of tax revenue, when the lung diseased person is no longer able to work they go on welfare an expense on tax revenue. That other persons have to stop work to care for a person disabled by smoking related lung disease is a loss of production and tax revenue, they go on a disability support pension another expense on tax revenue. If the person didn't smoke in the first place they wouldn't have the smoking related lung disease and both they and their partner would not be a burden on tax revenue.

The rest of your argument is irrelevant and nothing to do with the smoking and National Parks discussion.

You can sway the figures with whatever propaganda you wish, I was replying simply to the costs on the health system....your now adding bits to suit your argument;)......simple question, what is the direct cost from smoking on the health system? another simple one, what is the excise raised by smokers?...


The rest of my waffle is completely relevant, but its only applicable if you look at the bigger picture, when rules and bans are imposed, its another freedom lost, you may not choose to partake in that freedom, but its a step closer to having an effect on one in which you do

[Lotz-A-Landies]

You can sway the figures with whatever propaganda you wish, I was replying simply to the costs on the health system....your now adding bits to suit your argument;)......No you didn't you talked about theoretical cost. I responded with theoretical cost. (see below)

You didn't mention healthcare!

Actually, smokers input more into the tax system than the theoritical cost from what I am lead to believe, also smoking related illness is very much like speed related accidents, the box gets ticked a lot more often than it should

[rovercare]

No you didn't you talked about theoretical cost. I responded with theoretical cost. (see below)

You didn't mention healthcare!

Insert demeaning comment here about referencing all material..



...And responsible for the high costs of the public health system...:mad::mad:


jc


Actually, smokers input more into the tax system than the theoritical cost from what I am lead to believe, also smoking related illness is very much like speed related accidents, the box gets ticked a lot more often than it should

Add enlarged red text for effect:)

[JamesB71]

Well done for teaching your club and the young that assault, is the best way, to solve a problem. We'll done in improving the skill of bullish way's. You should be very pleased with you're self. But I feel sorry for the message you sent to the young.

Its a rugby league club. Enough said.

[Lotz-A-Landies]

No you didn't you talked about theoretical cost. I responded with theoretical cost. (see below)

You didn't mention healthcare!

<delete comment>


...And responsible for the high costs of the public health system...:mad::mad:

jc
Add enlarged red text for effect:)Hmm

So now you're Justin Cooper.

What does Justin think about that?

[rovercare]

Hmm

So now you're Justin Cooper.

What does Justin think about that?

You really don't get it, clutching at straws:D

If you look back you will see JC's post in which I quoted was what I replied to, until you took it upon yourself to reply to mine, not including the original reference, being JC's comment in regards to cost on the public health system

I thought it was simple:)

EDIT: and in regards to being the legendary JC, unless he has shot up a bit since I last seen Mr Cooper, I may have to loose a few inches in height, albeit I've got the beard

[Discomark]

Go to an open area of the station, or to the entrance and they cannot issue a fine.
Are you sure about that?
From Monday 7 January 2013, an amendment to the law will extend smoking bans to all public transport bus stops and stations in NSW.
Smoking is already prohibited on trains and covered stations and this ban will now be extended to include all platforms and interchanges, regardless of whether they are covered or not.
Updated station announcements and additional smoke-free signage will be rolled out to all stations early next year.
The amendment to the Smoke-free Environment Act 2000 also bans smoking at a number of other outdoor areas including near children's playground equipment, spectator areas at public sports grounds and public swimming pools.
No smoking at public transport stops and stations - CityRail (http://www.sydneytrains.info/news/2012/121221-smoking)

[Lotz-A-Landies]

....EDIT: and in regards to being the legendary JC, unless he has shot up a bit since I last seen Mr Cooper, I may have to loose a few inches in height, albeit I've got the beardI really don't want to debate the pedabntry of all this. I responded exactly to your post. Not to Justin's post just to your post.

I didn't indicate that Justin was anything other than not being you.

Land Rover owner and a beard - you must drive a Defender ! :D :D

[rovercare]

I really don't want to debate the pedabntry of all this. I responded exactly to your post. Not to Justin's post just to your post.

I didn't indicate that Justin was anything other than not being you.

Land Rover owner and a beard - you must drive a Defender ! :D :D

My post was in response to Justin's post....that's why I had quoted it, you should of read the lot for continuity, as opposed to take it out of context then tell me I'm wrong, without my post being in the correct context you could misconstrue it how you wish.....I don't do pedant, I do fact

You took it upon yourself to add content and then tell me what I wasn't referencing.....which quite clearly I had

Simple I thought:p

[AndyG]

Its a rugby league club. Enough said.

Well on the path of being thugs, prostitutes or politicians, or combination thereof :wasntme:

[rovercare]

Well on the path of being thugs, prostitutes or politicians, or combination thereof :wasntme:

Not real sure how successful business would be for a rugby player as a prostitute:confused::D

[Lotz-A-Landies]

Not real sure how successful business would be for a rugby player as a prostitute:confused::DYou'd be surprised what is sold in the sex industry! :o

But you're correct, it would be a very small specialised market.

[AndyG]

My bad, i always assumed Rugby League Clubs would have both Genders ,and possibly a third. (Refer latest Jokes thread)
Surely even Rugby League players have mothers :o

[Chenz]

Maybe NPWS should take this approach to smokers

BEN: Oh, you'll probably get away with crucifixion.

BRIAN: Crucifixion?!

BEN: Yeah, first offense.

BRIAN: Get away with crucifixion?! It's--

BEN: Best thing the Romans ever did for us.

BRIAN: What?!

BEN: Oh, yeah. If we didn't have crucifixion, this country would be in a right bloody mess.

BRIAN: Guards!

BEN: Nail him up, I say!

BRIAN: Guards!

BEN: Nail some sense into him!

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2014/11/360.jpg (https://imageshack.com/i/ipQ70WELj)

[AndyG]

He's a very naughty boy :D

on reflection burn them at the stake, strangely appropriate

[Discofever]

The article linked in the first post presents a fairly convincing argument about the need for such a measure.

As for smokers' rights, why is their right to smoke a more important right than my right to drive on whichever side of the road takes my fancy? :)

Because driving on the wrong side of the road is against the law while smoking, at least at this stage, is not.

[woody]

Not real sure how successful business would be for a rugby player as a prostitute:confused::D

insert "hooker" joke/pun here. :angel:

[rovercare]

insert "hooker" joke/pun here. :angel:

I'm guessing its rugby reference, which I know nothing about.....

....so how about a joke along similar lines:D



I see one of the most gorgeous women I've ever seen walking down the street, so I build up some courage and approach her. I ask her if she would have sex with me for $10,000.

She thinks about and says she would.

Now, my attraction is marginally outweighed by my love of money a bit, so as a tight ass I decide to haggle

I then ask her if she would have sex with me for $100.

Disgusted, she declares, “What kind of woman do you think I am?”



I replied, “we have already established that, now I’m just negotiating price.”

[vnx205]

Because driving on the wrong side of the road is against the law while smoking, at least at this stage, is not.

That doesn't alter the fact that I don't have the right to choose which side of the road I drive on.

[303gunner]

Are you sure about that?
From Monday 7 January 2013, an amendment to the law (That is, the Smoke-free Environment Act 2000) will extend smoking bans to all public transport bus stops and stations in NSW.
Smoking is already prohibited on trains and covered stations and this ban will now be extended to include all platforms and interchanges, regardless of whether they are covered or not.
Updated station announcements and additional smoke-free signage will be rolled out to all stations early next year.
The amendment to the Smoke-free Environment Act 2000 also bans smoking at a number of other outdoor areas including near children's playground equipment, spectator areas at public sports grounds and public swimming pools.
No smoking at public transport stops and stations - CityRail (http://www.sydneytrains.info/news/2012/121221-smoking)
Absolutely. The powers of Transit Police were not changed, neither were the Rail-related pieces of legislation. They can still only issue fines for offences under those acts.


The Smoke-free Environment Act 2000 was what was amended, to both extend the coverage of public areas, and to add the authority of Police to issue fines. Read the act here: Smoke-free Environment Act 2000 (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/sea2000247/). Sect 14 and 14a lists who can enforce the act. Sect 14a was only added in Jan 2014.


This article (http://www.criminallaw.com.au/blog/criminal/general/what-powers-do-the-new-nsw-transit-officers-have/29369) describes the limited powers that Transit Officers have.


This does not mean that there are not fines for smoking on railway stations, only that Transit Officers are limited in where they can enforce them. Police can, and do, issue fines for smoking anywhere on Public Transport related infrastructure.

[boa]

It's amazing how we all love to be the band leader. How we love to push our own barrel. There are lot's of things that are not good for us or the environment. Let's do a study on the environmental impacts on us going to these national parks. We burn fuel we possibly cross a river washing oil and brake dust into that river. We cook and then throw away our gas canisters. Agree not all of us but some do do we vilify them. We all do, thing's that is not necessarily good for the environment or other people. But we love to use studies to prove our case. Maybe the best thing is to open our minds.

[Discomark]

Absolutely. The powers of Transit Police were not changed, neither were the Rail-related pieces of legislation. They can still only issue fines for offences under those acts.


The Smoke-free Environment Act 2000 was what was amended, to both extend the coverage of public areas, and to add the authority of Police to issue fines. Read the act here: Smoke-free Environment Act 2000 (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/sea2000247/). Sect 14 and 14a lists who can enforce the act. Sect 14a was only added in Jan 2014.


This article (http://www.criminallaw.com.au/blog/criminal/general/what-powers-do-the-new-nsw-transit-officers-have/29369) describes the limited powers that Transit Officers have.


This does not mean that there are not fines for smoking on railway stations, only that Transit Officers are limited in where they can enforce them. Police can, and do, issue fines for smoking anywhere on Public Transport related infrastructure.
Ok... so Transit officers could only impose fines under the Rail Safety Act 2008 but this is no longer.

Smoking generally prohibited
(1) A person must not smoke on any train or in any public area that is roofed or otherwise covered.

Maximum penalty: 10 penalty units.

Seems they have mostly been replaced by Police officers now so hopefully they will start to impose fines on those breaking the rules!

[vnx205]

With most things, like driving a 4Wd, there is a trade off. 4WDs may create some problems, but on balance the benefits outweigh them and only a tiny minority of people think the world would be a better place if they had never been invented.

However with smoking, there is no benefit to balance the harm they do. There is no doubt that the world would be a better place if cigarettes had never been invented. There are even an enormous number of smokers who would agree, mostly those who are either suffering the effects of smoking or those who are desperately trying to kick the habit.

[Lotz-A-Landies]

Absolutely. The powers of Transit Police were not changed, neither were the Rail-related pieces of legislation. They can still only issue fines for offences under those acts.


The Smoke-free Environment Act 2000 was what was amended, to both extend the coverage of public areas, and to add the authority of Police to issue fines. Read the act here: Smoke-free Environment Act 2000 (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/sea2000247/). Sect 14 and 14a lists who can enforce the act. Sect 14a was only added in Jan 2014.


This article (http://www.criminallaw.com.au/blog/criminal/general/what-powers-do-the-new-nsw-transit-officers-have/29369) describes the limited powers that Transit Officers have.


This does not mean that there are not fines for smoking on railway stations, only that Transit Officers are limited in where they can enforce them. Police can, and do, issue fines for smoking anywhere on Public Transport related infrastructure.To tangent a little more, isn't this the second time that have replaced Transit Police?

I seem to remember that the old Transit Police (or State Rail Police) were transferred to the NSW Police back in the 1980's. NSW Police then redeployed the specialised and experienced State Rail Police to general non-rail policing duties leaving a free for all and security risks on the railways. To combat the increasing assaults, theft and other crime, State rail introduced the security officers. At the same time the old State Rail Police, now NSW Police officers didn't like general policing so left the Police Force.

Its all a big dysmal spiral. I wonder how long it will be this time?

[boa]

Why are we so vigorous in stopping a few smoking people who smoke are the end of a station. Are but it is the law. There are far more other things we should be concerned about breaking the law. Or do we feel better because we have stopped someone doing something. Our little win in society?.

[rovercare]

With most things, like driving a 4Wd, there is a trade off. 4WDs may create some problems, but on balance the benefits outweigh them and only a tiny minority of people think the world would be a better place of they had never been invented.

However with smoking, there is no benefit to balance the harm they do. There is no doubt that the world would be a better place if cigarettes had never been invented. There are even an enormous number of smokers who would agree, mostly those who are either suffering the effects of smoking or those who are desperately trying to kick the habit.

You understand that when a cure for cancer is found, the world is going to be a far worse place right?....so no, I doubt that it would make it a better place, there needs to be population curbing.....yes it would make it better for people personal/family lifes immensely, but again, put it in the bigger picture

Its all good to live in your own little bubble, but the reality is, overpopulation will see living standard drop dramatically

[Discomark]

Why are we so vigorous in stopping a few smoking people who smoke are the end of a station. Are but it is the law. There are far more other things we should be concerned about breaking the law. Or do we feel better because we have stopped someone doing something. Our little win in society?.
They may be at the end of the platform but the smoke blows down the platform and I just don't appreciate having to breathe the crap in thats all. On two other occasions in last couple of months I have had to put up with passengers smoking in the toilet and then stinking the carriage out when they are done. Bloody selfish i'd say :(

[Eevo]

You understand that when a cure for cancer is found, the world is going to be a far worse place right?....

i never had considered this before.
scary.

[Eevo]

Bloody selfish i'd say :(

i agree and they couldnt care less.

[Lotz-A-Landies]

They may be at the end of the platform but the smoke blows down the platform and I just don't appreciate having to breathe the crap in thats all. :( I guess you wouldn't have enjoyed the steam era then?

The locos smoked all the way down the platform and the neighbouring suburb.

[boa]

Simple solution move away from your problem how selfish is it for you to dictate your option on other's. But I more important?

[Discomark]

Simple solution move away from your problem how selfish is it for you to dictate your option on other's. But I more important?
Why is it my problem? and i'm not dictating MY option on others either. They happen to be the rules that others are choosing to ignore.

[350RRC]

I'm guessing its rugby reference, which I know nothing about.....

....so how about a joke along similar lines:D



I see one of the most gorgeous women I've ever seen walking down the street, so I build up some courage and approach her. I ask her if she would have sex with me for $10,000.

She thinks about and says she would.

Now, my attraction is marginally outweighed by my love of money a bit, so as a tight ass I decide to haggle

I then ask her if she would have sex with me for $100.

Disgusted, she declares, “What kind of woman do you think I am?”



I replied, “we have already established that, now I’m just negotiating price.”

I would have just done it @ the original price and asked 'where's my 10K ?'

cheers, DL

[303gunner]

He didn't specify the currency was in AU$. It could have been Burkina Faso dollars, which conveniently come in a $10,000 coin. :o :angry: