• Full Story

Smoking ban sought for much of Auckland

Print

Thu, 19 Jan 2012 8:38a.m.

A ban is being sought on smoking in all public outdoor spaces

A ban is being sought on smoking in all public outdoor spaces

Aucklanders could be banned from smoking in parks, outside galleries and libraries and at council-organised events if health groups get their way.

The Auckland Regional Public Health Service is leading the charge on a new giant smoking ban in all public outdoor areas across the city which is designed to stop children getting addicted.

The proposal, backed by the Auckland, Counties-Manukau and Waitemata district health boards, urges Auckland Council to take the bold step, and expresses disappointment the city's new draft plan doesn't address the issue, The New Zealand Herald reports.

"We are disappointed that the council's commitment to having smoke-free public spaces is lacking in the Draft Plan, and believe a smoke-free policy that covers the entire Auckland Council region should be implemented to ban outdoor smoking in order to protect children from second-hand smoke .. and ultimately to prevent uptake of smoking among young people," Andy Roche and Dr Lavinia Perumal from the health service write in their proposal.

The plan is in line with a request from the Cancer Society to restrict smoking in all council parks, open spaces, sports fields and playgrounds, as well as in malls and pedestrian areas.

Efforts last year to introduce smoking bans in front of buildings as well as near bus stops, ferry wharves and train stations all failed, and all decisions on bans were deferred to the city's 21 local boards.

Just over half have adopted SmokeFree Auckland policies, which initially ban smoking in playgrounds and parks, and board support for smokefree bus and train stations is high.

Public support is also growing to make sport and entertainment venues like Mt Smart Stadium smokefree, the Cancer Society said.

NZN

Become a fan of 3 News on Facebook and on Twitter.

Post a Comment

Before commenting, please take the time to read our moderation guide


(Won't be published)



Comments

20 Jan 2012 08:21a.m.

Alex wrote:

Smoking is a choice. People become addicted but then it's still a choice whether to abstain or give in to temptation. I'm not a smoker myself but I still support peoples right to choose and it's no bodies business to tell them they shouldn't unless it's a significant health risk to people around them. Giving smokers designated areas to smoke within giant outdoor areas or entire premises with smoking bans is needed for a compromise.

20 Jan 2012 03:14a.m.

Davo wrote:

@Hugo - and people become addicted having full knowledge of the addictive properties of nicotine. If you take up smoking, become addicted and complain you were unaware of the addictive properties of cigarettes, then either you are an idiot of the highest order or you have been living under a rock for your entire life. The profits of tobacco companies are frankly justified when people make foolish decisions in life on account of their inability to think.

19 Jan 2012 11:45p.m.

katrina wrote:

@David it is our business whether people choose to smoke. On a nice summer evening it would be nice to be able to sit outside and enjoy an nice evening at a cafe, restaurant or bar but unfortunately you are subject to every smoker blowing smoke across you. I have a right to breathe freshish air. Today I walked around the corner of a building and unexpectantly inhale a mouthful of cigarette smoke from someone sitting outside a shop, gross! If you choose to smoke that is your choice but unfortunately smoking effects everyone else around you.

19 Jan 2012 09:16p.m.

Hugo wrote:

Smoking stops being a choice when people are addicted. The drugs in cigarettes simply take that choice away, and there is only one winner,the big fat tobacco company, raking it in while people are dying.

Let's create supportive places for people to quit and make it smokefree for our kids..

19 Jan 2012 07:57p.m.

David wrote:

@Luke - no they shouldn't, it is scarcely any of your business whether people choose to smoke or not. Smoking begins with choosing to smoke a cigarette, so your own argument is fatuous and thus holds no water either, just like your self evident belief in the nanny state.

19 Jan 2012 02:39p.m.

nigel wrote:

I dispute the notion that children are exposed to second hand tobacco smoke of any concern. But they and the rest of us are exposed to diesel fumes and they are a very significant concern. How often have you had to put the car window up in order to avoid a lungful of diesel smoke? Your average school bus would pollute the lungs of the children waiting for it, a million times more than some faint wisp of tobacco smoke. If the Health boards want to do something about the dirty air we breath they should start with diesel fumes. But they are not interested, because the campaign against smokers is a moral one, a fanatical one, a fundamentalist one. They are no different from other fundamentalist groups a case of “ooh you shouldn’t do that it is bad for you, and it’s bad for children” manipulative worms, I think the health boards are bad for us, why, because fundamentalists, are losers. If you want to gain some credibility do something about diesel in Auckland city, it is super bad, unavoidable and gives everyone cancer big time!

19 Jan 2012 01:16p.m.

Bruce wrote:

As a none smoker myself. these claims and proposals from anti-smoking lobbies and health organizations wanting smoking bans are becoming ridiculous. I always get weary when they claim that support for their proposals are high. But they never disclose where that support is coming from. Why? Is it simply because if they disclose that information. their claims can be checked? It seems to me that such proposals are proposed and supported by the same people representing a small proportion of the community. If people want to smoke. that is their business. Not to be dictated to by a small group of Nazi's wanting their own agenda.

19 Jan 2012 01:08p.m.

Kel wrote:

Instead of having smoking with smoke free areas, have it smoke free with designated areas that smokers can use!!! That way they can all sit together inhaling eachothers second hand smoke while the rest of us can breathe easy!!

19 Jan 2012 12:32p.m.

Luke wrote:

Good job, filthy cigarettes should be banned altogether. @Erm.. what a moronic thing to say. Porn doesnt kill people you idiot, cigarettes do. Slight difference. As far as the 'personal chioce' argument goes that would only be true if cigarettes weren't addictive but they are so the argument fails.

19 Jan 2012 11:51a.m.

cherie wrote:

Who is to enforce it? Is this another dept to be set up by the council. More $$ being wasted I would of thought. When approached by a council "smoking cop" who in there right mind is going to give correct name and address details!!!