Wellington woman launches petition to ban smoking in CBD

05 Mar 2010 08:53a.m.

Sam wrote:

As a smoker, I agree with a lot of what you say charlie. But not the banning people from smoking in public spaces bit, no. Not that :P However, I am appalled when i see people throwing butts in the gutter and on the footpath when the golden mile has rubbish bins with built in ashtrays in them, every hundred meters or so! Granted, the design is lacking a bit as without due dilligence they are a fire hazard, but come on people - If like me you smoke, then be responsible with you butt!

19 Oct 2009 12:54p.m.

Charlie wrote:

Thanks everyone for taking the time to comment. EVERYONE'S opinion is valued.

Interestingly enough, I've had many people contact me direct with very supportive comments (a few from other cities and quite a few from smokers), but I completely accept some people will see this as somewhat draconian.

To clarify:

1. Let's be real. A ban is extremely unlikely to go through. I'm not delusional.

2. This ePetition has turned out to be a good way of raising awareness. (Appearing on TV is pretty damn scary alright(!) and my first response was to decline the interview; but on the positive side it has given a clear show of support.)

3. As I pointed out on the Campbell Live piece, MOST smokers are very considerate. It is only a tiny minority who, I suppose, may not realise the effect they're having on others.

4. The main issue I wanted to represent on behalf of a huge number of people I've spoken to is that, evidently according to some Wellington scuba divers, the harbour is literally carpeted with butts. Fortunately, Andy (a lifetime smoker - and bloody nice guy, to boot) who also appeared on the clip, made this point - he thinks Wellington is the worst city in NZ for this, which was news to me!

Kay/Taryn - completely agree with your comments. It's really just about being a bit more educational. For example, smokers outside my building are fantastic - they stay away from the entrance to the building, and this is because it's become more acceptable to ask them if they wouldn't mind not standing where the rest of us have to access the building.

To Natalie. I agree with Taryn, you've very funny and gave me a laugh too. Incidentally, people really like my perfume - I've had so many comments on it, especially from blokes! Email me direct if you want the name of it.

19 Oct 2009 09:19a.m.

Teeps wrote:

Good on you for having the balls to move on this.On Friday night I was walking through Courtney Place with my baby in his front pack and I only realised then how much smoke there was wafting around for you to walk through as you are trying to go from A to B. I think that smokers forget how big that cloud can be on a still day or night, perhaps those E Cigs could be a win win, with nicotine satisfaction without impacting on others

17 Oct 2009 01:38p.m.

Taryn wrote:

@NATALIE... Hahahahahahaha.... Hahahahaha.

I can't believe this proposal is getting such a roar out of people. Obviously this lady 'Charlie' has a very negative association with smoking and I admire her pushing to make smoking a 'less normal' part of society to help prevent other people going through an experience similar to her own. I am a smoker and i feel the wrath of my addiciton day in, day out. I too, feel terribly offended when walking down Lambton Quay and i get a whiff of someone's second hand smoke. More than a ban in the area, perhaps your bid to change things Charlie could be a friendly reminder to smoker's to be more considerate and careful when smoking..

Natalie, you are hilarious. Thanks for the laugh.

16 Oct 2009 06:50p.m.

Kay wrote:

I sympathise with Charlie but think there are some other steps that the Council should try before a ban. Putting in more bins for cigarette butts andsigns about the $400 WCC fine for littering and the impact of butts in drains on fish in the sea would be a start. Not many people realise storm water drains are flushed out to sea with no filtering. One butt poisons 40litres of sea water. If you like fish & chips don't poison the larder (the sea).

Once WCC has educated the public about where butts go, then it should put staff to work enforcing the litter laws. A ban on smoking could be investigated in the future, but I'd be happy if the smokers just take responsibility for clearing up after themselves.

16 Oct 2009 04:21p.m.

The E-Petioner Strikes Back! wrote:

She (Charlie Dickson) comments under the alias of "Humoured" and retaliates! (Very obvious)
She just can't take the heat.

16 Oct 2009 11:54a.m.

Durastep wrote:

Good on her for taking some initiative. She is genuine in her motives. The smokers on Lambton Quay 'smoke' to cheat their bodies into producing feelings of pleasure and security, and toxic fumes are the by-product of their behavior that they (usually) don't intend.

The complexity comes with the fact they do not realise they are undermining their freedom with every puff, and the eventual symptoms they will develop are testament to that. It is always ironic when smoking is defended in the name of 'choice', because the symptoms are inconsistent with that.

Whenever you see a person light up, that is a sign that they have crossed a threshold, and need external support to cope with their current situation - why else is it called a 'dependency'?.

Smoking in the open air is one of the complex areas in this debate, because the ultimate initiative is with the individual, and despite carcinogenic fumes produced, the most effective method of reducing the harm is when the smoker themselves click, and seek to quit.

If people are to talk about 'freedom of choice' in this situation, how do they view smoking mothers around young children?

16 Oct 2009 10:53a.m.

Humoured wrote:

I love these comments pages. They're really entertaining. You can always tell the people who are enraged to boiling point by someone else's OPINION. If their grammar isn't appalling enough (Kevin - "partition"; Smoker - "this whole countries [sic] full of..."; David - "survelence" "alot"), their comments contain veiled threats and/or cursing.

Please, present a 'mature' opinion rather than a slanderous rant... then others will take the time to actually read your opinion, rather than have a good hearty laugh at it.

16 Oct 2009 10:23a.m.

Ui Talolo wrote:

There are FREE interventions to help with nicotine cravings during work...Smoking Kills 1 person every 2hrs! How much employers money is wasted on smokers on their 'unofficial' breaks? You know the so called 5 min break?? Use a patch/lozenge/gum whilst at work... Perfume offensive- headache maybe. 2nd hand smoke kills 300 a year! Is that consideration?

16 Oct 2009 09:47a.m.

Natalie wrote:

I am a smoker and have no qualms with smoking outside of bars, restaurants, cafes nor do I have an issue with smoking outside of the grounds of Hospitals, Marae or Schools and the majority of smokers would feel the same. To ban smoking from specific streets because of toxic fumes (?) is only eliminating a very small portion of the percentage that creats it! So will then this mean we ban all vehicles, stinky perfume or aftershave and any fumes associated to roadworks, building sites and cleaners chemicals? This is ludicrous! Most smokers I know are very considerate of those they affect around them with their habit. Well lady quite frankly your perfume annoys me and I don't like what you look like so I ban you from the "golden mile" because of it. You must now stand down a side street with a paperbag over your face so I'm not offended by your face or your smell! Now how does that feel!