What I find particularly disturbing about this ongoing demonisation of smokers, is the complete lack of acknowledgement of the reality of tobacco use in Australia.

The measures taken in education, and laws banning advertising of tobacco products, as well as the anti-smoking laws, (which BTW have a greater than 95% compliance rate from smokers), are all working well in decreasing the percentage of people smoking or taking up smoking. Less than 18% of our population smoke, and that is declining further every year.

Smokers who abide by the law, (remember the greater than 95% compliance rate), are not harming others with their habit. Smoking does not cause social problems, such as the increase in violent crime, damage to property, dangerous driving or domestic violence, that drugs like alcohol do, (alcohol is also legal).

I agree with the measures taken by the government to reduce the rate of tobacco use in our society, when that tobacco use impacts the health of others, but banning it altogether, this seems like more of a witch hunt against smokers than anything else.

I sure don't want to live in a world where people feel the need or desire to dob in smokers, when they are not harming others.

I loathe drunks, but still believe that people should have the right to drink alcohol, as long as it does not impact the health and safety of others, and certainly wouldn't be peering over the neighbours fence to dob them in for drinking. I see smoking as not different.

I wish the government would either end the hypocrisy and ban all substances that people can harm themselves with, instead of using smokers as scapegoats.

"I sure don't want to live in a world where people feel the need or desire to dob in smokers, when they are not harming others."

Yes, but they are continuing to harm others. That's why we need a ban on smoking in public places.

Passing me on a footpath with a cigarette in their hand, is going to cause me nuisance and annoyance, and is going to prevent me from walking on the same footpath, and it is exposing me to harmful chemicals I don't want to be exposed to.

I want to have a say in all of that, and it is "don't do that to me". I have tried asking people not to politely, but you should see how far that gets you. We need a legislative response to prevent what is ultimately their rude and selfish behaviour.

If that is demonising them, then I make no apology. They need to learn some manners.

What nonsense, if someone is walking past you with a cigarette in their hand, there is no evidence at all that you are being harmed. This is what the author pointed out in this article.

Annoyance is not harm. I am annoyed by people who sneeze or cough while walking past, and I am far more likely to be harmed by catching whatever disease they have, than you are by someone walking past with a cigarette.

I totally disagree that we need legislation to prevent what you view as rude and selfish behaviour. You cannot legislate for good manners.

Judith you are obviously not an asthmatic. Cigarette smoke has a physiological effect on me. And it is doing me harm. There is also no safe exposure level to some of the chemicals and the particulates.

Annoyance is reason enough to ban it. Littering is reason enough to ban it. And then it is harmful. People who claim it isn't harmful are being willfully ignorant.

I get a bit sick of people, including Dr Freeman, discounting my experience. There is physiological harm from outdoor tobacco smoke. The shortness or breath, the coughing, the nausea. Maybe that isn't cancer of the mouth, oesophagus or lungs, and maybe the risk of those isn't high, like they are from the exposure to indoor smoke, but I would classify the shortness of breath, the coughing and the nausea as harm.

And yet you walk along city footpaths breathing in all manner of petro-chemical pollution, and seem quite happy to do so. I see you are not calling for a ban on motor vehicles.

I am not asthmatic, but I do have an extreme sensitivity to petro-chemical pollution, but I am also a realist, I moved to a country town where the pollution level is very low, rather than go on a crusade against people who drive motor vehicles.

I don't agree that annoyance is reason enough to ban anything, and if littering is enough to ban something, than we should be banning fast food and alcohol, soft drinks and plastic bags, disposable nappies, and any number of other items commonly littered around our cities, towns and roads.

Nobody is claiming that tobacco is not harmful, but there are levels of harm to others, as with everything that produces pollution. People who overstate the harm caused to suit their own agenda, are wilfully ignorant of the actual research done.

Oh this is a tired, worn out argument "I see you are not calling for a ban on motor vehicles."- yeah it would be in a different thread and you are making assumptions that just aren't true.

I would advocate restrictions on vehicular traffic. Starting with 2 strokes and diesels, and then in the city I would greatly limit where the remaining traffic can go and make most streets only for pedestrians, trams and cyclists.

I would also ban motorcycles because of their noise or the noisy ones at least.

And no I generally avoid city footpaths now, and have negotiated telecommuting most days, and on other days the route I take between the station and my current workplace is not direct, because I avoid the smell of traffic, the noise of traffic, and the density of crowds, because of the tobacco smoke.

Are you saying I am overstating the effect tobacco smoke has on me? Are you calling me a liar?

What a load of nonsense, with no support from your links.

1. ABC - Dr Carl "Way back then, the ability to control fire gave us our tools and metals. It also gave us warmth, food and light, helped bond us together around the campfire, and helped protect us from predators. Even today, we talk of 'firepower' as a measure of our ability to outgun those with less 'firepower'." NOT about inhaling smoke

2nd ref "human ancestors may have used fire a million years ago, " Nothing about inhaling smoke or immune systems

3rd ref "Evidence That Human Ancestors Used Fire One Million Years Ago"

4th ref BBC - same as 2.

Vladimir,

Where to begin with such nonsense?

WHO - 1.5 million people die each year, mostly women, from indoor wood smoke particulates. US CDC - Tobacco kills 5 million people per year.

There's 6.5 million people each year not participating in human evolution.

Matthew,
Did you see any postmortem report where smocking or inhalation of “wood smoke particulates” is stated as a cause of death?
Or yours "6,5 million" is a speculation and part of propaganda?

You'd have to ask the World Health Organisation and the Center for Disease Control.

I for one am prepared to trust the scientists that work for those organisations without glibly calling it propaganda to make some dumb point or to make excuses for poor behaviour.

Smoke such as woodsmoke and tobacco smoke are toxic. They are not benign. They kill people in their millions. It makes sense to reduce our exposure to them to lessen the risk. To ignore the evidence is dangerous and dumb.

Thanks for that Sue, but I have also seen plenty of studies the other way, like smoking farmers versus citydwellers at the end of their lives having their lungs disected.
And yes, I agree that unfortunately after 50 years of smoking, I still enjoy a few cigarettes. I also agree, that it is much nicer to be in a public venue without smoke, but just as we have toilet facilities and cater for the disabled, surely we can look after those poor disabled smokers as well ?
And yes, I also agree with Rob (below) that too many smokers are inconsiderate and plain dirty, leaving their buts on the ground. But when you chase them out of your building to stand around the corner in an alley and then provide no comforts and definitely, no ashtrays, then you can expect littering.
I personally have never been one of those litterbugs. I will walk a block with the butt in my pocket until I find a bin. I now live on acrerage in the bush and you will not find 1 of my butts anywhere there.
No-one yet picking up on my loss of Asian tourism and actually banning cars from our city centres. My son, who does not smoke, questions why smoking is banned in underground carparks where there are lots of smelly cars.
Maybe, I will stop smoking one day, but that certainly will not be because of anybody telling me that I should.

Again - vehicle exhausts are a different issue, and restrictions on them are probably a good thing too.

It is not righteous indignation. At the moment a large number of people are excluded from participating in normal life, because cigarette smoke dominates the area around the smoker, both inside or outside. So large numbers of people have to avoid anywhere where cigarette smoke is likely to be. We are excluded from outdoor seating areas, city streets, public transport stops, and we have restricted entertainment, education and employment opportunities. In effect we are being discriminated against.

Public smoking bans end the apartheid against the smoke sensitive.