Ban on smoking vs Suitability as Licensed Premises

sneaky hands · Post by **sneaky hands** » Tue Oct 03, 2006 10:35 am

tough industry just got tougher
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2006/ ... 65048.html

what do you guys think of this?

Ag3nT[]0raNg3 · Post by **Ag3nT[]0raNg3** » Tue Oct 03, 2006 10:44 am

everyone needs to quit smoking then.

simple.

mrj · Post by **mrj** » Tue Oct 03, 2006 10:52 am

Whoa. Thats a really tough one.

I completley agree with the the Hospitality industry in arguing that the decision by VCAT is in direct opposition to the reason for which the looming ban is to be imposed - to stop smoking.

To say that bars will only be granted a licence if they cater to smokers is ridiculous.

However I can see the logic in VCAT's argument too. They are saying that smokers will just go outside onto the street whenever they want a smoke (which is true) and this will create large clogs of smoking people on sidewalks (which is also true), and thus to combat the problem venues must provide an outdoor area to stop this problem (fair point). It makes intuitive sense, but neglects the larger issue, that of public health, and the reason for the ban being imposed in the first place.

I think VCAT's argument on the face of it makes sense but is a knee jerk reaction that has completley missed the mark. In effect they have got it way wrong.

Ag3nT[]0raNg3 · Post by **Ag3nT[]0raNg3** » Tue Oct 03, 2006 10:56 am

some joints will have no way of doing it which is a bit shit.

stupid trouble making business ruining smokers. (teef)

shepherd · Post by **shepherd** » Tue Oct 03, 2006 11:09 am

you've gotta question the purpose of the original ban if venues still need to provide smoking facilities. I can sort of see the logic but don't really agree with it.

how does it work in NSW? They have smoking bans in licenced premises but provide smoking areas as well to keep the faggers loitering outside the venues.

FoundationStepper · Post by **FoundationStepper** » Tue Oct 03, 2006 11:16 am

its an OHS thing.

a smoking area need a certain level of natural ventilation, therefore (presumably) any bus boys or waiters dont cop too much smoke damage when servicing that area

Grey Son · Post by **Grey Son** » Tue Oct 03, 2006 11:26 am

Well its a tough one ey!!
My wife and i went to queensland a couple mounths back and they have the bans. Went to a club there and there was about 50-60 people out the front ( all the time ) smoking. It looked pretty fucked and it clashed with the actual line. Another thing they have is a law where you cant smoke out front of a place that serves food, cafe's etc. You have to be 3 meters from the shop. So people were smoking on the road

There is an upside though, my mate who lives on the goldcoast told me he has met more girls now due to the fact that everyone stands outside and chats!!

ghetto kitty · Post by **ghetto kitty** » Tue Oct 03, 2006 11:52 am

A spokeswoman for Planning Minister Rob Hulls last night played down the ruling, saying businesses had been preparing for the changes for some time and that for most venues, no changes would be required.

hahahaha

planning minister says everyones planned ahead?
i dont think so...

how many venues do you know with a well ventilated outdoor area big enough to accomodate half the capacity?

yet another case of passing legislation > then, realising the repucussions of it.

uh duh.

Sustain · Post by **Sustain** » Tue Oct 03, 2006 11:58 am

i'm a smoker and think it should be banned across the board

i can completely understand the problems which may be associated with punters lurking out the front, but if it becomes too much of a hassle eventually most ppl will stop i think

sneaky hands · Post by **sneaky hands** » Tue Oct 03, 2006 12:01 pm

im with you sustain.

the interesting thing about the article is what VCAT said about catering for smokers being an integral part of running a licensed venue.

is it?

Direkt · Post by **Direkt** » Tue Oct 03, 2006 12:01 pm

Ban it...

Heroin makes more sense than cigarettes.

ghetto kitty · Post by **ghetto kitty** » Tue Oct 03, 2006 12:02 pm

please dont say that.

heroin does not make sense.

C.I.A. · Post by **C.I.A.** » Tue Oct 03, 2006 12:05 pm

Ban it.

If only for the kids working behind the bar/as bussies.

This is probably the main reason why this legislation has been passed... negating the potential for future "you didn't provide me with a safe workplace" lawsuits.

And fair enough, too.

It'll be good. If California can pull this off, Melbourne sure as hell can.

Direkt · Post by **Direkt** » Tue Oct 03, 2006 12:06 pm

I'm not saying it does per se Bo.... but making even less sense are ciggies. At least smackies are chasing a high (not saying that's a good thing )- what exactly are ciggie smokers chasing? The cool factor? Cancer?

I don't understand the appeal is all.

Lizkins · Post by **Lizkins** » Tue Oct 03, 2006 12:07 pm

Grey Son wrote:Well its a tough one ey!!
My wife and i went to queensland a couple mounths back and they have the bans. Went to a club there and there was about 50-60 people out the front ( all the time ) smoking. It looked pretty fucked and it clashed with the actual line. Another thing they have is a law where you cant smoke out front of a place that serves food, cafe's etc. You have to be 3 meters from the shop. So people were smoking on the road
There is an upside though, my mate who lives on the goldcoast told me he has met more girls now due to the fact that everyone stands outside and chats!!

got told the same thing by a guy who lives in Glasgow. but he added that everyone is having more one night stands as a result of it. he also said that a lot of the bars are empty and outside is packed.

i actually saw this in Florence a few times, and it was really weird. the whole bar had about 10 people in side and outside was packed with people drinking and smoking.

me thinks its a stupid thing...even when and if i quit, i think there should be an area at least for smokers inside the venue.

Ag3nT[]0raNg3 · Post by **Ag3nT[]0raNg3** » Tue Oct 03, 2006 12:13 pm

section 8 is gunna cain it if they stay open that long.

ghetto kitty · Post by **ghetto kitty** » Tue Oct 03, 2006 12:20 pm

Direktor wrote:I'm not saying it does per se Bo.... but making even less sense are ciggies. At least smackies are chasing a high (not saying that's a good thing )-

ach. no. please.

i do not like ciggarettes and alcohol, i do not like that they are permitted by the government to kill people, including me.

but smack is no comparison.

i have lost too many really young people.

lets leave this comparison alone.

Grey Son · Post by **Grey Son** » Tue Oct 03, 2006 12:21 pm

No im not jason............

deviant · Post by **deviant** » Tue Oct 03, 2006 12:24 pm

Lizkins wrote:me thinks its a stupid thing...even when and if i quit, i think there should be an area at least for smokers inside the venue.

All well and good to say that, but what about (and I use examples I am familiar with)....

Bunker: It's a tiny place, it's undergroud and has pretty much no access to outside areas (appart from up the back fire escape to the alleyway)...

Alia: It's upstairs, unless a highly expensive balcony was constructed (never going to happen) an outdoor/ventilated smoking area is an impossibility. Do these clubs now get shut down as of the 1st of July next year?.... I doubt it.

VCAT are idiots who obviously have no idea of the diverse range of bars/clubs in VIC (primarily melbourne) and the inability to change their design in major ways (as is being suggested). There's 100s of bars that are underground and in older buildings in densely built-up areas that are simply not going to be able to do this.... not even mentioning the $$$ involved which put it out of the scope of the small business owner.

Direkt · Post by **Direkt** » Tue Oct 03, 2006 12:26 pm

Ciggies kill more people than heroin.

I think in that regard it's a fair comparisson.

I'm not meaning to offend or upset anyone - especially you Kitty!. I think they're both bad. Completely different, yes - but both bad.

Ciggies should be stigmatised and demonised as much as heroin, maybe that would deter a few people - then again, maybe it would make them more attractive to the rebellious crew.

I will stop now.

FoundationStepper · Post by **FoundationStepper** » Tue Oct 03, 2006 12:28 pm

in refernce to a suitably designed outdoor area for new premises, the magistrate said

"we consider that a similar approach should apply to existing uses, although we recognise that it may not always be possible to implement this approach through the planning system. It will be up to the Dirctor of Liquor licensing as to what conditions shoudl be imposed when licenses are renewsed or varied."

Post by **Friday** » Tue Oct 03, 2006 12:30 pm

more on this issue: http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/ ... 97753.html

Lizkins · Post by **Lizkins** » Tue Oct 03, 2006 12:34 pm

deviant wrote:
Lizkins wrote:me thinks its a stupid thing...even when and if i quit, i think there should be an area at least for smokers inside the venue.
All well and good to say that, but what about (and I use examples I am familiar with)....

Bunker: It's a tiny place, it's undergroud and has pretty much no access to outside areas (appart from up the back fire escape to the alleyway)...

Alia: It's upstairs, unless a highly expensive balcony was constructed (never going to happen) an outdoor/ventilated smoking area is an impossibility. Do these clubs now get shut down as of the 1st of July next year?.... I doubt it.

VCAT are idiots who obviously have no idea of the diverse range of bars/clubs in VIC (primarily melbourne) and the inability to change their design in major ways (as is being suggested). There's 100s of bars that are underground and in older buildings in densely built-up areas that are simply not going to be able to do this.... not even mentioning the $$$ involved which put it out of the scope of the small business owner.

true true, i was thinking of bunker after i posted. but ventilation systems do wonders, but i guess its whether they can be afforded or not by the owner of the club....i dunno. tough call on some places.

shepherd · Post by **shepherd** » Tue Oct 03, 2006 12:38 pm

It does raise the question - how are venues without any outside area going to deal with the mass amounts of people who will smoke on the footpath outside the venue - it creates a whole other problem of loads of pissheads out on the street.

Do venues have the option to provide smoking rooms?

ShiKung · Post by **ShiKung** » Tue Oct 03, 2006 12:39 pm

I think what VCAT was getting at was more for new liscense's. And I think thats fair. A premise should not be issued a new liscense if it doesnt have an outdoor area unless it hasd a very good reason and is going to encourage non-smoking!!

I'm sure on July 1st they are not goin to start revoking all the liscence's.

Also Ban it! Bring it on. I'm sick of getting sick due to nicotine poisoning and I'm sick of the attitude that smokers have that they can force their drugs on someone else. I dont smoke up a J if I know someone is a non-smoker and even junkies go down a back alley to shoot up!

It is one of those laws that are are in place that is morally right, and decides to right a long standing wrong and to avoid law suits down the line! All the official agencies need to figure out how to deal with it. Kinda like lowering the drinking age in NZ

FoundationStepper · Post by **FoundationStepper** » Tue Oct 03, 2006 12:42 pm

Smoking rooms and actively ventilated rooms are not allowed.

open outdoor areas only.

shepherd · Post by **shepherd** » Tue Oct 03, 2006 12:43 pm

even junkies go down a back alley to shoot up!

how considerate of them!!!!

ghetto kitty · Post by **ghetto kitty** » Tue Oct 03, 2006 12:44 pm

all good dirketor > you just hit a nerve is all. ive been a drug counsellor...both paid and unpaid...enuf said.

the question is not whos gonig to quit and when, or if we should all quit (we should)

it is that the legislation is now saying that pretty much MOST of the venues in melburn will have to be shut down if they do not modify....to accomodate..

in places like queensland ,there are usually wider footpaths, less punters generally, and not as much traffic.
in melbs the buldings are crammed close together, the usual 3metre ring painted on the footpath will have peeps in the gutter smoking.
its just not workable...and the number of venues already struggling means this will seriously detriment our nightlife.

Direkt · Post by **Direkt** » Tue Oct 03, 2006 12:45 pm

shepherd wrote:
even junkies go down a back alley to shoot up!
how considerate of them!!!!

Would you prefer in front of you?

FoundationStepper · Post by **FoundationStepper** » Tue Oct 03, 2006 12:45 pm

I have read the decision a few times. I actually think a lot of it is well structured and thought out. However, what it fails to do is recognise what may be understood to be reasonble amenity impacts given the zoning in which an application occurs.

It does indicate that responsible authorities (ie councils) need to make a judgement call as to what is an ok impact though.

FoundationStepper · Post by **FoundationStepper** » Tue Oct 03, 2006 12:48 pm

ghetto kitty wrote: it is that the legislation is now saying that pretty much MOST of the venues in melburn will have to be shut down if they do not modify....to accomodate..

As i indicated earlier, really the only way it can apply retrospecively is through a condition on a liquor license when they are renewed. If there is existing planning approval its unlikely to be tampered with.

I cant see the Director of Liquor Licensing coming up with workable conditions on an existing basement venue that would actually fly.

mind you she is unreasonable at times so we could be in for difficulty

aspekt · Post by **aspekt** » Tue Oct 03, 2006 12:52 pm

FoundationStepper wrote:
ghetto kitty wrote: it is that the legislation is now saying that pretty much MOST of the venues in melburn will have to be shut down if they do not modify....to accomodate..
As i indicated earlier, really the only way it can apply retrospecively is through a condition on a liquor license when they are renewed. If there is existing planning approval its unlikely to be tampered with.

I cant see the Director of Liquor Licensing coming up with workable conditions on an existing basement venue that would actually fly.

mind you she is unreasonable at times so we could be in for difficulty

spot on.

I wonder if bouncers could only let out a certain number of smokers at a time. I guess trying to disperse the rest of them could be tricky. Make it as inconvenient as possible for people to smoke and i reckon 90% of them will quit or have only a couple over a night as opposed to a pack.

shepherd · Post by **shepherd** » Tue Oct 03, 2006 12:56 pm

Direktor wrote:
shepherd wrote:
even junkies go down a back alley to shoot up!
how considerate of them!!!!
Would you prefer in front of you?

totally man!

FoundationStepper · Post by **FoundationStepper** » Tue Oct 03, 2006 12:57 pm

OK this is an interesting element.

How do you control the exit of patrons onto the street?

The VCAT decision was interesting in that the member said that when the venue charges a door charge, that there should be no passouts on that occasion. whereas when there is no covercharge then it would probably be unfeasible of control the entry/exit of patrons for smoking.

I actually think this might be a workable system.

Its really hard to control the amount of people smoking outside at a time! limited passout tickets?

normal stamps wouldnt work as people could just wander off..

or a penned off area for smokers... well that probably relies on a local law permit for public space, complicating the issue...

for the life of me i cant think of a workable option

Direkt · Post by **Direkt** » Tue Oct 03, 2006 12:58 pm

shepherd wrote:
Direktor wrote:
shepherd wrote: how considerate of them!!!!
Would you prefer in front of you?
totally man!

Me too!

ShiKung · Post by **ShiKung** » Tue Oct 03, 2006 12:59 pm

Common sense will prevail, look there will have to be some changes but also think that people that genuinely enjoy the decent quality Inner-city music venues will deal with it and not smoke so much, thats the idea!!

I would also love to see a decent clean air standard enforced, and believe that smoking could have been allowed if the government changed the law as a Air health issue rather than an anti smoking issue!
Except this would have ended up costing venues 4or5 times as much, and would have resulted in more small venue's closing, than under the complete ban will!

Post by **lynt** » Tue Oct 03, 2006 1:07 pm

I'm gonna quit.

I found it pretty inconvenient overseas having to leave a venue/bar to smoke on the street all the time, especially when there's a group of you huddled on the sidewalk, and you've just lost your seats, and you can't take your drink out.

Better if I just quit.

Direkt · Post by **Direkt** » Tue Oct 03, 2006 1:07 pm

Do it Lynt!

FoundationStepper · Post by **FoundationStepper** » Tue Oct 03, 2006 1:13 pm

I look forward to DJing places like kent street or other cafe/bars with my son strapped to my back with no issues regards to smoke... would be fun!

Post by **lynt** » Tue Oct 03, 2006 1:16 pm

Direktor wrote:Do it Lynt!

Eventually, yes... but for now I still enjoy smoking. It's going to be tough, but there's no point if I can't smoke in bars & clubs (to which I'm in several nights a week).

Direkt · Post by **Direkt** » Tue Oct 03, 2006 1:19 pm

lynt wrote:
Direktor wrote:Do it Lynt!
Eventually, yes... but for now I still enjoy smoking. It's going to be tough, but there's no point if I can't smoke in bars & clubs (to which I'm in several nights a week).

I'm sure it will be tough mate, but think of the health and wealth you'll be saving!

deviant · Post by **deviant** » Tue Oct 03, 2006 1:19 pm

lynt wrote:I'm gonna quit.

I found it pretty inconvenient overseas having to leave a venue/bar to smoke on the street all the time, especially when there's a group of you huddled on the sidewalk, and you've just lost your seats, and you can't take your drink out.

Better if I just quit.

I think I will too....

I know you (like me) enjoy a smoke while DJing.... I can't see how you could duck out for a smoke between tracks

Post by **lynt** » Tue Oct 03, 2006 1:25 pm

deviant wrote:
lynt wrote:I'm gonna quit.

I found it pretty inconvenient overseas having to leave a venue/bar to smoke on the street all the time, especially when there's a group of you huddled on the sidewalk, and you've just lost your seats, and you can't take your drink out.

Better if I just quit.
I think I will too....

I know you (like me) enjoy a smoke while DJing.... I can't see how you could duck out for a smoke between tracks

Yeah. I often wonder how touring artists (dj's, bands, whatever, getting mega bucks) will cope with being told they can't smoke.

Direkt · Post by **Direkt** » Tue Oct 03, 2006 1:28 pm

Isn't it already happening in the US though, and didn't you say Europe was the same Karl?

Sounds like it's becoming standard - I'm sure they'll cope.

Post by **breaksRbest** » Tue Oct 03, 2006 1:33 pm

sorry, but anyone who says 'the harder we make it the more likely they are to quit' obviously has no idea about the mind of a smoker

If you try and FORCE me to stop I'm not gonna, maybe even LESS likely

All of this bullshit can be solved with some adequate ventilation and exhaust fans

Direkt · Post by **Direkt** » Tue Oct 03, 2006 1:35 pm

^ Umm... isn't Lynt already thinking of quitting smoking coz of this.... Surely it must be somwhat effective then???

FoundationStepper · Post by **FoundationStepper** » Tue Oct 03, 2006 1:37 pm

Again, although it is indirectly about people smoking less, it is directly about OHS.

It is my understanding of the law, and it is also the interpretation of the magistrate...

C.I.A. · Post by **C.I.A.** » Tue Oct 03, 2006 1:39 pm

Direktor wrote:Isn't it already happening in the US though, and didn't you say Europe was the same Karl?

Sounds like it's becoming standard - I'm sure they'll cope.

Yeah, it varies between states in the US, but it has had a positive effect on clubs.

Nothing better than waking up in the morning and not having to wash everything you were wearing because it is a festering pile of ash in the corner of the room.

Also reduces the severity of hangovers. Not being force-fed several packets of Stuveys each time I went out was so sweet. I took up smoking because I became addicted to passive smoke as a bussy.

Will be quitting v.soon.

aspekt · Post by **aspekt** » Tue Oct 03, 2006 1:40 pm

breaksRbest wrote:sorry, but anyone who says 'the harder we make it the more likely they are to quit' obviously has no idea about the mind of a smoker

If you try and FORCE me to stop I'm not gonna, maybe even LESS likely

All of this bullshit can be solved with some adequate ventilation and exhaust fans

it's not about forcing people to quit. the majority of people i know that smoke do the majority of their smoking on the weekends. I found when I used to smoke that so much of smoking when you were out was because people around you were lighting up and it just becomes reflex.

when you have to go to the effort of going outside for a smoke, all but the most dedicated smokers will smoke a hell of a lot less. Once that happens it will be that much easier for people to quit.
One of the hardest aspects of quitting is when you go out somewhere and people are smoking all around you.

FoundationStepper · Post by **FoundationStepper** » Tue Oct 03, 2006 1:41 pm

It has directly created noise issues in NY apparently due to patrons on the street, partly becuase of the strict noise laws there...