Click me and I'll connect you with your issue outline (NOTE that this outline is in the earlier single-document form)
2006-2007 Echo Issue Outline ... to return to the page you "clicked" from, simply close this window
Related issue outlines:
No related issue outlines Dictionary: Double-click on any word in the text to bring up a dictionary definition of that word in a new window (IE only). Analysing the language of the news media:Click here to read a useful document on media language analysis Age, Herald-Sun and Australian items: Click this icon ...
... to search the Echo newspaper index and enter the following word(s), with just a space in between them.
smoking
bans
Search for listed newspaper items online - see end of this page
2007/16: Should smoking be banned in hotels and clubs?<BR>
2007/16: Should smoking be banned in hotels and clubs?
What they said ...
'The era of smoky bar rooms is coming to an end because of the ever-growing evidence of the health damage being done to customers and staff' Steve Bracks, Victoria's premier
'Politicians and campaigners are lining up to lecture, harass and insult those of us who choose to smoke a perfectly legal product' Simon Clark, the head of the British smokers' rights lobby group Forest
The issue at a glance
On July 1, 2007, New South Wales and Victoria each imposed total smoking bans in all indoor areas in hotels and pubs. However, smoking will be permitted in non enclosed dining or drinking areas if the area has a roof and walls that cover no more than 75% of the total notional wall area (that is, if the combined wall and roof space is 25% open to the outdoors). Smoking will also be allowed in balconies; verandas; courtyards; marquees and footpaths.
Tasmania had imposed a similar ban in January 2006 and Queensland and Western Australia in July 2006. Queensland's bans, however, are more rigorous, as they do not allow the outdoor smoking exceptions given in other states.
In South Australia smoking is banned within one metre of the bar; one bar room in multi-bar venues has to be non-smoking; for single bar venues, 50% of bar room is to be non-smoking, including 50% of the bar counter; 50% of bar areas at the Adelaide Casino and dining is totally smoke-free.
These moves have been welcomed by many public health lobby groups; however, some anti-smoking groups believe the prohibitions do not go far enough.
Hoteliers associations are concerned that the bans will have an impact on profitability and have warned that jobs in the hospitality industry may be lost.
Background
Smoking bans around the world
In the United States, many cities and states are considering, or are already enforcing, bans on smoking.
California has some of the toughest and most extensive anti-smoking legislation anywhere in the world. A ban on smoking inside or within 1.5 metres of any public building came into force in 1993 - recently extended to six metres. Smoking is also banned in restaurants, bars and enclosed workplaces - and on beaches - throughout the state.
In New York, smoking has been banned in bars, clubs and restaurants since March 2003.
Anti-smoking laws have provoked a strong debate in the United States. Some bar owners say their businesses are suffering and smokers say their rights are being infringed, while non-smokers delight in a fresher environment.
In the United Kingdom smoking is banned in nearly all enclosed public spaces - including bars, restaurants and workplaces.
The ban came into force in England early on 1 July, 2007. Scotland introduced a ban in March 2006, followed by Wales and Northern Ireland in April 2007.
People smoking in pubs, restaurants, offices and on public transport face on-the-spot fines of œ50, while those in charge of the premises could also be fined for allowing smoking.
The pub industry warned of the potential impact on trade and called for smoking-room areas. About 30% of adults under the age of 65 smoke in the UK, according to recent research conducted by Imperial College in London. An estimated 42% of people under the age of 65 are exposed to tobacco smoke at home and 11% at work.
Ireland imposed tough anti-smoking legislation in March 2004, banning smoking in pubs, restaurants and other enclosed workplaces. Anyone caught smoking in a prohibited location now faces a fine of up to 3,000 euros (œ2,000).
Despite fears the ban would be widely flouted, most smokers in pubs appear to be compliant and are stepping outside to the street or beer garden for a cigarette between drinks.
France took a major step towards a total public ban when it announced it would prevent smoking in workplaces and other public buildings from 1 February 2007.
It also heralded plans to expand the curbs in 2008 to include cafes, restaurants and bars. Its first serious move to cut smoking levels came in October 2003, when it raised the price of cigarettes by 20%.
The move provoked a strike from furious tobacconists, many fearing being forced out of business by smokers crossing borders to buy cigarettes in neighbouring countries.
Analysts said the plan was driven by government concern that smoking levels were not declining fast enough in France, and a need to fill an $8.5bn shortfall in the country's health budget.
In Sweden smoking was prohibited in all bars and restaurants from midnight in May 2005. A majority of people questioned in a Temo poll welcomed the ban.
Establishments wanting to allow smoking are required to have a closed-off section with specially-designed ventilation, where no food or drink can be served. But most venues were not expected to be able to afford such renovations.
The ban followed lobbying by the country's licensing sector which said bar and restaurant staff were more likely to suffer lung cancer than in any other profession.
The new restriction could spell a rise in the centuries-old use of 'snus' - moist snuff placed under the lip enjoyed by more than 1m Swedes.
India has been tightening laws on smoking in public places in an effort to curb high levels of tobacco addiction - to little effect.
Anti-smoking laws in India are widely flouted. Recent laws have banned direct and indirect advertising of tobacco products and the sale of cigarettes to children. Anyone caught breaking the law will be fined.
According to a 1996 survey reported by Associated Press news agency, 112 million people smoke tobacco in India, while some 96 million use tobacco products like chewing tobacco.
Internet information
Wikipedia's entry on 'Smoking bans' can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoking_ban
This is a clear and detailed entry which gives the history of such bans, some of their applications in different international jurisdictions and some of the arguments for and against such bans.
In September 2005 Melbourne University's Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research released a research paper titled 'The Effects of Smoking Ban Regulations on Individual Smoking Rates'
The paper concluded 'The effect of the introduction of smoking ban regulations on individuals' smoking behaviour is in the expected direction, but it is not statistically significant for most types of individuals. Interestingly, we do find a significant 'rebellion' effect amongst 18 to 24 year old smokers, with the introduction of smoking bans found to increase the likelihood that they continue to smoke.'
The full text of this paper can be found at http://www.melbourneinstitute.com/hilda/conf/conf2005/confpapers/Session%206B_Lifestyle/Buddelmeyer,%20Hielke.pdf
On June 28 2006 the ABC ran a news report outlining a range of responses to Queensland's newly introduced smoking bans. The item was titled 'Fears smoking ban will hit hotels' bottom line'. The full text of the item can be found at http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2006/06/28/1673722.htm
In August 2006, The Forum Site, which invites public opinion on current issues, posted a response to the question, 'Do you think that recent laws in Australia banning smokers from lighting up on beaches, footpaths and in beer gardens is unreasonable?'
The response argued at some length that Australian laws [though significantly misrepresented in the question] had gone too far. It can be found at http://www.theforumsite.com/forum/topic/Have-smoking-bans-gone-too-far-/137829
On April 7, 2006, Fred Nile of the Christian Democratic party, issued a media release regretting that the New South Wales government had not passed legislation to make all work places completely cigarette smoke free. The Reverend Nile criticised the government's proposed exemptions policy which would continue to make it legal for patrons to smoke in some areas in hotels and clubs.
The full text of this media release can be found at http://www.cdp.org.au/fed/mr/060407f.asp
The Institute of Public Affairs has reproduced an article written by Hugh Tobin and originally published in the Geelong Advertiser on October 6, 2006, which suggests that there are limits to how far governments can effectively go in controlling behaviour such as smoking. The full text of this article can be found at http://www.ipa.org.au/files/news_1255.html
On June 30 2007 SmokeFree Australia, a lobby group representing workers exposed to second hand smoke, issued a media release arguing that cigarette bans in clubs and hotels in most Australian states need to go further in order to protect employees. The full text of this media release can be found at http://www.ashaust.org.au/SF'03/releases/070630.htm
Arguments in favour of banning smoking in bars and hotels
1. Passive smoking endangers the health of other patrons
Research evidence suggests that second-hand smoke causes the same problems as direct smoking, including lung cancer, cardiovascular disease and lung ailments such as COPD, bronchitis and asthma. Specifically, meta-analyses show that lifelong non-smokers with partners who smoke in the home have a 20-30% greater risk of lung cancer than non-smokers who live with non-smokers. Non-smokers exposed to cigarette smoke in the workplace have an increased lung cancer risk of 16-19%.
A study issued in 2002 by the International Agency for Research on Cancer of the World Health Organization concluded that non-smokers are exposed to the same carcinogens as active smokers. Side stream smoke contains 69 known carcinogens, particularly benzopyrene and other polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons, and radioactive decay products, such as polonium 210, of natural radioactive minerals. Several well-established carcinogens have been shown by the tobacco companies' own research to be present at higher concentrations in side stream smoke than in mainstream smoke.
Bans on smoking in bars and restaurants can substantially improve the air quality in such establishments. For example, one study listed on the website of the CDC (Centre for Disease Control) states that New York's state-wide law to eliminate smoking in enclosed workplaces and public places substantially reduced RSP (respirable suspended particles) levels in western New York hospitality venues. RSP levels were reduced in every venue that permitted smoking before the law was implemented, including venues in which only second-hand smoke from an adjacent room was observed at baseline. The CDC concluded that their results were similar to other studies which also showed substantially improved indoor air quality after smoking bans.
A 2004 study showed that in New Jersey, bars and restaurants had more than nine times the levels of indoor air pollution of neighbouring New York City, which had enacted a smoking ban.
2. Passive smoking endangers the health of hotel employees
It has been noted that having to work in a cigarette smoke-filled environment results in bar and hotel workers being compulsorily exposed to passive smoking. Former New South Wales premier, Bob Carr, stated in 2005, 'For a person working in a bar for eight hours, that's equivalent to smoking half a packet of cigarettes and we can't ask bar workers to put their health at risk.'
While Victoria's premier, Steve Bracks, has said, 'The era of smoky bar rooms is coming to an end because of the ever-growing evidence of the health damage being done to customers and staff.'
Australia's Cancer Council has stated that up to 97 of New South Wales 40,000 bar and club staff could expect to die from passive smoking-related heart disease and lung cancer each year.
Research has shown that improved air quality results in decreased toxin exposure among employees. For example, among employees of the Norwegian establishments that have enacted smoking bans, tests showed improved (decreased) levels of nicotine in the urine of both smoking and non-smoking workers (as compared with measurements prior to the ban).
Researchers at Dundee University found significant improvements in the health of bar staff in the two months following the imposition of a smoking ban. They tested bar workers' lung function and inflammatory markers a month before the ban came in, and again two months after it had been introduced. The number showing symptoms related to passive smoking fell from more than 80% to less than half, with reduced levels of nicotine in the blood and improvements in lung function of as much as 10%.
3. Partially segregated smoking and non-smoking areas are not a solution
It has been claimed that partially segregated smoking and non-smoking areas such as are currently allowed in South Australia are not acceptable from a public health point of view. Smoke, it is argued, will inevitably drift from smoking areas into non-smoking areas where these are not sealed separate rooms. Further, even where there is completely separate provision made for smokers, hotel and club staff who work in smoking areas are exposed to an unacceptable risk.
Similarly, the fact that smoking is still allowed in semi-enclosed areas in all states except Queensland has been condemned as an unacceptable risk for all staff required to work in these areas.
The anti-smoking lobby group SmokeFree Australia which seeks to represent employees exposed to cigarette smoke, issued a media release on June 30, 2007, stating, '[These new laws] while ending smoking in totally enclosed areas, still leave many workers dangerously exposed to known harmful smoke levels in 'outdoor' settings, some in fact mostly enclosed.
SmokeFree Australia has urged all governments to catch up urgently with Queensland, where all smoking areas must be separate and unserviced.'
Stafford Sanders, the co-ordinator of SmokeFree Australia, has stated, '"Proper protection for bar workers, including entertainers, is long overdue. We've been asking for at least four years for these areas to be unserviced. Hospitality workers should already be protected under occupational safety laws, but WorkCover authorities have been turning a selective blind eye to this toxic workplace hazard ...
Smokefree laws should also ensure the prevention of smoke drift from smoking into non-smoking areas, both within the venue and in working areas of adjacent premises ...
We ask all governments to meet with us urgently to discuss how the present unsafe loopholes can be closed, and how all smoking areas might be made fully separate and unserviced without further delay. Members of our coalition would appreciate active consultation, since we are representing the people who are most at risk, and who have been under-represented in negotiations to date.'
4. A new group of patrons will be attracted to hotels and bars once a complete smoking ban is in place
It has been claimed that apart from health risks, the smell of cigarette smoke is unpleasant for non-smokers. Cigarette smoke can irritate the eyes and noses of non-smokers and it clings to their hair and clothes. Thus, non smokers who have previously stayed away from hotels and clubs are now more likely to frequent these venues once smoking bans have been put in place.
A major United States hotel chain, Westins, has recently imposed a ban on smoking in all its hotel rooms in America. All rooms have been thoroughly cleaned to remove traces of cigarette smoke and odour. Westin anticipates that the custom lost from smokers who will no longer be able to use their rooms will more than be made up for by the increased custom from non-smokers who will be assured of being able to book a smoke-free room.
Westin's senior vice president, Sue Brush, has said, 'I don't think it will be a net loss. It should be a net gain.' A similar claim has been made in Australia where hoteliers have been assured that though they made lose custom initially after the imposition of smoking bans in hotel bars and clubs, they will subsequently gain a new clientele made up of those wishing to come to the new smoke-free environments.
Jacque Petterson of San Antonio, who maintains an Internet list of smoke-free hotels in the United States, has said of the ban on smoking in all Westins' hotel rooms across the United States, 'This is just wonderful. So often you go to a place and the non-smoking rooms are all taken or the smoking rooms and the non-smoking rooms are mixed up and the smoke spreads. You're giving people a place to go without having to worry.'
In June 2006 the Cancer Institute released a survey of hotel patron attitudes which would appear to show that many hotel users actually prefer a smoke-free environment. The survey showed 94 per cent of people would maintain or increase their visits after the ban on smoking in hotels and clubs was imposed.
The New South Wales assistant Minister for Health, Frank Sartor, responded to the survey findings by stating, 'What this says is people actually want to go to pubs and clubs to socialise and not to smoke. It shows that, in fact, there won't be an economic problem for the pubs and clubs, in fact it'll be a benefit for many of them.'
5. Those who wish to drink alcohol and smoke may do so in outside smoking areas
Those who support a ban on smoking in hotels and clubs argue that they are not attacking smokers' rights to indulge in their habit. The new legislation allows smokers to continue smoking at hotels and clubs in semi enclosed areas in all states except Queensland where restrictions are more stringent, while additional concessions have been granted to allow smoking in some rooms within casinos. Thus in New South Wales and Victoria smokers may smoke in hotels where the room in which they are smoking is 75 percent or less enclosed.
Further, many hotels and clubs are planning to extend and improve their 'outdoor' facilities so that smokers may smoke and drink more comfortably. For example, casinos like Sydney's Star City have begun working to make their outdoor areas feel more like indoor ones. Peter Grimshaw, a spokesperson for Star City, has stated, 'We've created a series of balconies which are actually looking over the harbour and the city. They've actually got lounges on them. There are TVs and we'll probably even have a barbecue out there, so we're trying to make conditions as comfortable as possible for those who use our smoking balconies.'
6. Those who wish to drink alcohol and smoke may do so in private premises
Finally, it has been noted, smokers are able to smoke in all private locations over which they have control, for example, their own homes and vehicles. They may also smoke in the homes of friends, families and others where they have the owners' permission to do so.
The intention is not to prevent smokers from indulging in their habit. It is to protect others from the adverse health consequences of this habit, especially those others, like hotel employees, who previously had no choice but to be in the vicinity of smokers. (From the point of view of protecting those who have no choice but to be in the vicinity of the smoker, consideration has been given for some time to making it illegal to smoke in a car in which children are being transported.)
Arguments against banning smoking in bars and hotels
1. The sale, purchase and consumption of cigarettes to and by adults is not illegal
It has been claimed that it is not appropriate to place bans on an activity that is legal and from which governments actually derive revenue. According to this line of argument, smoking, while it may involve some level of risk, is a legal activity in all bar one jurisdiction in the world. This suggests that most governments and health authorities do not consider it so harmful as to be prepared to outlaw it.
Supporters of smokers' rights therefore argue it is a matter of choice as to whether individuals smoke and further as to whether passive smokers remain in their company.
Simon Clark, the head of the British smokers' rights lobby group Forest has stated, 'When you leave school you are considered to be an adult. You should be mature enough to make informed choices about eating, drinking, smoking and other activities that give you pleasure but involve a degree of risk.
Instead, politicians and campaigners are lining up to lecture, harass and insult those of us who choose to smoke a perfectly legal product.'
Hugh Tobin in an article published by The Institute of Public Affairs, stated, 'Policy-makers need to consider the consequences of this unprecedented government intervention being imposed on our lives. Smoking is, after all, legal.'
2. Banning smoking in public places may increase the risk of children, adolescents and young adults
It has been claimed that banning smoking in public venues will force more people to smoke predominantly within their homes. One of the negative consequences of this is that it will increase the exposure of children to passive smoking.
Hugh Tobin in an article published by The Institute of Public Affairs, stated, 'It is questionable whether smoking bans inside venues will even have their intended effect. A paper published by the Australian National University's Centre for Economic Policy Research this year found that while taxes on cigarettes had a significant impact on reducing passive smoking, banning smoking in public places had, on average, no effect at all. Instead, bans can adversely increase people's exposure by displacing smokers to private places where they contaminate non-smokers, primarily children. It seems perverse to be shifting smoking back into the home, particularly considering that 94 per cent of the $5 billion spent on health care costs relating to passive smoking were spent on children.
It has further been noted that young people are unlikely to be discouraged from smoking by bans on smoking in public venues. A study by the University's Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, found that the regulations have little effect on those aged 15 to 18 years who already have the habit.
The study suggests a 'defiance' effect among smokers aged 18 to 25 years, who are most likely to continue smoking in States that introduced tougher smoking regulations.
3. Smokers are being discriminated against
It has been argued that the bans currently being placed on smokers are discriminatory. For example, there are multiple sources of air pollution, other than smokers, that do not attract the level of restriction currently being directed at smokers.
An ABC forum contributor made the following point in May 2001. 'You say I'm polluting the air? I take a train to work - how do you get around? Drive your car? Every time you turn the ignition you put out a thousand times the pollution that a cigarette does. Did you make coffee with an electrical or a stove-top kettle this morning? Either way, the result was a little less coal or natural gas for us to use, and a lot more greenhouse gasses in the air than that which comes from a cigarette.
Non-smokers should realise they also pollute the air. It's a little hypocritical, therefore, to advocate a ban on smoking on that premise alone.'
An Australian Yahoo forum response to the question 'Are the new smoking bans unfair?' made the following points, 'I truly feel that it is a discrimination against smokers. Surely if signs state that smoking takes place on the premises then non-smokers have the choice whether to enter the premises or not, just as smokers have the choice whether to enter non-smoking premises. I realise that in work places where there's both smokers and non-smokers that it shouldn't be allowed but surely in public places i.e. pubs and clubs this should be allowed. And yes I do know that bar workers have rights too but surely they're aware that smoking takes place in them places so again if they don't like smoking then don't work in a pub or club.'
Kevin Glancy, writing in The Issue in December 1999, argued that the high level of taxation imposed on cigarettes was discriminatory against smokers. Clearly, the argument Mr Glancy puts in relation to taxes on cigarettes could also be applied to the current bans on the smoking of cigarettes in public places. Mr Glancy wrote, 'We hear talk of such things as equal rights, human rights and those - "where are they when you really need them" - anti-discrimination laws and yet no-one seems to bat an eyelid over the fact that our governments continue to grossly discriminate against one particular group of consumers who choose to consume a perfectly legal product - a packet of cigarettes. And before anyone says "Well it serves them right! They are smokers after all." Remember! The government could penalise any consumer group by charging excessive tax rates on any legal product on the basis that "it's bad for you". Alcohol could be next, even fast food, cars - whatever product they choose, whenever they want more of our money.'
4. Outdoor smoking areas are not always feasible or appropriate
It has been noted that not all hotels will be able to establish outdoor smoking areas to accommodate their former patrons. Those in inner city areas may simply not have the outside space to make such redevelopment possible. For example, the only way the Panania Diggers club in Sydney's western suburbs could establish an outdoor drinking area was to transform one of its bowling greens into a smoking area. There are many hotels that do not have bowling greens that could be transformed in this manner.
The Australian Hotel Association's Victorian vice-president, Ian Larkin has suggested it is going to be a challenge to control cigarette butt litter and noise control levels outside of venues. He has also noted, 'A lot of landlocked hotels which are going to find it very difficult to have a smoking garden or a smoking room - we'd probably be looking towards the streets now too with the litter - gee that's a problem, and with the noise control.'
There is the possibility that local councils will not always be prepared to grant the planning permits necessary. There are real issues in terms of noise pollution and streetscape alterations (particularly where existing buildings would have to be demolished to allow for the redevelopment) that would need to be met before such permits were granted.
In an attempt to pressure local councils to grant building permits, the hotel industry has threatened to withdraw political donations to local government candidates if councils do not make it easier for hoteliers to develop outdoor smoking areas.
The New South Wales branch of the Australian Hotels Association has also noted the enormous cost associated with such redevelopment. In preparation for the July 2007 bans New South Wales clubs and hotels have already spent some $400 million on redevelopment.
5. Banning smoking in pubs and hotels will significantly damage these businesses
It has been claimed that banning cigarette smoking in hotels and clubs will have an adverse effect on patronage, driving out many of the smokers who are currently regular customers. John Lewis, the general manager of the Australian Hotels Association has stated, 'Smoking bans in Victorian gaming rooms reduced gaming turnover by in excess of 30 per cent and they still haven't returned to pre-ban levels.' In the first ten months after smoking was banned in Victorian gaming rooms revenue declined by 6.4 percent.
John Thorpe, the president of the New South Wales branch of the Australian Hotels Association has stated his belief that the State Government had picked a very bad time to introduce the ban.
Mr Thorpe stated, 'Pubs are already hurting in the country from the drought and now floods. It's winter which doesn't help us and now people won't be able to smoke.'
In September 2004 the Australian Hoteliers Association sent a series of claims and statistics to all its New South Wales members and urged that they use this information when protesting against proposed bans on smoking in clubs and hotels. The Australian Hotels Association made the following claims in relation to the impact of banning smoking in hotels in Ireland. The Association claimed that 61 percent of bars in Dublin were in danger of closing and that takings were down 15 to 25 percent in alcohol sales alone. Rural tourism, the Association claimed, lost nearly 20 percent in "bed nights"'
The Association made similar claims in relation to the impact that banning smoking in bars had had in New York. It claimed liquor sales were down up to 40 percent and that a third of bars would close within two years. (Please note, many of these claims made by the Australian Hoteliers Association have been disputed.)
It has also been claimed that the bans will have adverse effects on Government revenue as governments forfeit monies from cigarette taxes and taxes profits from gaming. The Australian Hotels Association claims the bans could cost half a billion dollars a year in gaming and alcohol tax revenue.
6. Banning smoking in pubs and hotels will reduce employment in the hospitality
industry
There have been numerous fears expressed that if smoking bans significantly reduce the profitability of hotels and clubs, there will inevitably be job losses in the hospitality industry. The Australian Hotels Association has claimed the bans could cost some 8000 jobs across the country.
In September 2004, the Australian Hotels Association made a number of claims in relation to the impact on jobs of banning smoking in bars and clubs in Ireland. These were sent in an email to its New South Wales members. The Association claimed that some 20 percent of staff in Dublin's hotels and clubs lost their jobs after a smoking ban was introduced. The Association further claimed that after a similar ban was imposed in New York some 27 percent of hotel workers were put off. (Please note, the Association's figures have been disputed.)
In relation to the situation in Australia, hospitality industry spokespeople have predicted that casual shifts in New South Wales hotels and clubs are likely to be cut by some 16 per.
Further implications
As a lobby group smokers appear to have very little influence.
The level of public support for bans on smoking in clubs and bars is very high, even among smokes, so there is little reason to think state parliamentarians will fear a general voter backlash from the recent smoking bans. If, however, the decline in smoking related taxation revenue that the Australian Hotels Association has predicted were to occur it is possible that this might slow the general move toward prohibiting smoking in all areas except private homes.
What currently seems probable is that further restrictions will be placed on smoking in public. This may mean that (as apparently happens in Queensland) areas in clubs and hotels where smoking occurs cannot be serviced by staff.
It also seems possible that in years to come smoking will be banned in private cars which carry children and there may even be legislative measures put in place to prohibit pregnant women smoking. All such moves would be consistent with the general legislative trend within Australia toward protecting non-smokers from being unsought exposure to second hand or side stream smoke.
Newspaper items used in the compilation of this issue outline
Herald-Sun, June 16, page 27, analysis by Royall and Bolling, `The habit stops here'.
The Age, June 29, page 13, comment by K Kizilos, `Yes, smoking is bad for you, but the camaraderie was great'.
The Age, June 30, Insight section, page 12, analysis by Carol Nader, `Man who loves quitters'.
The Age, June 30, page 5, news item by Houston and Catalano, `No smoke without some ire'.
The Age, June 30, page 5, analysis (on hotels, clubs / pubs banning) by Chris Johnston, `Waiting to exhale as midnight knell nears for last gasp'.
Herald-Sun, July 1, page 12-13, news item, `Bar bans signal new battle plan'.
The Age, July 1, page 2, news item by R Sexton, `Pub ashtrays go way of the dodo'.
The Age, July 2, page 10, editorial, `Ban puts smokers out in the cold, but the booze-up goes on'.
The Age, July 2, page 6, news item by Jane Faulkner, `In the pub, few are fuming at smokers' last gasp'.
Herald-Sun, July 2, page 18, editorial, `The last gasp'.
Herald-Sun, July 2, page 13, news items by Holly Ife et al, `A breath of fresh air / No whiffs or butts, pub patrons told'.
The Age, July 5, page 16, editorial (ref to rooftop venue for smokers at Melbourne's Young and Jackson's), `Is this a reason to hit the roof?'. Using google to find newspaper items still available on the Web
Use your mouse to copy a newspaper headline (just the headline, not the entire entry as it appears in the sources) and paste it into the google search box below. Click search to see if the item is still accessible.
Search for listed newspaper items online - see end of this page