Ban Smoking Area???
-
Ineffective ban leaves coffeeshop patrons - at both ends of the stick - frustrated
From coffeeshops to cyberspace, you can almost see the smoke rising. Those who insist on puffing at food courts and hawker centres are locked in a turf war with non-smokers put off by the habit.
The law, which kicked in six months back, is clear: Eating establishments are supposed to confine smokers inside a clearly-marked yellow box, which should take up no more than 20 per cent of their outdoor area.
Quite simply, it is not working. And in some cases, its ineffectiveness is giving rise to frustration.
Recently, two smokers walked up to a man sitting inside the yellow box at Holland Village. "Do you smoke?" the man was asked. When he said he did not, they told him to leave the area. Reasoned one of the smokers: "How can non-smokers sit in our zone when we can't sit in theirs?"
But more often than not, the anger comes from the opposite direction. Those who had looked forward to smoke-free meals are getting frustrated seeing smokers openly encroaching their space or blowing smoke in their direction.
"I will take pictures of all smokers at the coffeeshop and send to the police," ranted an angry posting on a local online forum.
The problems, a check by this newspaper revealed, are obvious. The main one is that the eating establishments themselves are not keen to enforce the restrictions, while the National Environment Agency (NEA) lacks the resources to keep regular tabs on them.
At a 24-hour coffeeshop at Yishun, this reporter counted at least 12 errant smokers in an area that spilled out beyond the 20-per-cent area allowance - and the coffeeshop owner, who was supposed to help enforce the ban, was smoking with her patrons at one of the tables.
A coffeeshop assistant said "nine out of 10" operators would just "close one eye" to errant smoking, but would not admit to the fact openly.
"If you want to make money, you have no choice," she said. "If you are very strict you will be very busy calling the authorities all day and you will lose a lot of customers. When people drink and smoke, there's business."
Related to this is the placement of the smoking box, which sometimes makes a mockery of the rule. Eleven of 20 eating places checked had smoking areas situated in the midst of, or an arm's reach away from, non-smoking tables.
At one establishment in Bugis, smokers sit in an L-shaped row of tables, blowing smoke at others. At another Holland Village coffeeshop, they virtually encircle the non-smokers.
"Having a law is good on the surface, but it cannot control where the smoke goes," said a mother in her 30s, who complained about having to put up with second-hand smoke.
Also, the NEA oversees the area within which smokers must be confined, but not how many can be seated in the space. This means coffeeshops can squeeze as many seats or tables in the smoking areas as they want and still be in line with the law.
The law itself has not managed to nail many offenders. Between July and November last year, the NEA fined 28 eating places - 13 of which were coffeeshops - and 335 smokers. That's about one coffeeshop a month and two errant smokers a day. In contrast, at just three of the venues this newspaper checked, 23 people were spotted puffing away openly outside of the designated boxes.
But enforcing the ban can be a stretch for NEA's 330 public health inspectors, because they also oversee all other areas of public health, such as littering, dengue and food hygiene. They visit some 90 food outlets a day - just 1 per cent of the 6,400 hawker centres, coffeeshops, outdoor restaurants and entertainment venues in Singapore.
The NEA said that that the new policy could not "eliminate exposure" to cigarette smoke but sought to "limit (and) confine smoking to a single location where practical" so as to "minimise (a patron's) exposure to second-hand smoke". It added that with the smoking ban, "exposure to second-hand smoke (has been) significantly reduced".
MAYBE WE NEED A BIGGER STICK
When Hong Kong decided to implement smoking restrictions, there were no half-measures. It simply enacted a complete ban on smoking in most public areas.
Several Singaporeans favoured that approach over the calibrated one adopted by the NEA.
A smoker even said that people like him would not be deterred by the current restrictions as they were not likely to get caught in the first place.
"Either increase enforcement or ban smoking in places outright," he said.
Added a 22-year-old student: "They should just ban smoking totally in coffeeshops, and only allow smoking a certain distance away from the eating area."
The NEA, however, said that it was not planning to implement a large-scale ban at this point.
Mr Charles Chong, who heads the Government Parliamentary Committee on National Development and Environment, still felt that a complete ban was the way to go.
"The Hong Kong authorities are quite right to bite the bullet and put in place an effective measure to curb second-hand smoke," he said. - /st
If the sg govt is efficient in controlling....Why the hell not stopping sales of cigarettes.
If the sg govt does that ''stopping or ban importing and sales of cigarettes...I will salute to them with two hands and two feet......
-
Originally posted by Lowclassman:
Hey brother, can you or we recal how many "bright ideas" from our gov, that actually worked???
Ineffective ban leaves coffeeshop patrons - at both ends of the stick - frustrated
From coffeeshops to cyberspace, you can almost see the smoke rising. Those who insist on puffing at food courts and hawker centres are locked in a turf war with non-smokers put off by the habit.
The law, which kicked in six months back, is clear: Eating establishments are supposed to confine smokers inside a clearly-marked yellow box, which should take up no more than 20 per cent of their outdoor area.
Quite simply, it is not working. And in some cases, its ineffectiveness is giving rise to frustration.
Recently, two smokers walked up to a man sitting inside the yellow box at Holland Village. "Do you smoke?" the man was asked. When he said he did not, they told him to leave the area. Reasoned one of the smokers: "How can non-smokers sit in our zone when we can't sit in theirs?"
But more often than not, the anger comes from the opposite direction. Those who had looked forward to smoke-free meals are getting frustrated seeing smokers openly encroaching their space or blowing smoke in their direction.
"I will take pictures of all smokers at the coffeeshop and send to the police," ranted an angry posting on a local online forum.
The problems, a check by this newspaper revealed, are obvious. The main one is that the eating establishments themselves are not keen to enforce the restrictions, while the National Environment Agency (NEA) lacks the resources to keep regular tabs on them.
At a 24-hour coffeeshop at Yishun, this reporter counted at least 12 errant smokers in an area that spilled out beyond the 20-per-cent area allowance - and the coffeeshop owner, who was supposed to help enforce the ban, was smoking with her patrons at one of the tables.
A coffeeshop assistant said "nine out of 10" operators would just "close one eye" to errant smoking, but would not admit to the fact openly.
"If you want to make money, you have no choice," she said. "If you are very strict you will be very busy calling the authorities all day and you will lose a lot of customers. When people drink and smoke, there's business."
Related to this is the placement of the smoking box, which sometimes makes a mockery of the rule. Eleven of 20 eating places checked had smoking areas situated in the midst of, or an arm's reach away from, non-smoking tables.
At one establishment in Bugis, smokers sit in an L-shaped row of tables, blowing smoke at others. At another Holland Village coffeeshop, they virtually encircle the non-smokers.
"Having a law is good on the surface, but it cannot control where the smoke goes," said a mother in her 30s, who complained about having to put up with second-hand smoke.
Also, the NEA oversees the area within which smokers must be confined, but not how many can be seated in the space. This means coffeeshops can squeeze as many seats or tables in the smoking areas as they want and still be in line with the law.
The law itself has not managed to nail many offenders. Between July and November last year, the NEA fined 28 eating places - 13 of which were coffeeshops - and 335 smokers. That's about one coffeeshop a month and two errant smokers a day. In contrast, at just three of the venues this newspaper checked, 23 people were spotted puffing away openly outside of the designated boxes.
But enforcing the ban can be a stretch for NEA's 330 public health inspectors, because they also oversee all other areas of public health, such as littering, dengue and food hygiene. They visit some 90 food outlets a day - just 1 per cent of the 6,400 hawker centres, coffeeshops, outdoor restaurants and entertainment venues in Singapore.
The NEA said that that the new policy could not "eliminate exposure" to cigarette smoke but sought to "limit (and) confine smoking to a single location where practical" so as to "minimise (a patron's) exposure to second-hand smoke". It added that with the smoking ban, "exposure to second-hand smoke (has been) significantly reduced".
MAYBE WE NEED A BIGGER STICK
When Hong Kong decided to implement smoking restrictions, there were no half-measures. It simply enacted a complete ban on smoking in most public areas.
Several Singaporeans favoured that approach over the calibrated one adopted by the NEA.
A smoker even said that people like him would not be deterred by the current restrictions as they were not likely to get caught in the first place.
"Either increase enforcement or ban smoking in places outright," he said.
Added a 22-year-old student: "They should just ban smoking totally in coffeeshops, and only allow smoking a certain distance away from the eating area."
The NEA, however, said that it was not planning to implement a large-scale ban at this point.
Mr Charles Chong, who heads the Government Parliamentary Committee on National Development and Environment, still felt that a complete ban was the way to go.
"The Hong Kong authorities are quite right to bite the bullet and put in place an effective measure to curb second-hand smoke," he said. - /st
If the sg govt is efficient in controlling....Why the hell not stopping sales of cigarettes.
If the sg govt does that ''stopping or ban importing and sales of cigarettes...[b]I will salute to them with two hands and two feet...... [/b]
Before I asked you this question, I already started thinking - right now, I'm still thinking.... -
Hypocrisy is the word.Originally posted by ShutterBug:Hey brother, can you or we recal how many "bright ideas" from our gov, that actually worked???
Before I asked you this question, I already started thinking - right now, I'm still thinking.... -
Ban cigarettes? hahaha ...that is like slaughtering the goose who lays golden eggs. Why stop it when you can go around giving out fines? Generation of cash flow
. -
Originally posted by Lowclassman:
How you salute with two hands and two feet? Got time post picture show me leh.
If the sg govt is efficient in controlling....Why the hell not stopping sales of cigarettes.
If the sg govt does that ''stopping or ban importing and sales of cigarettes...I will salute to them with two hands and two feet......
(Cock idea) Put a few sibei large fan at the yellow box facing out. When the smokers smoke, the fans will blow all the smoke away. Plus, it is also quite cooling in the hot and humid coffee shop. Song bo?
(Another cock idea) We can also ban the kopi diam from selling cigarettes. Make life difficult for th smokers.
Both idea sibei cock, rite? -
yah
1 st idea : who pay 4 fan n electricity? govt ar?
2 nd idea: govt wil have lesser gst n cigarette tax to collect. who make up for that lost $$. u ar -
That's why I said.....they have to wayang wayang a bit lah......IF NOT HOW TO WIN MORE VOTES....SEE........ WE, PAP IS SO CONCERN ABOUT YOUR HEALTH and acted so diligently.......Originally posted by asdfzhao:yah
1 st idea : who pay 4 fan n electricity? govt ar?
2 nd idea: govt wil have lesser gst n cigarette tax to collect. who make up for that lost $$. u ar -
Well, they would certainly win my vote for banning smoking in public areas. One effective way to enforce the law is for non-smoking customers to photograph smokers who flout the law and post the images on STOMP.Originally posted by Lowclassman:That's why I said.....they have to wayang wayang a bit lah......IF NOT HOW TO WIN MORE VOTES....SEE........ WE, PAP IS SO CONCERN ABOUT YOUR HEALTH and acted so diligently.......
Shame and name the hawker centres and coffee shops will do the trick and help the authorities prosecute them. -
They will certainly win my vote too...........if pap were to ban sale of cigarettes........and without implementing more taxes or increase taxes on something else.Originally posted by oxford mushroom:Well, they would certainly win my vote for banning smoking in public areas. One effective way to enforce the law is for non-smoking customers to photograph smokers who flout the law and post the images on STOMP.
Shame and name the hawker centres and coffee shops will do the trick and help the authorities prosecute them.
Myself, I'm a heavy smoker.
One word...''''HYPOCRISY'''''to them..... -
Let's face it.Originally posted by oxford mushroom:Well, they would certainly win my vote for banning smoking in public areas. One effective way to enforce the law is for non-smoking customers to photograph smokers who flout the law and post the images on STOMP.
Shame and name the hawker centres and coffee shops will do the trick and help the authorities prosecute them.
There are people who thinks that malu-ing themselves is cool. These people only cease to exist in your utopia, which will never exist in real life because no one's utopia will ever exist in reality.
All the "Shame and name" thingy you propose will only lead to loads of defamations and slandering lawsuits, lesson learnt from of MM, SM and PM. Besides, when profit in mind, I don't think that many owner (in terms of hawker center) would do anything to stop customers from smoking in their shop. I quote from the infamous 1993 Hong Kong drama "The Greed of Man", "Ethnics were put aside; Profits will be put in the center" (dao4 yi2 fang4 liang3 pang2; li4 zi4 bai3 zhong1 jian1)
Btw, they win my vote because they are holding my future. "If you are not with us, you are against us"
Anyway, back to the cigarette issue, the government can't ban cigarettes from coming into Singapore. We have already seen what Al Capone did when US banned alcoholic drinks.
(The cockest idea I ever thought of) The tariffs on cigarettes' sales should be scrap. Instead, the system as "pay more when you sell more" should be implemented. i.e, A certain standard of cigarette sales will be set. If wholesaler A sells more cigarette compared to that standard, he will be entitled to pay more tax or whatever expenses incurred. If A sells less cigarettes than that standard, he might need to pay less tax, or even no tax at all; Rather than pay (tax) as you sell. -
Precisely, they are holding everyone's testes so to speak....Originally posted by Hogzilla:Let's face it.
There are people who thinks that malu-ing themselves is cool. These people only cease to exist in your utopia, which will never exist in real life because no one's utopia will ever exist in reality.
All the "Shame and name" thingy you propose will only lead to loads of defamations and slandering lawsuits, lesson learnt from of MM, SM and PM. Besides, when profit in mind, I don't think that many owner (in terms of hawker center) would do anything to stop customers from smoking in their shop. I quote from the infamous 1993 Hong Kong drama "The Greed of Man", "Ethnics were put aside; Profits will be put in the center" (dao4 yi2 fang4 liang3 pang2; li4 zi4 bai3 zhong1 jian1)
Btw, they win my vote because they are holding my future. "If you are not with us, you are against us"
Anyway, back to the cigarette issue, the government can't ban cigarettes from coming into Singapore. We have already seen what Al Capone did when US banned alcoholic drinks.
(The cockest idea I ever thought of) The tariffs on cigarettes' sales should be scrap. Instead, the system as "pay more when you sell more" should be implemented. i.e, A certain standard of cigarette sales will be set. If wholesaler A sells more cigarette compared to that standard, he will be entitled to pay more tax or whatever expenses incurred. If A sells less cigarettes than that standard, he might need to pay less tax, or even no tax at all; Rather than pay (tax) as you sell.
I shudder to think of future in their hands.... -
im no smoker. and i'm used to second hand smoke cause both my parents are smokers. but it's like... there's no way one can do anything about it. :\
-
smoking is banned in several streets in tokyo. they have areas marked out as smoking zones, not dissimilar to the yellow box you'd see in an SAF camp. does it work?
very well. -
The Japanese are a very conformist people. They pick up rubbish without the need for FINES.Originally posted by nismoS132:smoking is banned in several streets in tokyo. they have areas marked out as smoking zones, not dissimilar to the yellow box you'd see in an SAF camp. does it work?
very well.
They queue up orderly ......
Cannot compare ... -
the coffee shop smoking area at my block is just beside the lift landing.
a lot of smokers now smoke at the staircase if they cant do it anywhere else. -
Smokers pay one of the highest taxes. I feel that the public does not give smokers the proper respect.
ItÂ’s true that treatment for smoking related illness is not cheap.
Let's punish smokers with a tax that does not directly benefit them. But why stop there? Let's also raise the alcohol tax for alcohol related diseases, impose a sugar tax and junk food tax to tackle obesity, tax those who are not a member of a gym, or who fail to see a doctor regularly to check their heath.. But, wait! We can do more. We can tax those with a genetic disposition for getting ill! When will the madness stop?! ItÂ’s only fair that all share the responsibility for the rising medical costs.
Why target smokers only? -
if they ever ban smoking i'm giving up my singapore passport and moving to amsterdam
like this ah, they should start taxing fat people for taking up more space and resources, twice the amount for a regular fat bloke, 3 times for a super fat bloke. -
I attended NTUC's ex chief's farewell dinner n saw all the union leaders wore Rolex watches n shown off 2 each others but the way their behaviour making me suck!!!
Siiyporeans!!! we r their sucks!!!
Why NTUC fairprice cant beat Giant with the net profit n somemore lost $ all these 20 yrs!!!
Think lah sillyporeans and with all these Gods laughing at us said we are stupid sillyporeansS@@@@@ -
cool~
Ban smoking and next year GST 10%....
By then, how will be the complaints be?
Sporeans......... -
To all smokers,u r very poor thing!paid 10 times tax n being chased all out of the way!!!Originally posted by dcx:cool~
Ban smoking and next year GST 10%....
By then, how will be the complaints be?
Sporeans.........
Still somking!!!!
Letting all the Gods laughing 2 the bank!!!! -
They will never ban selling cigerette, which is almost instant killing 99% of the smokers. And the amount of tax generated from cigerettes are too much for them stop selling which is like killing a goose that lays golden eggs.
Increase Price to people quit - a lame reason which the real intention is to generate more tax, knowing very well smokers will not quit because of price increase.
Ban smoking at public places - 1) makes the non-smoker happy, cannot say they only know how to collect tax and not doing anything. 2) smokers will still continue smoking even for the ban. 3) If manage to catch those breaking the rules, can fine them which is also $$$. 4)In this place, they have 1001 rules, so many until you cannot count, but how logical or how often they enforce it? But anytime they can catch you and yet you cannot say err i have been smoking here for the past 2 years, how come now then u catch me? -
Why Japanese are very conformist people.......? Cos, their govt really take care of their welfare......salaries reasonably high to counter high living cost.Originally posted by fymk:The Japanese are a very conformist people. They pick up rubbish without the need for FINES.
They queue up orderly ......
Cannot compare ...
This is what in Asean countries, none could achieve...different mindset.......and futhermore...our leaders were all blinded by $$$ and keep taking ridiculous super paychecks where none will spare a true thought for the average or lower income group.
In their mind, super salaries first, profits first, sit on board of directors the more the better, drawing endless pensions, living like a loyal familes, taken all goodies first when economy recovers....then slowly....they will start to ''work out'' and see how to revive the average and lower income group.
It isn't like late sixties or early seventies to early eighties.........when the govt were so eager to help its people by allow opportunities to flow in directly to benefit its people.........(Now....they would grab first and to become bosses) so as to win people's heart in the course of developing our nation.......
I remember, at that time..... most of ministers or high ranking officials and the elites would only speak humble and acted morally.
Now.....s h i t ...every now and then.......talking about their salaries to be compared with top sex.....
sorry.... TOp Six highest earning elites......got to pay super high salaries so as to avoid the ministers from corrupted lah.....
So I see...these people enaged by '' p '' are also lack of integrity, honesty, moral and etc.......and super salaries is the only way to keep them away from corruption!
Remember? In early 2001 or 2002 or 2003, when economy started to recover slightly....the ministers and high ranking officials were the first to re-adjust their salaries back.
I wonder...haven't they have got enough $$$ that would allow them to live in super luxury?
Haven't they got life long pensions to keep them living in super luxuries?....and yet..they are asking for more.
Or is it that they need more $$$$ in order to get glory of fame in reputation? -
Look at what happened to American when they banned alcohol (for those who don't remember such event, look at your history textbook).
Now think what'll happen to singapore if we ban smoking? -
I'm more fearful of what will happen if we continue to vote for PAP!!!Originally posted by mahawarrior:Look at what happened to American when they banned alcohol (for those who don't remember such event, look at your history textbook).
Now think what'll happen to singapore if we ban smoking? -
I dont think they will ban cigarettes in Singapore. I mean if tourists come here & smoke but get caught?
Chewin gum is enough, please dont ban anymore stuffs.