Smoking rules have businesses fuming

2012-07-11 14:41

Johannesburg - Plans by the government to further restrict smoking in public places has some business owners crying foul and threatening legal action.

"This regulation must be rejected because it is not possible to implement," said Township Liquor Traders Association secretary Patric Poggenpoel.

He said his organisation had not been consulted on the rule making and asked the department of health to reconsider it.

He said if the new rule went ahead some business owners and organisations would likely challenge it in court.

The new rules would prohibit people from smoking in any public place, including restaurants, bars and shebeens.

It also prevents them from smoking within 10m of a window to a public place.

  • tednhet - 2012-07-11 14:53

    Big st*t on the way.Restaurants must put up a sign. NON SMOKERS WELCOME

      Squeegee - 2012-07-11 15:06

      Business going up in smoke...?

      tednhet - 2012-07-11 15:06

      clearly 2 non smokers. HaHa

      philip.venter1 - 2012-07-11 22:51

      I don't get it, why can't businesses manage their own smoking regulations? If you want to have a bar where people can smoke wherever they want then it should be your choice. If you dislike smoke then you don't have to go to places where they allow smoking, no one is forcing you. People are allowed to pollute the air and your lungs with cars, trains, factories and many other things but not cigarette smoke? That's very hypocritical and unfair.

      violet.bossut - 2012-07-12 00:35

      To alicia.myburgh.65 They might have turned the Restaurant around with the Non Smokers but the food is still crap.

      martin.britchford.5 - 2012-07-12 08:26

      alicia, here at my office the smokers walk right in, the non smokers have been enjoying the -6 morning air

      paul.c.wadsworth - 2012-07-12 10:16

      I've been smoking for years, there's nothing wrong with my lung!

      Frank - 2012-07-12 11:09

      It's quite retarded that there should even be debate about this. Having spent some time in Europe in smoke free bars it is absolutely disgusting being in a South African bar filled with smoke. And I'm not opposed to smoking, I enjoy smoking on occasion myself. But how people can smoke inside bars, cars or even their own homes is beyond me. Smoke outside where your smoke doesn't bother people that don't want to inhale your second hand smoke.

      JohhnyBGood - 2012-07-12 12:03

      @paul.c.wadsworth, So you only have the one lung left ? Well done...

      allcoveredinNinjas - 2012-07-12 12:26

      Tobacco nazi's and dicatators come a running , no one is fighting for the right to blow smoke on you and your kids but just the right to have a cigerette and in perticular the ability to choose a resturant/bar or whatever that provides the facilities . Choice!

      hugh.robinson.56 - 2012-07-12 19:54

      This has got to the point of legal discrimination driven by a bunch of self righteous trying to tell other how they should live. To start the chairman of the Anti smoking lobby is a Doctor but also an Islamic follower whose antismoking stance is based on his religion. His stance is similar to that of religous fanatics banning gays. No about accepting Gays and not Smokers ......

      tony.wardle.75 - 2012-07-13 14:36

      Drink, drive and kill, OK, murder rape and rob, ok, fraud corruption and theft ok. But SMOKING, ......... What a wierd bunch we are?,??

  • thutothegreat - 2012-07-11 14:55

    Please define public place?

      wesley.bischoff - 2012-07-11 15:04

      everywhere except your house and car...

      antoinette.jordaan - 2012-07-11 15:08

      ......and only if there's no kids in the car.........a bit of a bugger, cos my back yard ain't 10 m wide.

      Ze Don - 2012-07-11 15:12

      @Wesley, you are already prohibited from smoking in your car if a child under the age of 12 is in it... FYI

      rob.baggaley - 2012-07-11 15:25

      I made my twelve year old take up jogging two years ago. He loves it ! No car trips for him.

      E=MC2 - 2012-07-11 15:56

      any place where non-smokers prefer not to be poisoned.

      jacovniek - 2012-07-11 16:12

      I wish the some of these laws were in place when I was kid... might have saved me from years of severe asthma. I was on all kind of medications and could not participate in any sport.

      Freddie - 2012-07-11 16:48

      Stadiums, arenas, sports facilities, playgrounds, zoos Premises of schools, or child care facilities Health facilities Outdoor eating or drinking areas Venues when outdoor events take place Covered walkways and covered parking areas Service areas and service lines Beaches where public bathing is permitted, not less than 50 metres away from the closest person near the demarcated swimming area. Also, any person present in an area in which smoking is prohibited must not be exposed to smoke created by any person smoking outside the area. Reasonable distance is defined as a minimum of 5 metres.

      straatslak - 2012-07-11 16:55

      @E=MC2 ->

      Freddie - 2012-07-11 16:57

      No person shall smoke any tobacco product within 10 metres of a window, ventilation inlet, doorway or entrance to a public place. Or near a walkway. In a designated smoking area the following applies: -No person under 18 is allowed -No food or refeshment may be served -No entertainment may be provided -Smokers are discouraged from remaining in the area longer than is necessary to smoke a cigarette.

      Jellyarse - 2012-07-11 18:53

      Freddie-miff - in the UK, these attitudes nearly killed the pub trade and left tens of thousands jobless as a result of it. Those that survived creatively build smoking shelters where on any given day, you can see more people than inside the bar and even the non-smokers are there. No entertainment? You've been naughty buying cigarettes, paying us astronomical taxes all these years and now we're going to punish yoou even more. -typical cANCerous ass**les, biting the hands that feed their corrupt ways. And where are you going to getting money to survive when you've eventually driven so much of your income away that you can no longer pay for your grants and pensions (Zuma's included) and the people start to revolt? You can't just cut them off like Comrade Bob - as my Mother used to say, "Give a thing, take a thing, God'll send the Devil in"

      om.nom.nom.01 - 2012-07-11 20:40

      @ Jellyarse: Do you know that you cost the state more in medical bills than what you pay in tax & if it was not for you then there would be more money for my children to buy pap? You is really really a jelly azz...

      martin.britchford.5 - 2012-07-12 08:29

      i smoke weed in public, what makes anyone think the cops are gonna catch anyone smoking a damn cigarette,

      E=MC2 - 2012-07-12 11:35

      straatslak - using pictures instead of words hey... giving your IQ away a little bit aren’t you. Go back to colouring in your pictures, sorry if i interrupted.

      E=MC2 - 2012-07-12 12:12

      martin.britchford.5 - with that pearl of a comment, you've just nullified every comment you'll ever make... "Life's tough. It's even tougher if you're stupid." -John Wayne

      martin.britchford.5 - 2012-07-12 12:57

      oh you dont smoke weed, you must be a person of superior moral calibre

      E=MC2 - 2012-07-12 13:37

      martin.britchford.5 - so you justifying smoking weed now? How about some coke now & then? That also ok i suppose? YES i think im above smoking weed & im not even ashamed to admit that (you make it sound like its a bad thing NOT to smoke weed which further nullifies any level of intellect that you try to portray)

      tristan.johnson.355 - 2012-07-12 16:05

      @ E=MC vs. Martin B - a) you have adopted a really tired form of arguing. don't twist his words. Martin was pointing out that since nobody notices him smoking weed in public, nobody is going to notice him smoking a cigarette in public should that be criminalized. He was neither advocating/justifying the general use of cannabis, nor was he claiming to be superior, only you did that. b) Smoking cannabis does not make you stupid, nor does it nullify any intelligent opinion you may have. Ask Richard Branson if smoking cannabis makes you stupid, he is an outspoken cannabis user, and an exceptionally intelligent man. c) Martin never stated that you are inferior due to not smoking weed, nor did he infer that he was more intelligent due to his choice, that again was only you. Nor did he feel the need to make comparisons between two obviously different substances. d) He did use sarcasm, which you seem to have missed and taken to heart. Shame. Your biased, over-zealous arguing on this thread makes me question YOUR intelligent comments on other articles.

      oistar.tutu - 2012-07-12 16:13

      Shot Tristan. What you said is an excellent summary of what I wished to have said in my comments below.

      E=MC2 - 2012-07-12 16:28

      tristan.johnson.355 - well analysed. Having said that, sarcasm is the lowest form of wit (or so the saying goes) Quoting one user of cannabis who happens to be intellectual doesn’t make up for the millions of users who aren’t as genetically blessed as Sir Branson. You’re generalising. (oops, I do that too) What Martin said was a statement not a suggestion. There’s a the difference. That’s where grammar comes in (something oistar could use some help with too)

      oistar.tutu - 2012-07-12 18:46

      there is a little bvit more in life to worry about than grammer, especially when I am quickly typing away. I would be a little bit more careful when applying for a job application, but for you precious e=mc2, I really couldn't bother to do a spell check. It does not make me a retard and it certainly does not make me an anally retentive bore like you

      Jellyarse - 2012-07-13 08:49

      TO: Om Nom Nom - Carry on smoking your weed dic*head! For your info, I do not use State Medical facilities as they are putrid and non-existent. As a result I have expensive medical aid which I have never used. My Dad died at 87, having smoked 60 a day for virtually his entire life - he did not die of any smoking related illness. It's either in your genes or not. Have another joint and think about this Country 5 years down the line when you, your Family and your other socialist/communist friends(?) have bled it dry. Tos*er!

      Jellyarse - 2012-07-13 08:52

      Also Om Nom Nom - You are presuming I'm a smoker - TOTALLY WRONG, NEVER TOUCHED ONE IN MY LIFE other than a sickening drag at 15 years old. Trolling Wan*er that you are!

      antebellum.axiom - 2012-07-13 11:39

      @E=MC2 So whats next? Are you gong to start banning braai's? The harmfull gasses and chemicals produced by an average cooking fire is equiavalent to a few cartons of cigarretes. I assume you make the salads then? And what about cars? Why dont you want to ban them? Here are some experiments that you can try. Step1. Experiment 1. Stick one end of a hosepipe in your car exhaust and put the other in your window. Now get in the car and wait. Experiment 2 Get into your car and start smoking cigarettes. Step 2. Compare results with consideration to the impact on your health. Diclaimer: It is very likely that you will not bale to attempt experiment 2 if you start with number 1.

      E=MC2 - 2012-07-13 15:17

      antebellum.axiom - let me remind you that the article is not about braai's or cars (or cooking oil) Those aren’t the topics in discussion here... cigarette smoke is.

      om.nom.nom.01 - 2012-07-13 23:13

      @ Jellyarse: What is a wanner, is it the cousin of a spanner?!?!? And how is calling me a tosser/socialist/communist a insult when you call your self a Jelly Azz, are you thick as a brick... You are a very bitter woman & need to chill a bit!!!!!! FOR REAL!!!!!!!!!

      om.nom.nom.01 - 2012-07-13 23:31

      Also Jellyarse: " I have expensive medical aid "... good for you you liar (anybody with a small brain can see you are commen) sies

      antebellum.axiom - 2012-07-15 19:59

      @E=MC2 You are about as objective as a firing squad. Your abject hate of smoking has robbed you of the ability to view it with a logical mindset instead of an emotional one. My comparisons merely illustrate this disconnect.

  • sandra.roberts.716533 - 2012-07-11 15:00

    Give smokers their own restaurant.

      wesley.bischoff - 2012-07-11 15:04

      There are smokers only places (cigar lounge), but they will be forced to close if this law comes into effect.

      antoinette.jordaan - 2012-07-11 15:09

      Wow.........small world you live in.....

      E=MC2 - 2012-07-11 16:01

      i say give them their own planet... see how quickly they'll kill themselves.

      E=MC2 - 2012-07-12 14:00

      oohh ok let me go change it quick because i REALLY care what you think.

  • Ben - 2012-07-11 15:01

    Stupid regulations which will be ignored. Do something useful and make a law against exhaust fumes.

      Tony - 2012-07-11 15:11

      And farting in lifts!

      Warren - 2012-07-11 16:16

      Tony: if you Smoke in my company, I will fart in yours

      Tony - 2012-07-11 16:26

      @Warren - don't you know that methane is flammable?!!

      om.nom.nom.01 - 2012-07-11 20:50

      @ Ben S: Guvamont has already done so... its called unleaded petrol & catalytic converters.

      oistar.tutu - 2012-07-12 09:19

      @Warren: You are probably farting in our company already ... are we complaining? - 2012-07-12 09:49

      There are laws against exhaust fumes. Cars emit way, way less harmful stuff than they did some time ago

  • spookhuis - 2012-07-11 15:08

    And school books delivered in the seventh month of the year is totally fine.......bunch of miss fits our government is. Puff puff pass bru.

      amelia.basson - 2012-07-11 15:32

      ... but ... Factories billowing poisonous gasses into our *fresh air* are fine, because they pay the same politicians massive bribes to "breathe" the other way? How much money wasted on these non-sensical laws that they absolutely cannot police? Cannot even police real crime! Would love to know who's profiting this time ... do these laws help? I hear more people coughing than ever!! Idiots!

  • bmekgwe - 2012-07-11 15:09

    First it was the cellphone rule,now this crap??????whats next?no walking barefoot?!

      belinda.smyth.9 - 2012-07-14 11:52

      saw a comment about the uk. lol!!! i worked for the NHS as an Information Analyst- i smoke - and some idiot walks up to me and tells me how the effects of smoking costs the country- smokers pay and support the NHS System - TAX - i could write an article substantiated by facts. The effects of air pollution are far greater.

  • nola.richveldman - 2012-07-11 15:10

    And what are they doing about drinking in public places, then getting into a car and driving, thereby endangering the lives of others? Huh? And have you heard of families breaking up because of SMOKING? I think not.

      daniele.zanato - 2012-07-11 15:29

      FYI, it is illegal to drive drunk so there is a law in place for that already with thousands getting criminal records for it. When some is sitting in a chair enjoying a meal with a glass of wine or a beer, they are not endangering you with that single glass of wine or beer but your cigarette infiltrates everyone's space and therefore completely different to drinking. You smokers that constantly compare yourselves to drinkers are a joke. When you're at work and smoke every hour do we crack open a beer?

      jacovniek - 2012-07-11 16:23

      I love my red-wine and brandies... you love your cigarettes... your by-product is smoke, mine is urine. I'll tell you what. Next time I have to inhale your smoke, I'll piss on your head.

      straatslak - 2012-07-11 16:39

      @daniele: Of course you can compare the two. You don't only compare something when it's the same, what would be the point? They share enough similar qualities to warrant a comparison to identify the differences. Besides, he was just pointing out how absurd it is to ban the least dangerous one to such an extent. And FYI, smoke invades your space through your nose and eyes (if you are close enough), where as a drunk ruckus hits many more senses, and much harder. And when I leave a restaurant/bar after smoking an entire packet, I'd still be less of a danger than someone who had a few drinks. @jacovniek: If the only by-product of alcohol was urine, we wouldn’t need all those laws now would we?

      Adam - 2012-07-11 18:41

      jacovniek is a by-product of brandy and wine. Doesn't salt kill more people than smoking?. Any salt free restaurants?, ...

      jacovniek - 2012-07-12 12:55

      Nice one adam... Alcohol can be used in moderation. Smoking can not.

  • kyle.l.bron - 2012-07-11 15:10

    I actually truly dislike smoking, But this is a little extreme

      E=MC2 - 2012-07-11 16:02

      me too, but i dont. Smokers are inconsiderate. i actually like fresh air...

      dennis.mennis.961 - 2012-07-11 16:17

      Ther's no such thing as fresh air.

      straatslak - 2012-07-11 16:43

      If I smoke you can at least try to avoid me (not difficult considering all the designated smoking areas). If this is made law we will be forced to stop doing what we love. To me, that's more inconsiderate.

      oistar.tutu - 2012-07-12 09:22

      please E=mcselfish. Are you really not getting any fresh air - and is it really the smoker's fault? Get your priorities right and stop being such a bigot. Your ancestors have been sleeping around camp fires for millenia, and they did not seem to die off.

      E=MC2 - 2012-07-12 11:39

      oistar - and random outburst of the year goes to...! Am i selfish for not wanting to inhale someone elses second hand smoke?

      oistar.tutu - 2012-07-12 12:55

      as it has been spelt out to you over and over and over, mc2, you are not forced to breath in secondhand smoke. What I find so typically hipocritical is that you complain about not having enough fresh air, yet you attack a miniscule cause of you not having fresh air. You call everone's else statements that you don't agree with as the "dumbest statemnet I have ever heard. You call us inconsiderate, yet you demand that we follow your likes and dislikes. Is that not being inconsiderate to us. Lastly - I have never actually once respected anything that you write on News24 because you seem to be a person that is just me,me,me.

      oistar.tutu - 2012-07-12 13:08

      oh and MC2: now that you have wasted an entire morning on this crusade of yours, have you actually done anything productive? Are you too much of a twit to realise that we won't stop smoking just because you want fresh air? Could you not have spent the time making the world a better place. (Believe me, banning smoking won't be making the world a better place. It will only be an ineffectual curbing of one's free will - and we have enough of that already). Secondly, to spell it out to you again, most of us smokers are considerate and the only secondhand smoke that you are inhaling is because you have obviously chosen to be amongst it.

      John - 2012-07-12 13:26

      @E=MC2 - 100% agree, smokers are the most inconsiderate people. In jhb smokers have the best spots in restaurants, always getting the outside areas with the views etc. Ban the crap I say

      E=MC2 - 2012-07-12 13:46

      oistar - stop repeating yourself. stop repeating yourself. What you like or don’t like about what i choose to write about couldn’t be any less important to me. I recall calling 1 comment the dumbest id read so far (until your awesome spelling took over the number 1 spot) Believe me, when i enter a shopping centre or restaurant etc & am forced to walk through crowds of you addicts bellowing your smoke everywhere, its not because i want to be around it, but am forced to deal with it (hopefully not for much longer tho!)

      oistar.tutu - 2012-07-12 13:57

      what shopping centre are you walking through that there are clouds of smoke. I don't know of any that tolerate smoke on their premises. Yes, we have given you a hand, and you are grabbing the arm. Talk about selfish. And talk about repeating one's self - Hipocrite as I have said before. Spelling? so f'in what.

      E=MC2 - 2012-07-12 14:05

      John - at last; someone who isnt scared to stand up to a group of people who think they can suck on their cancer sticks wherever they want. Been feeling a bit alone here today :) How much money would smokers save if they gave it up & what exactly is the benefit of smoking...? What does it do to you that justifies your defending of it knowing that its killing you?

      E=MC2 - 2012-07-12 14:51

      oistar - do you even know what hypocrite means? fyi - A hypocrite is a person who says one thing and does another. I would need to smoke in order for me to qualify as one... And yes, spelling. If you're going to argue, as least spell correctly.

      oistar.tutu - 2012-07-12 15:44

      mc2- hypocrite (thanks for the spelling, hope your world is smelling rosey now). I say hypocrite, knowing full well what it means, because you are basically telling us that our wants are interfering in your wants. Your wants, on the other hand are interfering with ours. I can understand why you are feeling lonely out there, of course you would. Who wants to be told (dictated) as to what we should do. Do you really think we are going to be grateful to you for telling us what we cannot do. I don't want you for a nanny as much as you don't want us to blow smoke in your face. And anyway, what is it to you if I choose to suck on my cancer stick. Frankly, I don't want to be an aged person, I want to be dead before then. Please stop your preaching because you are interfering in my life more than my secondhand smoke interferes in yours. That is why I call you a hypocrite, but you obviously don't get it. FYI - just read througfh your comments all over this page and see how many times you have said that something is the 'dumbest statement you have ever heard' or similar, repeated.

      tristan.johnson.355 - 2012-07-12 16:18

      E=MC2 - Stop trolling people's spelling, or we will do the same. btw - it's weigh, not way. You feel non-smokers feelings outweigh smokers, not out way. "Ive also got a slight irritation at fat people, but their fat doesnt poison my lungs.", you have a slight irritation at fat people? is this considered proper syntax and grammar in your mind? Be careful about what you say when correcting everyone else. It seems the general opinion is that you are both irritating and childish, move on.

      E=MC2 - 2012-07-12 16:33

      tristan.johnson.355 - i humbly apologize.

      E=MC2 - 2012-07-12 16:50

      oistar - I’m not telling you what you can or cannot do, I’m telling you what i wish you would do & that’s keep your disgusting habit to yourselves. Hopefully the law will tell you that soon too. As for the rest of your blab, whatever.

      oistar.tutu - 2012-07-12 18:53

      E=mc2 It is already basically banned in public, you nitwit. That is what our whole argument is about, we are already obliging you, but you want more. Get it. Or are you living your life in a haze of smoke. I am going to post this somewhere else just so that perhaps you read it twice

      E=MC2 - 2012-07-13 15:21

      oistar - not to the extent that its going to be banned in the future.

  • elliot.meyer.77 - 2012-07-11 15:11

    Why dont rather get our economy better then concentrating where i will smoke because at the end of the day i wont quit it is my choice

      elliot.meyer.77 - 2012-07-11 16:13

      E=MC for your information all my children are grownups with their own kids.Go and gym every morning and still get a heart attack.

      raven.sqarr - 2012-07-11 16:36

      @E=MC2 - Please note, whether you smoke or not you're going to die. Funny then that the oldest person to run the London Marathon is both a drinker and a smoker at age 100.

      E=MC2 - 2012-07-12 11:44

      raven.sqarr - good for him! Good deduction on how everyone is going to die... id just prefer my life to last a bit longer than smokers.

  • vambozha.mutemi - 2012-07-11 15:15

    next thing is "no sex in the afternoon"

      Ben - 2012-07-11 15:19

      Fortunately our president might be on our side on this one.

      carla.vittori3 - 2012-07-11 15:23

      @Ben S - Thank you for the laugh. I really needed it today.

      om.nom.nom.01 - 2012-07-11 20:54

      @ vambozha.mutemi: Nobody gets between me & my num-num finish & a klaar.....

  • rahil.khanna.520 - 2012-07-11 15:17

    Its about time we move with the rest of the world !

  • Bugprof - 2012-07-11 15:19

    This is absolute bulls--t! Why dont they put this energy into curbing corruption and crime fighting.

  • vivian.harris.73 - 2012-07-11 15:20

    Crime, corruption, poverty, education, housing, healthcare and other important issues to deal with and they concerned more about smoking in public places. So u can't have a smoke in a bar but u can stab or shoot someone....

      daniele.zanato - 2012-07-11 15:33

      actually you can't stab or shoot someone either, that's also against the law.

      vivian.harris.73 - 2012-07-11 15:42

      Lmao....don't think the criminals know that...or they just don't give a crap about the laws as they very seldom get caught or they out again in no time...

      anton.coetzee.37 - 2012-07-12 10:53

      vivian EXACTLY!

  • Eric Mdudus Shaku - 2012-07-11 15:22

    By killing tobacco and killing alcohol that means healthier south africans no prostitue and tsotsis nd abuse nd road accident and less teenage preganancy and no night clubs and south africans will invest thier money

      Bugprof - 2012-07-11 15:26

      Prostitution is the oldest profession. That will never be stopped. Eric, your comment seems like some sort of Utopia that can and will never exist.

      carla.vittori3 - 2012-07-11 15:33

      I can somewhat follow the concept but I still fail to see how no tobacco and no alcohol will lead to no night clubs, tsotsis and abuse. I'll give you fewer road accidents as a result of no drunk drivers. But you can't seriously believe that smoking and alcohol are the cause of all ills in SA? No action has been taken to curb drug use at all, hardly any action has been taken to curb violent and sexual crimes and as in the case of Limpopo education has taken a nosedive down to the level of Malema's IQ. people will dance/party whether or not there is alcohol available, uneducated people will still be the worst perpetrators of violent crime, do I really need to explain drugs? and of course teenagers are stupid and they do stupid things - always have and always will. And at best more money will be spent on consumer products not invested. The only thing this law is likely to do is decrease the instances of asthma and lung disease by a very small percentage.

      Daniel - 2012-07-11 15:42

      Yes, take away tobacco and alcohol... That will definitely bring about a stop in prostitution and tsotsi's! You must work in Investec's parking lot!

      anton.coetzee.37 - 2012-07-12 10:55

      eric you a good citizen really!

  • P.J. - 2012-07-11 15:23

    Suits me! I am tired of smelling like burnt tires every time I go out for a drink or something to eat.

      jalo.kula - 2012-07-11 15:30

      that be true!

      jacovniek - 2012-07-11 16:03

      Absolutely! Just because they've lost the ability to smell, does not mean I have.

      E=MC2 - 2012-07-11 16:14

      fully agree!

      anton.coetzee.37 - 2012-07-12 10:58

      you dont think others mind your stale alcohol smell out your mouth?

      E=MC2 - 2012-07-12 11:45

      anton.coetzee.37 - dumb comment... you know that smoke travels a bit further. Oh ya, & the stale alcohol smell also doesnt cause throat & lung cancer. Smokers arent very bright apparently.

      John - 2012-07-12 13:34

      100% agree

  • hein.helmand - 2012-07-11 15:23

    Thats good,and good is nice.I am smoking nou for thirtyeight years.People must only smoke at home in the garage or in the car.

      ebrahim.floris.7 - 2012-07-11 15:30

      sorry hein,"It also prevents them from smoking within 10m of a window to a public place.",no more car puffs.daft,if you ask me!

      malcolm.dale - 2012-07-11 15:36

      If you have employees/children/ens in the house, you may not endanger them either, so where to now?

      dennis.schmelzenbach.5 - 2012-07-11 16:25

      The problem is not smoking, but exhaling! Keep it in!

  • Gerald Jordaan - 2012-07-11 15:24

    Ban smoking period!! Sh*t habit detrimental to everybody's health!!

      adolph.soer - 2012-07-11 15:32

      I fully agree!bad habit..causes so many illnesses

      Bugprof - 2012-07-11 15:33

      Well Gerald, driving a car, drinking alcohol and playing a contact sport is all detrimental to health. Do you suggest this is all banned as well. Why cant people choose if they want to smoke or not. I'm not a smoker but I could not care less if someone else smokes or not.

      malcolm.dale - 2012-07-11 15:40

      ......and so is drunk driving, my friend, so is drunk driving. In fact In one day the latter can kill more people in one hit than one puffer smoking near them! Realism needs to be the key here because anything that goes underground becomes a further danger to society. Oh! don't point fingers at me I am a non smoker but I do enjoy a beer in the evening and a glass of wine with dinner and most certainly never drink and drive!

      daniele.zanato - 2012-07-11 15:45

      @Bugprof, smoking is detrimental to those around a smoker that choose not to smoke a contact sport both parties agree to be there.

      daniele.zanato - 2012-07-11 15:46

      @malcolm.dale, drunk driving is banned my friend.

      ray.ledlie.7 - 2012-07-11 16:03

      Ever seen the colour of the Air in Gauteng in winter. If you smoke you are possibly getting cleaner air.

      E=MC2 - 2012-07-11 16:16

      Bugprof - you use such dumb a$$ examples. the smoke getting too much? Smoking harms all of those around you... if you play rugby, you're not endangering those watching are you?! If you want to smoke, stay in your house & stink up the place, leave us non-smokers to breath fresh air.

      carli.fourie.3 - 2012-07-11 16:24

      @ Danielle, it is my constitutional right as a tax-paying citizen of South Africa to have freedom of choice. And I chose to smoke. Non of your business. It is however, your constitutional right as a nonsmoker, to walk away if I should do this. Respect me, I will respect you. But seriously, this country has been a democracy since 1994, and the government together with non-smokers are starting to behave very much like dictators.

      Daniel - 2012-07-11 16:26

      I agree, it is a very bad habit and extremely dangerous to yourself and those around you. Seriously though, what next? Does anyone realise that this world is fastly becoming a place where freedom will one day be banned too. Come on, I will smoke and drink and do what ever the hell i want as long as it does not endanger anyone else. Oh but wait, there will be a law against that too... It's just a matter of time before emotion is outlawed as well. It all seems so familiar, must be that movie I once saw. Cant remember the name but anyway, yay for freedom and in general just living life! Soon this comments facility will be taken away... Just saying, might as well.

      Bugprof - 2012-07-11 16:27

      E=MC2 - a$$wipe, I dont smoke. I believe smokers are getting a raw deal!

      francois.greeff.98 - 2012-07-12 12:42

      carli.fourie.3 are you suggesting that the right to get a Darwin award is entrenched in our Constitution?

      Ann - 2012-07-12 12:48

      @carli : & it is my constitutional right not to have you polluting my air. Sounds like you are trying to justify your filthy habit.

      oistar.tutu - 2012-07-12 13:48

      but Ann love, you have plenty of air that is not polluted. me sitting in my house in greenpoint is not affecting you. Why complain, you ninny.

      E=MC2 - 2012-07-12 14:12

      oistar - again with a brilliantly confused comment. This article is about the right to ban it in public, not at home (in Greenpoint... for whatever thats worth)

      oistar.tutu - 2012-07-12 18:52

      E=mc2 It is already basically banned in public, you nitwit. That is what our whole argument is about, we are already obliging you, but you want more. Get it. Or are you living your life in a haze of smoke. I am going to post this somewhere else just so that perhaps you read it twice

      E=MC2 - 2012-07-13 15:22

      oistar - ah ok, found the repeat posting. Thanks

  • anthro45 - 2012-07-11 15:26

    Why not just make smoking illegle altogether and see how much revenue this country loose in one year.

      jalo.kula - 2012-07-11 15:29

      not much compared to the amount spent on cancer patients

      carla.vittori3 - 2012-07-11 15:39

      @jalo.kula - the way I understand it the machines used for the treatment of cancer patients have been offline for months because the hospitals are so badly managed that they can't afford to have them repaired or even routinely maintained. How much are we spending on that then?

      james.eayrs - 2012-07-11 16:05

      No revenue will be lost. Spending only moves elsewhere.

      E=MC2 - 2012-07-11 16:18

      its "loses", & to use the economy to support something thats KILLING YOU PEOPLE is just plain dumb. Suppose you fit the category then ... my bad.

      E=MC2 - 2012-07-11 16:19

      & well said jalo.kula

      Bugprof - 2012-07-11 16:29

      E=MC2, you are a wiseone hey. Look at your comments agin before trying to correct others, a$$wipe!

      E=MC2 - 2012-07-12 11:49

      Bugprof - its "again" (sorry lol, you made that too easy) Whats wrong with my comments exactly? a$$wipe? your favourite word by any chance?

      martin.britchford.5 - 2012-07-12 12:59

      i dont mind helping nigerias economy, lets put it that way, ban it sa i really dont care

  • roy.wadhams.1 - 2012-07-11 15:27

    The government must pass this regulation because like cellphone use while driving,the people ignore all these laws. Anyone caught disobeying the law should be punished and the owner of the establishment where the offence takes place should pay a hefty fine.

      vivian.harris.73 - 2012-07-11 15:38

      How many people died in taxi related incidents already and how many people died while smoking at a bar? These taxis don't obey any laws of the road and yet they still around.....

  • martin.britchford.5 - 2012-07-11 15:31

    im smoking at my desk as we speak ....again, all day, and tomorrow too

      jalo.kula - 2012-07-11 15:33

      well done, might as well pour a whiskey while you at it.

      Bugprof - 2012-07-11 15:42

      jalo.kula, you are ill informed friend. just the revenue generated from VAT amounts to millions and millions per month. Now consider the import duties, transportation, PAYE of everyone employed in the tobacco industry, etc. The tobacco industry is massive. Much bigger than most people will ever realise.

      martin.britchford.5 - 2012-07-11 15:48

      good plan joe, jack daniels is all i got here in the cupboard, one shot away

      martin.britchford.5 - 2012-07-11 15:50

      bug prof, if you consider that remington gold can sell a pack of smokes under 10 bucks, we are being screwed by the taxes, remington is banned cos its zimbabwean and cheap like it should be, they dont want us to see the actual cost we should be paying, i support illegal cigarettes

      waiszee.sing - 2012-07-11 16:16

      make it a bells :)

      E=MC2 - 2012-07-11 16:20

      ROUND OF APPLAUSE FOR MARTIN!!! never known a group of people who are more proud to be killing themselves... bravo Martin, bravo. Chop

      martin.britchford.5 - 2012-07-12 08:38

      we all gonna die sometime e=mc2 I'l leave you with this, A coward believes he will ever live if he keeps himself safe from strife, but old age leaves him not long in peace though spears may spare his life. Havamal.

      E=MC2 - 2012-07-12 11:52

      martin.britchford.5 - thanks Martin. Im well aware of the fact that we are all going to die sometime. Id just prefer my time not to involve gasping for air through lungs that have been damaged on PURPOSE, after being given PROOF that smoking is bad for you. As for your quote...? huh? I choose to keep myself free from smoke, not strife.... there's a difference.

      E=MC2 - 2012-07-12 12:14

      martin.britchford.5 - learning recently that you smoke weed has really put your quote well in perspective.

      martin.britchford.5 - 2012-07-12 13:01

      you gonna have to try way harder than that to get a rise out of me man,

      E=MC2 - 2012-07-12 13:09

      who says im trying to?

      oistar.tutu - 2012-07-12 13:21

      its a bit obvious mc2, don't try and deny it now

      E=MC2 - 2012-07-12 13:51

      and oistar jumps in... im not trying to get a rise out of anyone. Im stating my point of view for whatever its actually worth on this forum. If you dont like what i say, give me a thumbs down & move on.

      Ann - 2012-07-13 08:48

      @ martin. Eating poison & waiting for someone else to die? Go ahead smoke yourself to pieces ...

  • cj.venter - 2012-07-11 15:33

    sounds like a smoke screen for something more sinister...

      martin.britchford.5 - 2012-07-12 08:40

      the buying of independant news by government backers perhaps, if they cant change the laws, they assimilate the news and give the info they want to give

  • john.moodley.7 - 2012-07-11 15:41

    get a life and do something worth while.

  • PaddyCure - 2012-07-11 15:42

    I still remember when Nkosazana Zuma came up with this anti smoking and anti-tobacco advertising legislation back in the day. There was such an outcry: "...oh busienss is going to lose and close down...", "...unemployment...", "...wolf! wolf!..." etc. Now, it is the most normal thing that we can sit at a table without smokers poluting the air we breathe, andanyone who dares to light up in public is sneered upon by all around! Thank you Nkosazana, now I can take my famility to any restaurant and enjoy the time with my kids. Credit where it's due folks...c'mon c'mon!!

  • Tanya Truckenbrodt - 2012-07-11 15:50

    why concentrate on smoking laws when there are more pressing concerns in our country our government should get their priorities right !

      jacovniek - 2012-07-11 16:15

      Why why why can't issues be dealt with in parallel? Should we focus on education only and forget heath care until the former is fixed? C'mon your logic is, well... going up in smoke. :)

  • tricia.sutherland1 - 2012-07-11 15:54

    it would be an absolute God send if government can impose the same restrictions on 'loitering' and breaking the rules of the road. Please we don't need protection from cigarette smoke - we need protection against robbers, rapists, murderers and the government raping our land!!!

  • Sydney - 2012-07-11 15:55

    Playing with a loaded gun is dangerous to my health. Drinking poison is dangerous to my health. Breathing someone else's secondhand smoke is dangerous to my health. You, dear smoker, has NO BLOODY RIGHT to endanger my health! And no, I will not move elsewhere, you move, just as you would have moved to a safe place to play with your loaded gun.

      anette.smith.16 - 2012-07-12 12:14

      Sydney.fryer.52. And why don't you go play in the traffic where there is no danger???

  • E=MC2 - 2012-07-11 15:55

    Stop smoking then.

  • werner.we.1 - 2012-07-11 15:58

    All part of a bigger picture , preparing for a police state , small liberties at a time .

  • tricia.sutherland1 - 2012-07-11 15:59

    @alicia.myburgh - how can an establishment selling alcohol be alright for children??? but smoking is a problem?? this is definitely not right - besides kids should not be hanging out at haunts!

      anton.coetzee.37 - 2012-07-12 11:09

      tricia best said so far!

  • kevin.brown.714 - 2012-07-11 15:59

    Cant wait to be able to go out on the town and not smell like a stompie the next day! In 2007 in the U.K, this ban was put in effect, what a difference it made! Smokers have been direspecting non-smokers for to long. If all restaurants and bars ban smoking, then the percieved threat to business will not happen because what applies to one, applies to all!

  • ralph.thornley - 2012-07-11 16:06

    KOFF KOFF KOFF -- damn someone is smoking on the internet - they have no consideration!!

  • james.such - 2012-07-11 16:18

    Make smoking illegal, as with other drugs. ;-)

  • dennis.mennis.961 - 2012-07-11 16:20

    This is taking it too far. Smoking is already regulated enough. All previous arguments have been tongue in cheek but my rights are seriously being stomped on now. Go ahead all self righteous bleaters, but remember, I guarantee I will find something about you I don't like, so straight back at you.

      hermien.viljoen - 2012-07-11 16:39

      Gawd! Your rights are seriously being stomped on? Pffft...please, because you will not be allowed to f@*k-up the health of people around you anymore? If you seriously regard smoking a sigarette a basic human right - then you are being very ignorant about what's going on in the world around you.

  • Stephen - 2012-07-11 16:27

    I love these new laws. If you do not want to comply... goodbye to your booze licence. Most restaurants don't give a ??n? for the rights of the non-smokers.

  • natasha.buitendachprinsloo - 2012-07-11 16:28

    Blah blah blah rather focus on crime corruption

  • nicola.davidson.505 - 2012-07-11 16:32

    I'm a smoker but have always reserved my habit for my home or designated smoking areas - never in my car or non-smoking areas, or ever in front of children. I fail to see why it is such a problem to have glassed-off, completely separate smoking areas in restaurants or bars. We can be happy with our toxic air, and the non-smokers can be happy with their lovely clean air. Everyone wins (relatively speaking for us smokers of course).

      hermien.viljoen - 2012-07-11 16:46

      Have to agree with you Nicola ~ and thans btw for being a considerate smoker ;) ~ Problem is just that many smokers don't stick to the rules like you. The doors to the \toxic rooms\ are just being left open, people smoke just outside windows and doors, and the worst is that it is apparently o.k. to just chuck sigarette stumps out of car windows in our streets. Do you understand where the non-smoker's frustrations come from?

      nicola.davidson.505 - 2012-07-11 17:00

      @hermien, I agree - behaviour like that is appalling, and as with most issues in life, it is the behaviour of the uncultured few that dictates the way that the many are treated. By all means, regulate the way in which smokers compromise the health of non-smokers, but please leave me a glassed-off corner in which I can have a meal, a glass of wine and a cigarette without disturbing anyone else.

      archangel.zerachiel - 2012-07-12 20:48

      @nicola: because separate areas are a complete fallacy - your smoke stinks - it seeps out from every possible escape route - it sticks to your clothes - then it sticks to mine - at the till - in the loo - all over the show - just get a back bone and quit your filthy drug addiction.

      nicola.davidson.505 - 2012-07-13 11:23

      @archangel.zerachiel, rest assured that my smoke will never come anywhere near you, as I only associate with individuals who possess dignity, respect and class. I am more than willing to listen to your argument with an open mind (in direct contrast to your knee-jerk judgmental attitude), however I do ask that you level your comments at me with at least a modicum of decency.

      ArchAngel - 2012-07-13 16:20

      @nicola: touche'. However, so you deny you have a drug addiction do you? As for dignity, respect and class - as a smoking woman you possess none of those attributes - smoking makes women appear cheap and ugly. Oh, and classLESS too. Your attempt to redirect the message in my post fails with gusto. **facepalm**

  • teresita.cuniberticillie - 2012-07-11 16:41

    These laws is a bit extream, but as a smoker myself i understand. I would like to see more laws on unhealthy eating.

      phae.rayden - 2012-07-11 16:52

      Why? How can what people eat have anything to do with you? Would you like to see more laws on what music people listen to, clothes they wear, movies they watch?

      Dolf Van Den Berg - 2012-07-11 17:04

      unhealthy eating is only harmful to the person eating unhealthy.

  • paganosza - 2012-07-11 16:49

    I wonder if these non-smokers drive cars? And if they do, do those cars run on petrol or diesel? I wonder if these non-smokers live in Johannesburg, Pretoria, anywhere actually, and if they do, do they wear filter masks to filter out all the other sources of fog and smog? I wonder if these non-smokers ever braai meat, and if they do, do they braai using gas, electricity, wood or charcoal? #JustWondering

  • harold.chisimba - 2012-07-11 16:54


  • pieterr3 - 2012-07-11 16:54

    How many smoke breaks do smokers usually get at work? not one every 10mins i guess. if you can last 1-2hrs at work without smoking, you surely can last that long in a restaurant. and yes, i'm a proud non-smoker. so i'm all for this law. you wanna try teach your kids not to smoke, but you want to expose them to it.

      oistar.tutu - 2012-07-12 12:49

      not genetic mc2: my parents don't smoke. take that and smoke it.

      E=MC2 - 2012-07-12 13:11

      so you agree with the being weak part then? since you chose not to argue that point...

      jacobs.clint - 2012-07-12 16:44

  • lynn.syme.1 - 2012-07-11 17:57

    Typical. "let's fiddle whilst Rome burns" Screw the raping of children, the murder of farmers, crime in general. They prefer passing legislation that wont stick! What a waste of tax payers money.

  • Irene - 2012-07-11 18:15

    I hope they do challenge the cANCer about this because it's nothing but big bully tactics. Smokers smoke in the smoking section at restaurants and this doesn't affect the non-smokers. No smoking section? Sorry, I'll go somewhere else and you will lose out on my custom.

      Ann - 2012-07-12 12:52

      You are too smoked up to detect smoke that seeps from smoking sections into non-smoking sections. Non-smokers have spent enough time breathing in your stink. Get a backbone and discontinue the filthy habit which does you no good.

      archangel.zerachiel - 2012-07-12 20:44

      So go somewhere else, Irene .. take your miniscule custom with you as well. You will soon get tired of standing under that lampost, all alone, shoveling KFC down your throat, followed by lungsfull of Paul Revere!! You go girl .. classy to the end!! **coff-coff**

  • imtiaz.osman.5 - 2012-07-11 18:17

    While at it ban drinking alcohol at public places

      carl.debeer.33 - 2012-07-11 18:34

      And pissing in public!

      E=MC2 - 2012-07-12 11:56

      those pretty much go hand in hand :-)

      jacobs.clint - 2012-07-12 16:45

  • ron.wale.3 - 2012-07-11 18:25

    Let's get this clear - I don't smoke! BUT, some of these "rules" are way beyond the government's mandated powers in a true democracy. The government cannot unilaterally decide that no-one may smoke within a certain distance of an open window, etc., without consulting the People they serve. All politicians are power-hungry fools!

  • carl.debeer.33 - 2012-07-11 18:29

    Restaurants and Shopping malls should not be held responsible.The smoker or individual should be held responsible.Government implemented smoking areas in these places which we all conformed to. Now you got some idiot in Government coming up with a new idea just to remind Parliament that he still comes to work once a year.

  • avrilandandre - 2012-07-11 18:39

    Respect the rule of law. Some of the rules are a bit iffy, if not downright prejudised. However, respect for non-smokers should rule. I am a heavy smoker myself, and believe it or not, I try to be considerate. At home I smoke outside. And NO, I don't imply it is healthy or socially still accpetable, but it is what it is. As for enforcing the laws/rules....well, that will place some additional strain on an already overburdened police and judicial system...and if I don't pay the fine, what then, they going to throw me in jail????...Ja right.

  • jan.vanriebeeck.73 - 2012-07-11 18:39

    Rape, torture, prostitution, drugs, murder. All good. Light a cigarrete and your in crap. I guess its easier to arrest white middle class smokers than real criminals.

      Barefoot - 2012-07-11 20:38

      I have an issue with your comment which i choose not to voice

      E=MC2 - 2012-07-12 12:02

      Barefoot - same here, except i will say that this has to be the dumbest comment so far... well done. "Rape, torture, prostitution, drugs, murder. All good." Since when? But then again judging by your choice of names, nothing less couldve been expected. Loser

      oistar.tutu - 2012-07-12 12:48

      e=mc2 How many of the dumbest commebnts that you have ever heard have you identified above. More like a stuck record, you are.

      E=MC2 - 2012-07-12 13:13

      dumbest commebnts? lol! Yours has just overtaken Mr van Riebeeck :D!!

  • mark.willemse.96 - 2012-07-11 19:40

    I am a non-smoker and have just returned from Mozambique where there are no laws against drinking or smoking in public, yet I did not see drunk people in the streets of Maputo or Inhambane or restaurants closed off for smokers. Business is booming, the locals are relaxed and beer and wine is sold on the the streets. We just need to chill a bit in RSA and not allow our lives to be controlled by laws that strangle every bit of enjoyment out of our lives!

  • david.vosloo.3 - 2012-07-11 19:43

    After reading the majority of these comments it is very clear that there needs to be more tolerance from both sides. For a start lets stop comparing apples with pears - it is really not the point here. The point is that we need to be tolerant in finding a balance between one another's rights. Right number one - for the smokers to poison themselves and Right number two - for the non smoker to not need to inhale the poison. Simple but not so simple. Now how do we ensure every non smoker the right to clean air? Probably by the suggestions made by the health department. How do we provide the smoker the opportunity to poison themselves and not violate the other right? Probably by implementing the health department's suggestion. Unless you can provide a solution that allows both parties the platform to exercise their rights without overlapping the other, then please, think before you criticize the idea.

  • leoa.martins - 2012-07-11 20:31

    As an ex-smoker I believe I can speak for smokers. This new law is pathetic and every law they are introducing to curb smokers is ridiculous. I base this on the pollution in the air that we breathe without the smoking influence is already on its own extremely high caused by industry and vehicle pollution. Treat those major contributors FIRST before attacking the small targets. Its the usual cr@p...."lets hit the soft targets to make us look efficient syndrome".