Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Monitoring approval of new legislation banning smoking in children's playgrounds and public transport stops in South Australia
  1. Joanne Dono1,
  2. Jacqueline Bowden1,
  3. Kerry Ettridge1,
  4. David Roder1,2,
  5. Caroline Miller1,3
  1. 1South Australian Health and Medical Research Institute (SAHMRI), Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
  2. 2School of Population Health, University of South Australia, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
  3. 3School of Population Health, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
  1. Correspondence to Joanne Dono, South Australian Health and Medical Research Institute (SAHMRI), Adelaide, SA, Australia; jo.dono{at}

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Outdoor smoking bans are recommended1 but some are contentious.2–4 Reasons for outdoor smoking bans include providing a supportive environment for ex-smokers, and, reducing the risk of: acute health effects from secondhand smoke; modelling smoking to young people; and litter and fire risk. Conversely, one argument given against outdoor smoking bans is the low and transient long-term health risk. All Australian jurisdictions have, or intend to have, legislation for smoke-free outdoor areas but the legislation is diverse in terms of which outdoor areas are included and who is responsible for implementation and regulation (ie, State or Local Government). On 31 May 2012, the South Australian Government amended the Tobacco Products Regulation Act 20075 to include smoking bans in …

View Full Text


  • Contributors All authors conceptualised and designed the study; JD conducted statistical analyses and drafted the manuscript; CM, KE, JB and DR provided advice on data analysis and interpretation and critically reviewed the manuscript; all authors approved the final version.

  • Funding The study was funded by SA Government.

  • Competing interests None.

  • Ethics approval Ethics approval was provided by the University of Adelaide Human Research Ethics Committee.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.