Responses
Other responses
Jump to comment:
- Published on: 26 April 2002
- Published on: 21 April 2000
- Published on: 21 April 2000
- Published on: 5 March 2000
- Published on: 21 April 2000Show More
Don, I was not aware that you had posed four of the seven arguments I raised in my article -- you are certainly not the only person to have done so. In your response you fail to engage with the core issue here: smoking outdoors in situations that would apply in hospital grounds harms no one but the smoker. By not disputing this, I assume that you agree. Your concern to control outdoor smoking is therefore inherently patern...
Conflict of Interest:
None declared. - Published on: 21 April 2000Show More
Dear Editor
As the person who posed four of the seven arguments, used in the March volume of Tobacco Control, supporting banning smoking in outdoor areas I would like to expand on the four points I raised. The arguments put by me apply to an Area Health Service which will shortly become totally smoke-free, this will include outside areas. Until now hospitals have regarded smoking as a special case, as a cultural...
Conflict of Interest:
None declared. - Published on: 5 March 2000Smoking restrictions in confined outdoor areas are justifiedShow More
In researching passive smoking issues for a suggested 'best practice' model in Australia, I was asked -- no, urged -- by normally sedate and conservative tobacco control bureaucrats a number of jurisdictions (which had no legislation to limit smoking in indoor areas) to consider the issue of smoking in outdoor places of public assembly. This was clearly an Issue of Public Importance.
My own experience in the Aus...
Conflict of Interest:
None declared.