Home

With all the warnings and the revised packaging is it really having an effect?

Well yes and no, my neighbour is utterly mortified by the cigarette pack that has a picture of a female with mouth cancer.
So disturbed in fact by this graphic image that he will keep an old packet so in the event that he gets the lucky dip of cigarette packets with the image of the female with oral cancer the contents can be transferred.
Yes it is having the desired effect but the behavior is being modified to get around the effect.

Something that has worked anecdotally in New Zealand have been the banning of ANY outdoor smoking, including any area that is merely covered by a roof with open walls.
The result, to $%^%ing hard for people to smoke, result they are forced to give up by the situation as the highly restrictive nature of smoking makes the effort greater than the reward.

So in Australia we have relaxed the laws and outdoor smoking has replaced indoor smoking at bars, cafes & pubs.
The Australian Government’s lack of leadership in following the Kiwi’s initiative demonstrates that the real effects of such a ban will really take effect, not for the premises where the smokers attend but to the the taxes generated from cigarettes.

I don’t know about you but I have never, I repeat never seen smoke from either :
a. A cigarette
b.The exhaling smoke from a person smoking going in a directly vertical direction.
With all the publish research about the effects of second hand smoke, why does the government surrender their powers to other interested parties?

Well yesterday I received phone calls from journalists from The Age & Herald Sun regarding the new City of Port Phillip reforms regarding usage of parks & reserves.

Like any commerical activity on public land I can appreciate their needs to be regulation and some financial consideration for the use of public facilities.

However their needs to be consistency and transparency for all commercial activities that are conducted in public places, be it a road for filming a TV show to a major event held at a park.

Yes running a Bootcamp/group fitness class may not have the same international signficance as the Formale 1 at Albert Park Lake or the Melbourne International Flower show but the priciples should remain the same irrespective of the commercial activity being conducted.

Ultimately, I imagine the councils concerns are more about:

1.The impact on:
a.the infrastructure servicing the park, amenties, memorials, stair cases etc.
b.The gardens & lawns themselves.

2.The impact to other park users who in most cases are local rate payers.

I do not believe that these basic principles should be overshadowed by the commerical interest of anyone from a personal trainer to the Australian Grand Prix Corporation.

I also DONT believe the council’s motivation is purely economic to increase their consolidated revenue without returning the money to the facilities.

Yes I support regulation however it needs to be placed into perspective.
Is a group of 15 people enjoying the outdoors at 6am going to have the same impact as 100 000′s of people trampling on a World Heritage site, or pavillions/stalls bordering 100 year old trees.

Or to put it another way, are the local rate payers or for that matter the tax payers of Australia entiltled to unitterupted enjoyment & usage of our magnificant parks & gardens?

Does closing a park to the public or limiting access to a park disrupt the general public or rate payers in the same capcity as group of 15 people moving around the park performing exercise?

Do 100,000′s of people walking in a concentrated area have the same impact on the infra structure, trees, plants & lawns as 15 people moving around the park performing exercise?

As I mentioned we need to consider park usage unilateraly and give clear guidelines that are consistent across all levels.
Yes I support being considerate of other park users, respecting memorials, play ground etc, limiting noise levels and restricting usage to one area. This is all common sense stuff.

Ultimately, fitness professionals are there for the people of Victoria, providing a healhy alternative amongst the fresh air and relaxing environment of our parks & gardens.

With the green house gas emissions increasing unabated, should our politicians be leading by example.

Car exhaust fumes account for a significant proportion of CO2 gas emmisions, yet our politicians drive large 6 cyclinder cars.

Maybe having politicians using a bicycle as a pollution free alternative may be a good alternative, this can extend through to local government.

It would have the added advantage of actually seeing how diverting some resources to improoving the bicycle network can reduce car usage and improve the health of the community.

It wasn’t that long ago in Melbourne commuters relied on the bicycle as a primary means of transport.