The NSW (Lib) govt is to impose a ban on smoking in national parks.

OK, nobody (except a few weird people) wants fires. And one cig butt dropped is one too many.

But what's the point of a ban that is absolutely, totally unenforceable?
Do they have the manpower to patrol the parks and catch people smoking? No.
Are they going to search everybody entering a park and confiscate smoking products? No.

I suppose they hope the fact there is a ban will discourage some people from smoking. I doubt it very much.

It seems to me laws that can't possibly be enforced just bring the law generally into disrepute.

... and no drinking in hotels...... that should control the epidemic of alcohol-fuelled violence.....

How utterly stupid of anyone to even assume that, since they can outlaw smoking in public places like pubs, clubs and resties etc.. that means they can simply impose a ban anywhere.

Nothing else to do up there in Macker Street?

Besides - the government doesn't OWN national parks etc - it holds them in trust.

I'd expect some small few of any bombed with a fine under this ratbag idea to go back and light a fire just for spite....

There are some very small, crowded national parks where it might make sense. For most of them, this is absurd over-reach.

What about a ban on farting? Princess Herbert would explode.

bogarde73 wrote on Nov 16^th, 2014 at 1:11pm:

The NSW (Lib) govt is to impose a ban on smoking in national parks. OK, nobody (except a few weird people) wants fires. And one cig butt dropped is one too many. But what's the point of a ban that is absolutely, totally unenforceable ?

NO - it is NOT "enforcable"

But the flow on is an awareness of responsibility - and voluntary code of conduct

Generally speaking, a similar code of behaviour works very well with trash created by picnickers and campers ( ... well, in Victoria, at least)

Even though THIS law is ALSO "non enforceable"


http://1v550a3jlx4d2lc773o373z5qn.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/please-take-your-rubbish-home.jpg



I ask any guests of mine to - "please not smoke past the treeline"

They COMPLY - not because they are under ORDERS - but because they've never considered the DANGERS

The purpose of legislation prohibiting something is to allow regulated punishment of those caught and signal to society that it is not acceptable, not prevent something occurring.   It will make the sensible think and stop, it won't stop the stupid and the ignorant.   ::)

I think the smoking ban is a good idea in National Parks.

You only have to catch one or two and people will learn.

Mind you I would like to ban drive through bottle shops as well.

bogarde73 wrote on Nov 16^th, 2014 at 1:11pm:

The NSW (Lib) govt is to impose a ban on smoking in national parks. OK, nobody (except a few weird people) wants fires. And one cig butt dropped is one too many. But what's the point of a ban that is absolutely, totally unenforceable? Do they have the manpower to patrol the parks and catch people smoking? No. Are they going to search everybody entering a park and confiscate smoking products? No. I suppose they hope the fact there is a ban will discourage some people from smoking. I doubt it very much. It seems to me laws that can't possibly be enforced just bring the law generally into disrepute.

thats exactly what i thought when I first read it .. its a stupid law

miketrees wrote on Nov 16^th, 2014 at 9:39pm:

I think the smoking ban is a good idea in National Parks. You only have to catch one or two and people will learn. Mind you I would like to ban drive through bottle shops as well.

There's only ONE thing I'd like to see banned.

And that's people who think that the answer to society's ills is to keep calling for bans on
things they don't like or approve-of.

If you don't like something, then don't do it (or buy it, or smoke it, or eat it, or drink it).

But people need to stop with this insane idea that they should have some kind of right to
stop others from doing something simply because THEY disapprove, OR to incite others to
call for pointless, often ignorance &/or vindictiveness-driven bans. They should not.

Oh, by the way... I don't smoke.

Kat wrote on Nov 16^th, 2014 at 10:02pm:

miketrees wrote on Nov 16th, 2014 at 9:39pm: I think the smoking ban is a good idea in National Parks. You only have to catch one or two and people will learn. Mind you I would like to ban drive through bottle shops as well. There's only ONE thing I'd like to see banned. And that's people who think that the answer to society's ills is to keep calling for bans on things they don't like or approve-of. If you don't like something, then don't do it (or buy it, or smoke it, or eat it, or drink it). But people need to stop with this insane idea that they should have some kind of right to stop others from doing something simply because THEY disapprove, OR to incite others to call for pointless, often ignorance &/or vindictiveness-driven bans. They should not. Oh, by the way... I don't smoke.

I thank you for your attitude. I do smoke. I don't flick butts out the car windows, if someone in my car throws anything out, I stop the car and ask them to retrieve it and put it on the floor. I also wouldn't set a national park alight, flick my butts or leave any more trace I was there than the hair that falls from my head and my footprints and I walk barefoot. The forest won't mind if I smoke, and people shouldn't mind if i don't leave waste.

If the govt wants to it should just ban smoking. I smoke less than the cars that drive through the parks.

If we want people to respect the law the worst thing we can do is overregulate.
BTW congratulations to Tony Abbott for this idea of a periodic Red Tape Day. Our society is so bound up in it that it is strangling drive and initiative.

Trouble is Tony's Red Tape only includes red tape that his kind consider restricts business - when it comes to control over the peasants, it's all engines full throttle.

We could get rid of the red tape that permits a government to bypass parliament...... there's a good start.

Anyway - you all must know by now that I've long advocated that any law or regulation must itself pass the rule of Law - and therein lies your greatest problem.

You could look at this kind of regulation and see that it is:-

a) discriminatory

b) an example of making an offence of something that is not an offence until you declare it to be so.

c) creating a society of 'wrongdoers' out of ordinary people (something that has been going on here for decades, if not centuries) for the purpose of total control.