| Mr Mercury 25.05.2011 04:49 |
Do you think this will catch on elsewhere? Personally I dont think so. link |
| magicalfreddiemercury 25.05.2011 06:17 |
It's already law in Philadelphia. Not sure who was first, NY or Philly, but do hope it - as in "the ban" not the defiance - catches on. |
| thomasquinn 32989 25.05.2011 10:35 |
It's frankly deranged to ban smoking outside. Why is it legal to pollute the air with smoke from a moped, car, motorbike or whatever, but not by burning tobacco? Are we going to ban barbecues next? They release far more smoke. What regimes banned public smoking in the past? Prussia, Hitler's nazi-empire, the absolutist Papacy in the 16th century, Ottoman sultan Murad IV. It is a sign of an oppressive regime, not of civilization. |
| lifetimefanofqueen 25.05.2011 18:02 |
i think its going to really REALLY get on people tits, first they ban smoking in pubs and various other places, now they ban you from smoking in the streets? yes, smoking is bad, i dont smoke, i hate smoking, but we all have choices and desisions, people choose to smoke as others choose other things but think about it, some gits keep pecking at you that its bad and its killing you and will kill people around you etc, then they ban you from smoking in a pub and make you go outside in the freezing cold to feed your addictions, then some tossers ban you from smoking in the streets? thats bound to piss people off!! yes yes, its very bad but this is getting other the top now, you will never met anyone else more anti-smoking than me but even i think this is stupid people will and do smoke, thats life and people have to live with it as the rest of us have |
| john bodega 26.05.2011 03:25 |
While I'm aware of how ridiculous it is to ban smoking in x number of places, and increase taxes on it willy-nilly .... I think it's absolutely HILARIOUS watching all of these smokers get upset. I have no vested interest; I'm a non-smoker, but I know a ton of smokers. Point being, it's fucking funny either way you look at it. I especially love the civil libertarians that get involved in the discussion, as though it's something important enough to warrant there time (they should be on planes to Africa to combat female circumcision or something). As Hicks said, "non-smokers die too!". If I want to see cigarettes relegated to the history books, it's not because I have anything against you poor cunts who feel the need to puff on them - it's because I loath the industry itself. There are a lot of smokers in my family and as much as I hate the idea of their parade being rained on, the tobacco industry is one I would dearly love to see lined up against the wall and shot. |
| thomasquinn 32989 26.05.2011 07:07 |
I am a non-smoker, but I am absolutely pissed off at the frankly totalitarian attitude these anti-smoking fanatics take. The really disturbing part is the people actually behind it. As a Dutchman, I'm primarily interested in the Dutch anti-smoking lobby and guess what...it consists, almost exclusively, of ultra-orthodox Christians, who also want to replace the Dutch constitution by biblical law. And we, as a country, are actually listening to these people! |
| queenUSA 26.05.2011 20:59 |
It's not just the smoke that is the bother. at least inside there might be an ashtray ... but outside people just discard their cigarette butts everywhere, all over the place - as though the world (and the parks) were their own convenient ashtray. Really they think of no one but themselves and mostly don't even bother to stamp out their still smoking butt. Everything in those discarded ciggies is still gross toxic stuff to the birds, squirrels, children etc and goes into the streams as well with the rain. Let's hope it's a starting point to a cleaner environment - and other towns will follow suit. NYC has been a leader in trying to bans Trans Fats, reduce sodium, have calories posted and now this. |
| YourValentine 27.05.2011 12:57 |
As a non-smoker I am glad that I can eat in restaurants that are no longer smoke-filled but banning smoking in the open air is just ridiculous. If passive smoking is so dangerous that peoples' health is in danger, smoking should be illegal. Of course, it is much easier to harrass the smokers than to take on the tobacco lobby. |
| magicalfreddiemercury 28.05.2011 06:10 |
The less people smoke, the less people inhale second hand smoke and get sick. The less people get sick, the less I have to watch my tax dollars cover medical bills for those unable to afford treatment for the effects of smoking. I'm all for it, and then some, on so many levels. |
| YourValentine 29.05.2011 02:58 |
With all due respect I think there is worse use of your tax dollars than the health bills of your fellow citizens. If that would be a reason for banning smoke in the open air you would have to allow the government to control peoples' eating habits, overweight, work out, alcohol abuse ... these are all factors that have a bad effect on the health costs. There must be a sensible balance between protecting the non-smokers and refraining from criminalizing smokers. |
| magicalfreddiemercury 29.05.2011 06:46 |
YourValentine wrote: With all due respect I think there is worse use of your tax dollars than the health bills of your fellow citizens. If that would be a reason for banning smoke in the open air you would have to allow the government to control peoples' eating habits, overweight, work out, alcohol abuse ... these are all factors that have a bad effect on the health costs. There must be a sensible balance between protecting the non-smokers and refraining from criminalizing smokers. ============= You're absolutely right and I couldn't agree more. However... :-) ...NYC has actually worked to control the way people eat by forcing restaurants to post calorie and fat counts on their menus, and has taxed certain foods considered 'unhealthy'. The mayor has also closed off a section of the city so it is now only a pedestrian area. More walking and less pollution. He's made the taxi's go green as well. And, he's taken heat for revamping school lunch menus, too. Small steps to a healthier city. BTW, it's not the necessary health costs of my fellow citizens I object to funding, but the UNnecessary health costs - like twinkie-diet and smoking-related costs. I also agree with your original statement that the better thing to do would be to go after the big tobacco companies, but I think that's something for the federal government to do - don't hold your breath (no pun intended) - not city/state, though I could be wrong. Thing is, I don't think this is as much about the smoker as it is about everyone else - non-smokers, kids and the environment. In truth, I smoked for ten years and would have been enraged at this new ban - and the fine that goes along with it - if it had been imposed back then. But I also used to leave lights on, crank up the a/c and leave the water running while I brushed my teeth. Eventually, we wise up. Hopefully a good portion of smokers will, too. The one group that will have the hardest time with this, I think will be tourists. They're not going to like this one bit. |
| freddiefan91 29.05.2011 14:30 |
According to the news report i saw, the ban is not enforceable, ie if people are found to be smoking in public areas like parks for example a park warden will remind the person that there is a "ban" but they cant do anything to stop people smoking |
| magicalfreddiemercury 29.05.2011 14:51 |
freddiefan91 wrote: According to the news report i saw, the ban is not enforceable, ie if people are found to be smoking in public areas like parks for example a park warden will remind the person that there is a "ban" but they cant do anything to stop people smoking ========== They can give a warning then write a ticket. That's about it. Money is so tight right now I think most people will try to avoid getting fined. Authorities can't arrest someone for smoking, though. Nor can they confiscate the cigarettes. So, you're right. They can't do anything to stop people from smoking except 'discourage' them with the threat of a fine. The interesting difference between this ban and the ban against smoking in restaurants that was enforced years ago is the older ban meant fines for the restaurant owners if someone was caught smoking in their establishment. Suddenly, coat checks, wait staff, hosts, bartenders and restaurant owners had to police their own place and deal with the anger of smokers who had to step outside to smoke. Who's going to do that in a park or other public place? |
| GratefulFan 29.05.2011 21:38 |
It's truly stunning how much the attitude towards smoking has turned around in just 20 or 30 years. I smoked from the time I was a preteen until I quit cold turkey on my second try when I was 22. Virtually everyone did back then. We smoked in places that seem absolutely absurd now. I recall being in the hospital for a couple of days when I was 14 and smoking merrily the whole time. In my hospital bed. At fourteen. How utterly mad does that seem by today's standards? I don't think there even were places you couldn't smoke. They made half hearted efforts to prevent smoking in movie theatres, but only so we didn't burn the place down. This Central Park ban can't be about much that's particularly real in terms of health effects. It's seems to be another advancement in what is probably best described as greater's society's right to be disgusted by smokers outweighing smoker's rights to smoke. The campaign as a whole has always been about making it ever more logistically difficult to smoke and ever more socially and psychologically painful. It's been remarkably successful in a relatively short time when you consider that the tobacco companies so thoroughly entrenched such a highly addictive habit in society and operated virtually unchallenged for decades. |
| YourValentine 02.06.2011 04:01 |
I think there is a difference between establishing pedestrian zones and wrting calories on a menu on the one hand and fining people for smoking in the open air. on the other hand. The pure idea that a policeman or other official addresses a smoker in the street and tells him to stop it makes me cringe. I am surprised that American citizens are not more sensitive against such patronizing. Of course smokers should not be a health hazard for other people - smokers do understand that. But telling them not to smoke in the open air is harrassment imo, it is telling a free citizen what they can do and what they cannot do without a reasonable excuse, it is very 1984 to me. The son of a friend of mine was in NYC for a business trip a while ago and they were stopped by a city official on their way to their hotel because they were carrying open beer cans. They were not drunk, not shouting or singing or disturbing someone and did not look like they were throwing empty cans on the pavement. They were just told that it is prohibited and they were fined. It amazes me that things like that can happen in a free country - next time they fine you for wearing the wrong clothes like in the Iran. I simply cannot understand how American citizens fight for their right to wear dangerous firearms on the ground of "freedom" and at the same time allow their police to fine them for carrying a beer can, that makes no sense to me :-) |
| magicalfreddiemercury 02.06.2011 06:23 |
YourValentine wrote: I think there is a difference between establishing pedestrian zones and wrting calories on a menu on the one hand and fining people for smoking in the open air. on the other hand. The pure idea that a policeman or other official addresses a smoker in the street and tells him to stop it makes me cringe. I am surprised that American citizens are not more sensitive against such patronizing. Of course smokers should not be a health hazard for other people - smokers do understand that. But telling them not to smoke in the open air is harrassment imo, it is telling a free citizen what they can do and what they cannot do without a reasonable excuse, it is very 1984 to me. The son of a friend of mine was in NYC for a business trip a while ago and they were stopped by a city official on their way to their hotel because they were carrying open beer cans. They were not drunk, not shouting or singing or disturbing someone and did not look like they were throwing empty cans on the pavement. They were just told that it is prohibited and they were fined. It amazes me that things like that can happen in a free country - next time they fine you for wearing the wrong clothes like in the Iran. I simply cannot understand how American citizens fight for their right to wear dangerous firearms on the ground of "freedom" and at the same time allow their police to fine them for carrying a beer can, that makes no sense to me :-) ========= There's a long and winding road between fines for smoking and fines for wearing the wrong clothes like in Iran, IMO. And as for the right to bear arms vs. the right to carry an open can of beer - I couldn't agree with you more. But, and we may part ways here, I think neither should be legal. The smoking ban is not for everywhere in the open air. It's in parks, beaches, and the like where people, especially children, might gather. They can smoke outside their office building (away from the front door) and while walking on the sidewalk, etc. Just not in these specific public spaces. It's like walking down the street carrying a blasting radio. Not illegal. Do it in a park or on the beach and you get a fine. For the longest time smokers had more rights than non-smokers. Those rights are simply being balanced out now - more in favor of non-smokers perhaps but I think it makes sense. |
| YourValentine 02.06.2011 07:30 |
I think we all agree that smokers should not put non-smokers in danger. The question is if smoking in a huge park or on a beach actually puts anyone in danger while we probably all agree that there is a health danger indoors.. I believe that such bans are much more politically motivated than based on an actual health issue. As you said: smokers used to have all the rights and now the pendular swings and they have no rights at all. I happen to believe that it is wrong to tell citizens around unless there is a good reason - otherwise it is government dictatorship. Why should children not see people smoke or drink alcohol? That is life - people happen to smoke and people drink alcohol - maybe even their own parents do that. If child protection is the issue here the USA should ratify the UN convention on the rights of the child, abolish jail time for children and provide for free health care for children. It is somehow so strangely inconsistent that children are the reason for such bans but children have so little protection when it comes to the real issues. This is btw true for all our politically correct democracies - not just NYC. |
| john bodega 02.06.2011 09:42 |
It really is the stuff we can't smell that's doing us more harm in the long run. Sharing an elevator once in a while with a smoker is a lot less harmful than the accumulated damage done by living in any kind of metropolis. While I love newer cars, in that they don't stink the fucking place out while I'm walking from A to B, there's still a lot of shit in this air that really is no good for us. Faced with a choice between lung cancer or a stroke, I'd be more inclined to ask you all to stop smoking and stop driving - but we can't have everything. It comes down to personal responsibility - I have decided not to smoke. I can't stop other people from smoking. This "but my tax dollars are keeping smokers alive!" mentality should hop into a previous decade where it belongs, too. Sure; but that money is also keeping alcohol drinkers alive too. The homeless, the unemployed and the disabled are also receiving this money. Something should be done. Some sort of ... 'final solution' to the problem of our all important tax dollars; percentages of which are spent on far more ludicrous pursuits (Hello Warfare!) than that of simply keeping people alive while they are suffering from mistakes or circumstances they experienced earlier in life. Compassion is for suckers. Maybe we can encourage them to migrate to a colder climate; that way, when the strain is too much, they can be useful and walk out into the snow and die so that we don't have to pay for a lethal injection. |
| magicalfreddiemercury 02.06.2011 11:44 |
YourValentine wrote: It is somehow so strangely inconsistent that children are the reason for such bans but children have so little protection when it comes to the real issues. ========= True, but... just because there is much more we can and should do, that doesn't mean we shouldn't do the little things as well. I don't know the true reason behind the ban and I doubt we'll ever get a proper answer. I guess, since I'm on the side of the ban, I'm not as concerned about the "why" and don't mind living in my bubble where I believe it makes things better and healthier for the average joe who doesn't smoke and who doesn't want their kids to smoke as a matter of course. I think the less convenient it is to do something unhealthy, the less likely we are to do it - at least in theory. With a pack of cigarettes costing a couple hours pay and the number of places it's acceptable to smoke dwindling, I think most of us will soon be able to stroll along without having to wave off the offensive, asthma-attack inducing clouds of second-hand smoke that until recently have swirled endlessly around city parks and the like. |
| thomasquinn 32989 02.06.2011 11:58 |
Unless you're under three feet away from a smoker, the smoke outside is so deluted that it hardly even qualifies as a trace element in the air. You and your fellows are harrassing and patronizing people for no, absolutely no benefit. |
| magicalfreddiemercury 02.06.2011 12:26 |
ThomasQuinn wrote: Unless you're under three feet away from a smoker, the smoke outside is so deluted that it hardly even qualifies as a trace element in the air. You and your fellows are harrassing and patronizing people for no, absolutely no benefit. ========= It's a rare and special treat to have three feet of space between folks here in the city. As for harassing people, smokers can simply cross the street to where smoking is allowed so non-smokers no longer have to. I think the most interesting thing about this is the relative acceptance smokers here in the city have for this new ban. Maybe they saw it coming. I don't know. There was more upset when the ban on smoking in restaurants was enforced than there is with this. |
| GratefulFan 02.06.2011 19:49 |
There is no getting around the fact that this is a significant clawback of rights from a minority of the population for the dubious benefit of the majority. For that reason it's really important that there are voices arguing against heavy handed government and in support of individual rights. That kind of constant vigilance is an underpinning of any free society. But how many of the 18% of people who still smoke (using domestic statistics) would choose to smoke outside of the extremely addictive properties? Every smoker I know has tried and failed to quit multiple times. It's an expensive, unpleasant, stinky, unhealthy and antisocial habit. Most of those people are casualties of an entrenched and influential industry that has peddled addiction and sickness for decades. In it's way, making it almost impossible to feed your dragon outside your own house without the counter pressure of social consequence has the unintended benefit of leveling the playing field for smokers. Frankly, it *should* be hard to drive nails into your own coffin. Nobody likes a nanny state, but when your free will is under intense pressure from dependency-for-profit, a few draconian measures may be the classic case of getting what you need rather than what you want. At any rate, it's clear that something more than public health is afoot here. All the arguments about second hand smoke and the burden of health care costs etc. seem to be at least in part post hoc justifications for a much more gut level rejection of smokers and smoking. It *is* tyranny of the majority, and that should be acknowledged. Still, the truth that people are incalculably better off not smoking remains. |
| john bodega 02.06.2011 20:57 |
"people are incalculably better off not smoking remains" The fond memories of that time that I rolled up my dead uncle and smoked him! |
| GratefulFan 02.06.2011 22:01 |
And? How did that work out for you? You coughed and coughed, didn't you. Of corpse you did. I rest my peace. |
| magicalfreddiemercury 03.06.2011 07:19 |
>>>> Zebonka12 wrote: "people are incalculably better off not smoking remains" The fond memories of that time that I rolled up my dead uncle and smoked him! <<<< >>>>GratefulFan wrote: And? How did that work out for you? You coughed and coughed, didn't you. Of corpse you did. I rest my peace. <<<< ============ This is just too funny. |