New York Set To Ban Smoking Outside

Do you think this will catch on elsewhere? Personally I dont think so.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/article-1390324/Outdoor-smoking-ban-New-York-Smokers-remain-defiant.html

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.

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.

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

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

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.

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 :-)