New York Set To Ban Smoking Outside

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

"people are incalculably better off not smoking remains"

The fond memories of that time that I rolled up my dead uncle and smoked him!

And? How did that work out for you? You coughed and coughed, didn't you. Of corpse you did. I rest my peace.

>>>> 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.