ipaul Posted February 3, 2011 Posted February 3, 2011 Apparently so. Anyone visiting New York's 1,700 parks and 14 miles of beaches this summer will be able to do so free from the smell of cigarette smoke after the city council made its biggest anti-smoking push since it banned the habit from restaurants and bars in 2002. The measure will see smokers fined $50 (£31) if they light up in municipal parks and pedestrian areas of Manhattan such as Times Square. It was passed by 36 votes to 12 after a lively debate in which critics accused legislators of turning the city into a totalitarian state. The move follows similar health-conscious measures in New York to remove trans fats from restaurants, force food chains to display calorie counts on their menus and efforts to persuade food producers to reduce salt content. The mayor, Michael Bloomberg, is expected to sign the law this month, and it will come into effect 90 days later. "New Yorkers who go to our parks and beaches for some fresh air and fun will be able to breathe even cleaner air and sit on a beach not littered with cigarette butts," Bloomberg said. He has made improving the health of city dwellers one of the main ambitions of his nine years as mayor. The 2002 smoke free air act, which removed smoking from most workplaces including restaurants and bars, was one of the first acts of his mayoralty. That, combined with higher cigarette taxes and an aggressive anti-smoking advertising campaign, has dramatically reduced smoking among New Yorkers. Between 2002 and 2009 the smoking rate fell by almost a third, and over Bloomberg's time in office there are about 350,000 fewer smokers. With attention of health bodies increasingly focusing on the affects of passive smoking, the issue of smoking in outside areas has risen to the fore. Cities such as Chicago, San Francisco and Los Angeles have already banned smoking in parks, though New York's new regulations are among the toughest. A survey in 2009 showed that more than half of non-smoking adult New Yorkers – about 2.5 million – had levels of toxins in their blood from cigarette smoke high enough to leave residues. But the anti-smoking measures are not universally approved. In the chamber of the city council on Wednesday there was heated debate about the new ban, with some members arguing that the health drive had gone too far. "I truly believe government is being too restrictive in this particular matter. It's a totalitarian society that's going to have this type of restrictions," Robert Jackson, a Democratic council member from Harlem, told Reuters. So what are people's thoughts on this? Personally, I think it's a fucking obscene thing to do, but that's just me.
Happenstance Posted February 3, 2011 Posted February 3, 2011 I think maybe if it was something else id have a problem with it but the fact that smoking affects people other than the smoker themselves makes it fine for me
Ashley Posted February 3, 2011 Posted February 3, 2011 Obscene seems like a strange word. I'm surprised they didn't go for "non-smoking" sections at first, but I suppose other cities have done it and that's seem as a trial run.
chairdriver Posted February 3, 2011 Posted February 3, 2011 Sometimes you have to be authoritarian to stop shit happening.
The Peeps Posted February 3, 2011 Posted February 3, 2011 Smoking offers no benefit. It just kills you. I will always see banning it as a good thing.
Cube Posted February 3, 2011 Posted February 3, 2011 I can only hope that the same happens here. I'm fed up of almost choking to death due to smokers who are walking on the street and at bus stops/train stations. I literally have to stand about four metres away from the bus stop I wait at every morning due to the smokers, and it still makes me feel physically ill at that distance. Lots of smokers are decent people - it's just complete idiots that are causing stuff like this to happen. Of course, people should still be allowed to smoke on their property and at designated places while at works, but smoking around public should be a big no. At one bus stop I even saw a woman smoking when there were around 20 school kids waiting at the same stop.
RoadKill Posted February 3, 2011 Posted February 3, 2011 I feel like liberty should be defended, but at the same time, fuck smoking. Especially on beaches, fuck, kids play in that sand, and smokers just cover the fag end over with a bit of sand, out of sight, out of mind!
Goafer Posted February 3, 2011 Posted February 3, 2011 The bit about not seeing cigarette butts is a win on it's own. I personally think it's just as obscene that everyone else is subject to littering laws, but throwing a cigarette butt on the floor is the normal thing to do.
ipaul Posted February 3, 2011 Author Posted February 3, 2011 I can't be arsed to argue properly so y'all =
RoadKill Posted February 3, 2011 Posted February 3, 2011 Hitler was a great man, and to be compared to him would surely be an honour
Cube Posted February 3, 2011 Posted February 3, 2011 I can't be arsed to argue properly so y'all = Is that because there is no argument?
ipaul Posted February 3, 2011 Author Posted February 3, 2011 Is that because there is no argument? I daresay there mightn't be to your mind, but take a gander at the comments section on the article I originally posted.
Happenstance Posted February 3, 2011 Posted February 3, 2011 Thats the problem all smokers will have, any argument they have will always fall flat when the point is brought up that this effects more than just themselves.
Jon Posted February 3, 2011 Posted February 3, 2011 Great idea. Here's hoping every other City, Town, Shack in the World follows suit.
Goafer Posted February 3, 2011 Posted February 3, 2011 The Nazi party apparently discovered the link between smoking and lung cancer. So yes, the Hitler comparison is fine since he was justified in his hatred of smoking. It was Hitler who banned smoking on buses and trains. Who refused to issue ration coupons for tobacco to pregnant women. It was Hitler – Hitler! – who cracked down on tobacco advertising and decreed that tobacco advertising could not portray smoking as a glamorous, masculine pastime. The Nazis specifically forbid cigarette ads that associated smoking with sports – or auto racing. Hitler called these measures "the beginning of the end" of the vice that fouled the lungs and sapped the moral character of the master race. In the context of smoking, Hitler did good IMHO. Shame about the Jew thing.
ipaul Posted February 3, 2011 Author Posted February 3, 2011 Thats the problem all smokers will have, any argument they have will always fall flat when the point is brought up that this effects more than just themselves. For the record, I don't smoke.
Fierce_LiNk Posted February 3, 2011 Posted February 3, 2011 I can't be arsed to argue properly so y'all = Dude, that's laaaame. You can't post an article/thread, make a point and when others disagree decide to not argue. I think it's a good idea. You should be able to go to a beach or a park and smell the clean air. Seems pretty fair to me. Plus, you could always smoke at home.
Nintendohnut Posted February 3, 2011 Posted February 3, 2011 (edited) I'm guessing you're a smoker ipaul? I am quite happy with this. I hate having to hold my breath when I walk behind people who are smoking, or having to walk waaaay across to one side because they're either blowing cigarette smoke over their shoulder/sideways, or holding their cigarette near their face like a tard. The Nazi party apparently discovered the link between smoking and lung cancer. So yes, the Hitler comparison is fine since he was justified in his hatred of smoking. In the context of smoking, Hitler did good IMHO. Shame about the Jew thing. I bet they're sick of it being brought up all the time tbh. They probably just want to move on. For the record, I don't smoke. I'm guessing you're a smoker ipaul? GUESSING FAIL. Edited February 3, 2011 by Nintendohnut Automerged Doublepost
ipaul Posted February 3, 2011 Author Posted February 3, 2011 Dude, that's laaaame. You can't post an article/thread, make a point and when others disagree decide to not argue. Yerrr I know but I'm more tired than I thought I was when I started. Alright I'll try. I just find it hideously authoritarian. It's unnecessarily restrictive and people should be allowed to smoke outside if they want to. If someone is THAT bothered about inhaling secondary smoke then they should just man the fuck up, quite frankly. A fleeting moment of my/someone's displeasure at someone else's smoke doesn't warrant a ban on smoking. I mean if it was say, no smoking around schools or something, then I could approve of that, but it's just too far. I approve of the smoking ban indoors, confined spaces and all, but not this. I also think it sets a bad precedent...are they just going to try and ban it completely after a while? It would sadden me but not exactly surprise me if in time they did.
Oxigen_Waste Posted February 3, 2011 Posted February 3, 2011 Loss of freedom is never a good thing. I don't smoke, nor will I ever, probably. However, banning something that is legal is just ridiculous.
Happenstance Posted February 3, 2011 Posted February 3, 2011 Yerrr I know but I'm more tired than I thought I was when I started. Alright I'll try. I just find it hideously authoritarian. It's unnecessarily restrictive and people should be allowed to smoke outside if they want to. If someone is THAT bothered about inhaling secondary smoke then they should just man the fuck up, quite frankly. A fleeting moment of my/someone's displeasure at someone else's smoke doesn't warrant a ban on smoking. I mean if it was say, no smoking around schools or something, then I could approve of that, but it's just too far. I approve of the smoking ban indoors, confined spaces and all, but not this. I also think it sets a bad precedent...are they just going to try and ban it completely after a while? It would sadden me but not exactly surprise me if in time they did. Wow, what a rediculous argmuent
Beast Posted February 3, 2011 Posted February 3, 2011 I'm so glad this has happened, because maybe it'll happen around here. Like Cube, I am sick of choking because of insensitive (let's face it, most of them are) smokers. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying all smokers are like this but 95% of the ones I have come across just couldn't care where they smoke, even if it's in a confined space. It should be restricted to your own property or designated areas but in places like parks and shopping centres and entrances where children, elderly and asthmatics are, it's not cool. I say good for New York for doing this.
Daft Posted February 3, 2011 Posted February 3, 2011 (edited) People should be allowed to smoke if they want to. I get banning smoking indoors (although I think you should be able to get a smoking license) but outside? What a joke. I don't smoke but this still appals me. Edited February 3, 2011 by Daft
Goafer Posted February 3, 2011 Posted February 3, 2011 If someone is THAT bothered about inhaling secondary smoke then they should just man the fuck up, quite frankly. By that logic, smokers should just man the fuck up and quit, doing themselves and everyone around them a favour in the process. People should be allowed to smoke if they want to. I agree, but people around them shouldn't have to put up with it either.
Will Posted February 3, 2011 Posted February 3, 2011 Good idea I think, its rank being on a beach or in a park with people smoking near you, I'd much rather it not be possible for it to happen. If it makes a few extra people quit or at least smoke less then it's done a good thing.
Recommended Posts