Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
The Candid Paternalism Underlying New York's Outdoor Smoking Ban
New York City Health Commissioner Thomas Farley, who wants to expand the city's smoking ban to cover parks and beaches, makes no bones about the fact that the goal is to save smokers from themselves. According to The New York Times, "Dr. Farley said the ban—which officials said may require the approval of the City Council, but could possibly be done through administrative rule-making by the city's Department of Parks and Recreation—was part of a broader strategy to further curb smoking rates, which have fallen in recent years." But others are still pretending that smoking bans are aimed at protecting innocent bystanders:
The mayor, who has championed antismoking programs but also is running for re-election, issued a statement that did not disavow the proposal but appeared to qualify it, saying he wanted "to see if smoking in parks has a negative impact on people's health."
He added, "It may not be logistically possible to enforce a ban across thousands of acres, but there may be areas within parks where restricting smoking can protect health."...
"The issues with secondhand smoke are very real, and the majority of the population today doesn't want to be breathing in tobacco smoke, whether indoors or outdoors," said Dr. David A. Kessler, who was commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration from 1990 to 1997. "While undoubtedly some will think this is going too far, 10 years from now, we'll look back and ask how could it have been otherwise."
Cheryl G. Healton, president and chief executive of the American Legacy Foundation, the smoking prevention group that was created as part of the 1998 master settlement between the tobacco industry and 46 state governments, also applauded the proposal.
"There is no redeeming value in smoking at beaches or parks," she said in a statement. "Anyone who has sat behind someone smoking a stogie can tell you that. The health risks are real. Secondhand smoke is deadly."
If "secondhand smoke is deadly," how can "anyone who has sat behind someone smoking a stogie" tell us anything? Wouldn't he be dead? How did Healton herself manage to survive this harrowing experience?
The pretense that dose doesn't matter—that occasional whiffs of tobacco smoke in the open air are tantamount to a pack-a-day habit—nicely complements the pretense that smoking bans—whether on public or private property, inside our outside—are needed to protect the rights of nonsmokers. I think I prefer Farley's candid paternalism.
More on smoking bans here.
10 Years Ago|9.15.09 @ 10:55AM|#
We just want mandatory non-smoking sections in restaurants and bars! Is that so wrong?
|9.15.09 @ 11:00AM|#
Anyone who has sat behind someone smoking a stogie can tell
you that. The health risks are real.
The health risks *are* real; I find threats of physical violence to
be an effective way of preventing people from smoking cigars around
me.
skr|9.15.09 @ 11:04AM|#
It always bugs me when I hear, "secondhand smoke kills." IIRC, the study to which most people are referring had a very specific methodology. Of course no one seems to read the methodologies of studies but only the conclusion. Anyway, the study specifically looked at people that spent extensive time in a closed environment with a smoker. It specifically referenced people that worked with a smoker where they shared an office and were exposed to smoke for eight hours a day. The other possibility was living with a smoker. How this then gets extrapolated to, "I just got a whiff of your cigarette while walking down the street. You are a murderer!" is beyond me.
@|9.15.09 @ 11:12AM|#
"The issues with secondhand smoke are very real"
Kessler is right. The issues are real.
It's the science that's bogus.
How Big is Your End of Life Fo|9.15.09 @ 11:17AM|#
As a percentage of their respective races, blacks smoke more
than whites.
Why does New York City Health Commissioner Thomas Farley hate black
people?
@|9.15.09 @ 11:18AM|#
I find threats of physical violence to be an effective way
of preventing people from smoking cigars around me
Are you serious, P Brooks? How have you managed not to get your ass
kicked?
Zeb|9.15.09 @ 11:23AM|#
I've never understood why so many people seem to be more bothered by cigar smoke than cigarette smoke. Cigars smell good.
|9.15.09 @ 11:26AM|#
The thing is that these assholes are extrapolating an already dubious secondhand smoke study (the one that is the foundation of all smoking bans), which was based on indoor secondhand smoke, to outdoor secondhand smoke. It is utterly mendacious and no one even challenges them on it.
Stretchy|9.15.09 @ 11:42AM|#
If "secondhand smoke is deadly," how can "anyone who has sat
behind someone smoking a stogie" tell us anything? Wouldn't he be
dead?
This is pretty weak reasoning. One can judge something
dangerous/deadly/harmful without actually having been injured or
killed by the activity. I've never been eaten by a shark but, I'm
going to tell you that covering yourself in chum and jumping into a
feeding frenzy is "deadly".
I also love the argument that it's never been conclusively proven
that small amounts of a known harmful substance are dangerous,
therefore it must be safe.
Finally, rather than looking at secondhand smoke as a health issue,
perhaps we should look at it as a nuisance issue. I'm not allowed
to make an obscene amount of noise (unless on a motorcycle) because
the right of the many to quiet outweighs my right to make a racket.
Perhaps, the right of the many not to have to smell and smell of
tobacco outweighs your right to get a nicotine fix wherever and
whenever you want.
|9.15.09 @ 11:45AM|#
The worst/best (depending on your point of view) is that people who support this seem to ignore (or maybe support?) the fact that the same health commissioners have come out and said that they also want, in the future, to get people eating healthier and exercising more. I wonder how they're going to try and do that...
|9.15.09 @ 11:52AM|#
Stretchy,
That would be a great argument to try to make at the local city
council meeting. But people a little more politically astute than
you probably recognized that it was a loser. Consider that you are
not permitted to play extremely loud punk music outside someone's
window at 3 am. but you ARE allowed to have that same music playing
inside a club. Because, you know, people can choose whether or not
to go to the club. Or work at the club.
Generally, I think it would be a tough sell to pass a law stating
that something that a quarter of the adult population does
constitutes a terrible nuisance. This is why they had to come up
with the SHS kills nonsense.
On the other hand, I do think you have a point. In my mind, it
actually makes far mores sense to ban smoking outide than inside.
Ecveryone goes outside. You cvan choose whether to enter the bar or
not.
At the same time, i do think that
Zeb|9.15.09 @ 11:52AM|#
"Perhaps, the right of the many not to have to smell and smell
of tobacco outweighs your right to get a nicotine fix wherever and
whenever you want."
You leave your house, you get exposed to things you don't like.
Isn't the near complete ban on smoking in indoor public places and
businesses enough already? And have you ever been to New York?
There are a whole lot of much worse smells (and probably worse for
you) than tobacco smoke around.
Joette|9.15.09 @ 11:54AM|#
Frankly, I've always wondered how smoking and exposure to said
smoke went from a manners issue to an issue of law. Once upon a
time, it was considered to be rude to light up without asking ones
companions or others in the area who might be affected/offended by
said smoking. I know when I light up, I take note of the people
around me. I wouldn't even consider smoking in someone else's home
without their permission. When I'm outside, I take special pains to
stand downwind of non-smokers.
I realize that the change probable came about due to said
"scientific" studies showing that extended exposure to second hand
smoke can be harmful. So can extended exposure to lots and lots of
other chemicals, but they're not banned out of hand.
|9.15.09 @ 12:03PM|#
Adele Jeune, 47, a home health aide from East New York,
Brooklyn, does not smoke and had no objection to a ban. "I love
clean air," said Ms. Jeune, who was sitting on a bench in Union
Square. "And if I go somewhere like this, I want to smell clean
air."
Right, when I'm surrounded by taxis, buses, litter, and sewage, I
want the illusion of cleanliness that only legislative fiat can
give me. Make my world look safer, dammit!
¢|9.15.09 @ 12:17PM|#
I've never understood why so many people seem to be more
bothered by cigar smoke than cigarette smoke. Cigars smell
good.
Good cigarettes do, too. Or they did until the "fireproof"
mandate kicked in a few months ago. Now they all reek, taste like
Marlboros that fell in a swamp and air-dried, and they're more
likely to start fires.
|9.15.09 @ 12:19PM|#
Using the logic about the right not to inhale someone else's
tobacco smoke, as a vegan, don't I have the right to demand that I
should not have to inhale smoke from a barbecue grill, since
breathing in fumes from charred meat is the same as inhaling it?
Also, what does this teach our children about our animal friends,
if we celebrate the public slaughter and grilling of their
carcasses? And the pollutants released by these grills are terrible
for human health and the environment too. Thus, I ask that NYC ban
all grilling of meat in public parks and beaches to protect our
health and set a compassionate example for our children.
(I am being very sarcastic here, but I will bet money that
somewhere, probably in the SF Bay Area, in the next 5 years will
pass this exact law, and that other "progressive" cities will
follow.)
!|9.15.09 @ 12:28PM|#
This weekend I could not believe the frequency of people who
insisted on sitting near me, while I was smoking, and wafting away
the smoke with their menus. All the while there were plenty of
empty seats plenay far enough away from me!
P Brooks, were you in Virginia on Saturday?
|9.15.09 @ 12:34PM|#
SECOND HAND SMOKE IS A JOKE.......and blooming idiots nazi
tactics wont go for the voters this next go around......unless he
stuffs the ballot box.
A cancer epidemiologist, who conducted the largest secondhand smoke
study ever done, the UCLA Study, completed "too late" to be
included Surgeon General Carmona's 2006 report, wrote a letter, at
the request of Keep St. Louis Free, to the St. Louis County
Council, that ended with these two paragraphs:"I should say that,
personally, I feel strongly that non-smokers should not have to be
exposed to cigarette smoke. While the available evidence does not
suggest that average exposure to environmental tobacco smoke is an
important cause of heart disease or lung cancer in people who do
not smoke, cigarette smoke is irritating, can trigger allergic
reactions in some people, and can exacerbate asthma and other
chronic respiratory conditions. Yet, since the available evidence
suggests that the effects of environmental tobacco smoke,
particularly for coronary heart disease, are considerably smaller
than generally believed, lawmakers may therefore have greater
latitude than generally believed to consider the segregation of
smokers and nonsmokers and the use of air filtration as adequate
and responsible ways to address the health concerns of ETS in
workplaces such as bars and restaurants. If it is possible, through
segregation of smokers and nonsmokers and the use of air
filtration, to reduce all components of environmental tobacco smoke
in establishments where smoking is permitted to the level of the
air in non-smoking establishments, there is reason to believe that
any risk would be undetectable."
THE AIR ACCORDING TO OSHA
Though repetition has little to do with "the truth," we're
repeatedly told that there's "no safe level of exposure to
secondhand smoke."
OSHA begs to differ.
OSHA has established PELs (Permissible Exposure Levels) for all the
measurable chemicals, including the 40 alleged carcinogens, in
secondhand smoke. PELs are levels of exposure for an 8-hour workday
from which, according to OSHA, no harm will result.
Of course the idea of "thousands of chemicals" can itself sound
spooky. Perhaps it would help to note that coffee contains over
1000 chemicals, 19 of which are known to be rat carcinogens.
-"Rodent Carcinogens: Setting Priorities" Gold Et Al., Science,
258: 261-65 (1992)
There. Feel better?
As for secondhand smoke in the air, OSHA has stated outright
that:
"Field studies of environmental tobacco smoke indicate that under
normal conditions, the components in tobacco smoke are diluted
below existing Permissible Exposure Levels (PELS.) as referenced in
the Air Contaminant Standard (29 CFR 1910.1000)...It would be very
rare to find a workplace with so much smoking that any individual
PEL would be exceeded."
-Letter From Greg Watchman, Acting Sec'y, OSHA, To Leroy J Pletten,
PHD, July 8, 1997
Indeed it would.
Independent health researchers have done the chemistry and the math
to prove how very very rare that would be.
As you're about to see in a moment.
In 1999, comments were solicited by the government from an
independent Public and Health Policy Research group, Littlewood
& Fennel of Austin, Tx, on the subject of secondhand
smoke.
Using EPA figures on the emissions per cigarette of everything
measurable in secondhand smoke, they compared them to OSHA's
PELs.
The following excerpt and chart are directly from their report and
their Washington testimony:
CALCULATING THE NON-EXISTENT RISKS OF ETS
"We have taken the substances for which measurements have actually
been obtained--very few, of course, because it's difficult to even
find these chemicals in diffuse and diluted ETS.
"We posit a sealed, unventilated enclosure that is 20 feet square
with a 9 foot ceiling clearance.
"Taking the figures for ETS yields per cigarette directly from the
EPA, we calculated the number of cigarettes that would be required
to reach the lowest published "danger" threshold for each of these
substances. The results are actually quite amusing. In fact, it is
difficult to imagine a situation where these threshold limits could
be realized.
"Our chart (Table 1) illustrates each of these substances, but let
me report some notable examples.
"For Benzo[a]pyrene, 222,000 cigarettes would be required to reach
the lowest published "danger" threshold.
"For Acetone, 118,000 cigarettes would be required.
"Toluene would require 50,000 packs of simultaneously smoldering
cigarettes.
"At the lower end of the scale-- in the case of Acetaldehyde or
Hydrazine, more than 14,000 smokers would need to light up
simultaneously in our little room to reach the threshold at which
they might begin to pose a danger.
"For Hydroquinone, "only" 1250 cigarettes are required. Perhaps we
could post a notice limiting this 20-foot square room to 300 rather
tightly-packed people smoking no more than 62 packs per hour?
"Of course the moment we introduce real world factors to the room
-- a door, an open window or two, or a healthy level of mechanical
air exchange (remember, the room we've been talking about is
sealed) achieving these levels becomes even more implausible.
"It becomes increasingly clear to us that ETS is a political,
rather than scientific, scapegoat."
Chart (Table 1)
-"Toxic Toxicology" Littlewood & Fennel
Coming at OSHA from quite a different angle is litigator (and how!)
John Banzhaf, founder and president of Action on Smoking and Health
(ASH).
Banzhaf is on record as wanting to remove healthy children from
intact homes if one of their family smokes. He also favors national
smoking bans both indoors and out throughout America, and has
litigation kits for sale on how to get your landlord to evict your
smoking neighbors.
Banzhaf originally wanted OSHA to ban smoking in all American
workplaces.
It's not even that OSHA wasn't happy to play along; it's just
that--darn it -- they couldn't find the real-world science to make
it credible.
So Banzhaf sued them. Suing federal agencies to get them to do what
you want is, alas, a new trick in the political deck of cards. But
OSHA, at least apparently, hung tough.
In response to Banzhaf's law suit they said the best they could do
would be to set some official standards for permissible levels of
smoking in the workplace.
Scaring Banzhaf, and Glantz and the rest of them to death.
Permissible levels? No, no. That would mean that OSHA, officially,
said that smoking was permitted. That in fact, there were levels
(hard to exceed, as we hope we've already shown) that were
generally safe.
This so frightened Banzhaf that he dropped the case. Here are
excerpts from his press release:
"ASH has agreed to dismiss its lawsuit against OSHA...to avoid
serious harm to the non-smokers rights movement from adverse action
OSHA had threatened to take if forced by the suit to do
it....developing some hypothetical [ASH's characterization]
measurement of smoke pollution that might be a better remedy than
prohibiting smoking....[T]his could seriously hurt efforts to pass
non-smokers' rights legislation at the state and local
level...
Another major threat was that, if the agency were forced by ASH's
suit to promulgate a rule regulating workplace smoking, [it] would
be likely to pass a weak one.... This weak rule in turn could
preempt future and possibly even existing non-smokers rights laws--
a risk no one was willing to take.
As a result of ASH's dismissal of the suit, OSHA will now withdraw
its rule-making proceedings but will do so without using any of the
damaging [to Anti activists] language they had threatened to
include."
-ASH Nixes OSHA Suit To Prevent Harm To Movement
Looking on the bright side, Banzhaf concludes:
"We might now be even more successful in persuading states and
localities to ban smoking on their own, once they no longer have
OSHA rule-making to hide behind."
Once again, the Anti-Smoking Movement reveals that it's true motive
is basically Prohibition (stopping smokers from smoking; making
them "social outcasts") --not "safe air."
And the attitude seems to be, as Stanton Glantz says, if the
science doesn't "help" you, don't do the science.
DX|9.15.09 @ 12:37PM|#
New York sucks. And this is one issue that the deep South is pretty good on. I remember smoking inside the Greensboro, NC airport years after most other airports had gone smoke free.
Rhywun|9.15.09 @ 12:44PM|#
I was unclear whether smoking wasn't already prohibited in
parks. Last summer I smoked at a picnic in Central Park - I thought
I was already an outlaw. Darn.
New York sucks.
Sometimes, but not enough for me to leave. Yet.
Oh, and another thing that sucks is former smokers. And drinkers.
They are the worst prohibitionists of all. That's why I'm eagerly
awaiting recent photographic of Obama puffing away.
|9.15.09 @ 12:44PM|#
"""It's the science that's bogus."""
I don't think any science supports the cliam. Surgeon General
Carmona's 2006 report didn't make the claim, he misrepresented the
report with his own claim, and his misrepresentation has been
resonant.
"""New York sucks. And this is one issue that the deep South is
pretty good on."""
Does Arkansas count? Mike Huckabee signed a law making it illegal
to smoke in your own car if children are in it years ago.
|9.15.09 @ 12:47PM|#
Passive smoking doesn't cause cancer-official
By Victoria Macdonald, Health Correspondent
The results are consistent with their being no additional risk for
a person living or working with a smoker and could be consistent
with passive smoke having a protective effect against lung cancer.
The summary, seen by The Telegraph, also states: "There was no
association between lung cancer risk and ETS exposure during
childhood."
And if lawmakers need additional real world data to further
highlight the need to eliminate these onerous and arbitrary laws,
air quality testing by Johns Hopkins University, the American
Cancer Society, a Minnesota Environmental Health Department, and
various researchers whose testing and report was also peer reviewed
and published in the esteemed British Medical Journal......prove
that secondhand smoke is 2.6 - 25,000 times SAFER than occupational
(OSHA) workplace regulations:
|9.15.09 @ 12:48PM|#
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
British Medical Journal & WHO conclude secondhand smoke "health
hazard" claims are greatly exaggerated
The BMJ published report can be found here:
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/326/7398/1057
And concludes:
The results do not support a causal relation between environmental
tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality. The association
between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and coronary heart
disease and lung cancer may be considerably weaker than generally
believed.
What makes this study more significant than any other is that it
took place over a 39 year period, and studied the results of
non-smokers who lived with smokers..... meaning these non-smokers
were exposed to secondhand smoke up to 24 hours per day; 365 days
per year for 39 years. And there was still no relation between
environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality.
This report was of course silenced in the media; however in light
of the damage to business, jobs, and the economy from smoking bans
the BMJ report should be revisited by lawmakers as a reference tool
and justification to repeal the now unnecessary and very damaging
smoking ban laws.
Also significant is the World Health Organization (WHO) study which
concluded "..secondhand smoking doesn't cause cancer..." found
online here.
Excerpt:
Passive smoking doesn't cause cancer-official
By Victoria Macdonald, Health Correspondent
The results are consistent with their being no additional risk for
a person living or working with a smoker and could be consistent
with passive smoke having a protective effect against lung cancer.
The summary, seen by The Telegraph, also states: "There was no
association between lung cancer risk and ETS exposure during
childhood."
And if lawmakers need additional real world data to further
highlight the need to eliminate these onerous and arbitrary laws,
air quality testing by Johns Hopkins University, the American
Cancer Society, a Minnesota Environmental Health Department, and
various researchers whose testing and report was also peer reviewed
and published in the esteemed British Medical Journal......prove
that secondhand smoke is 2.6 - 25,000 times SAFER than occupational
(OSHA) workplace regulations:
|9.15.09 @ 12:55PM|#
" I remember smoking inside the Greensboro, NC airport years
after most other airports had gone smoke free."
---------------------------------------
Unfortunately, NC will have a total ban on smoking, including in
bars, as of January 2010. Unthinkable in the land of BBQ, NASCAR,
and Winston. Must be all the yankees who have relocated there
because their employers moved to what was a more business friendly
state, until now.
BTW, I think you can still smoke at Dulles airport - they have
separate rooms where you can't even smell them from right
outside.
|9.15.09 @ 1:07PM|#
There go more individual rights again. They're being buried one
by one.
Outdoor smoking isn't hurting anyone. If you don't like the smell,
move away from it.
|9.15.09 @ 1:13PM|#
Harpoon, I take it that you don't give one wit about individual rights then. Patchouli, how pathetic, move away from it. It's outside.
nicole|9.15.09 @ 1:15PM|#
What kills me is bullshit like this: "There is no redeeming
value in smoking at beaches or parks."
Right. And since there is not value in it for me, there is clearly
no redeeming value in children playing at beaches or parks. Or in
family barbecues at beaches and parks. Or in, you know, this woman
continuing to live.
bryan|9.15.09 @ 1:17PM|#
Let's ban cars then, unless i am wrong and carbon monoxide exhaust isn't as dangerous as cigarette smoke....
!|9.15.09 @ 1:26PM|#
Let's ban cars then, unless i am wrong and carbon monoxide
exhaust isn't as dangerous as cigarette smoke....
The role of Al Gore is being played by bryan today . . .
|9.15.09 @ 1:26PM|#
Bryan, I think that they are already working on the issue with
the cars. No one will be able to get far in one of them if they
could afford it.
Think about the whole smoking thing and the mention of patchouli.
When they are done with the smokers. That fragrance thing may just
pop up again. Then we can take this further to say that with all
the Green BS going on and my state for one would like to regulate
water and tax it. Yup, tax what comes out of the well. So, do you
smell something oddious? Then what? Everyone will be wishing for
the cigarette smoke again to cover that up. But it'll be too late.
Give then the ability to remove your rights as individuals and they
will go as far as they want to. Ofcourse for the common good.
Hacha Cha|9.15.09 @ 1:29PM|#
why not ban motor vehicles? the exhaust from motor vehicles is much worse than cigarette smoke and they put out a lot more smoke. you don't hear the leftists and neocons arguing for that because this isn't a health issue they want to systematically destroy the tobacco industry and demonize smokers the way junkies are demonized.
|9.15.09 @ 1:33PM|#
Hacha Cha, They have been teaching the kiddies in school for some time now that smoking is as good as being a drug user. I got to listen to one of them tell their parent that analogy. It was real innerestin.
|9.15.09 @ 1:33PM|#
We just want mandatory non-smoking sections in restaurants
and bars! Is that so wrong?
Good point, TYO. Has anyone compiled a list of published, official
statements from prohibitionist organizations where they claimed
they had such limited goals?
|9.15.09 @ 1:35PM|#
We just want mandatory non-smoking sections in restaurants and
bars!
Hasn't it gone just a bit further than that now? I know of full
bans in restaurants and bars and that's been for a few years
now.
Zeb|9.15.09 @ 1:42PM|#
"The role of Al Gore is being played by bryan today . . ."
Yeah, Al Gore with his crazy theories that carbon monoxide is
toxic.
Shit like this really makes me want to start smoking again.
Zeb|9.15.09 @ 1:45PM|#
"They have been teaching the kiddies in school for some time now
that smoking is as good as being a drug user"
Well, to be fair, smoking is being a drug user. But I doubt that
they also make the point that using aspirin, ritalin or tea is also
being a drug user.
GILMORE|9.15.09 @ 1:46PM|#
DX | September 15, 2009, 12:37pm | #
New York sucks. And this is one issue that the deep South is pretty
good on. I remember smoking inside the Greensboro, NC airport years
after most other airports had gone smoke free.
Try that now.
May 12, 2009
N.C. smoking ban OK'd; Miss. cigarette tax jumps
Lawmakers in North Carolina, the nation's top tobacco grower, have
voted to ban smoking in restaurants and bars. Gov. Beverly Purdue,
a Democrat and the state's first female governor, said she will
sign the bill into law.
She called it "an important and historic day for North Carolina,"
The News & Observer in Raleigh reports.
Smoking bans suck. NYC is what it is, but the people who say the
most negative things about it have never actually lived here. You
included, most likely.
What *really* sucks? The NY Times comments sections. Those people
LOVE the idea of a ban in open spaces. Can't get enough Nanny over
there.
She said it here =
Joette | September 15, 2009, 11:54am | #
Frankly, I've always wondered how smoking and exposure to said
smoke went from a manners issue to an issue of law.
Right on. That is at least the problem as I frame it with
people.
Too many times I hear people ask me, "is [x thing] *allowed* here?"
(e.g. taking pictures in the subway, dancing in bars, eating food
on trains, etc)
Basically, there is an assumption that everything is forbidden
unless expressly permitted. This bothers me.
I was shooting some video the other day in a new park down on the
east river waterfront, and a woman came up and asked me if I knew
whether it was OK to be doing that ... I didnt and didnt care. She
fretted, and said, "well you should probably ask someone".
I watched her as she had anxiety on my behalf. I gave her 2 minutes
before I asked her (in as polite terms as possible) to please find
something else to do.
Stretchy | September 15, 2009, 11:42am | #
"The right to not smell tobacco" is not a right. However you do
always have the right to fuck off somewhere else.
!|9.15.09 @ 1:46PM|#
Yeah, Al Gore with his crazy theories that carbon monoxide
is toxic.
You co not get CO from modern cars. You get nice, friendly, CO2.
The same stuff that makes the bubbles in your soda.
|9.15.09 @ 1:48PM|#
"Well, to be fair, smoking is being a drug user. But I doubt
that they also make the point that using aspirin, ritalin or tea is
also being a drug user."
To be fair, to a point you are correct. But not in the way that
it's being taught to the kids. However, I would like to remove
ritalin from that list. That's a whole other ball game
entirely.
|9.15.09 @ 1:55PM|#
"Lawmakers in North Carolina, the nation's top tobacco grower,
have voted to ban smoking in restaurants and bars. Gov. Beverly
Purdue, a Democrat and the state's first female governor, said she
will sign the bill into law.
She called it "an important and historic day for North Carolina,"
The News & Observer in Raleigh reports."
That's disgusting.
The park incident you mentioned, I thought you handled that quite
well. Don't think I'd have been that nice about it.
Your post confirms again: individual rights going right down the
drain.
|9.15.09 @ 2:02PM|#
"Once upon a time, it was considered to be rude to light up
without asking ones companions or others in the area who might be
affected/offended by said smoking."
How true!
Less than two weeks ago I was sitting on the bus stop bench when a
woman of about 6o sits down and then asks, "Would it bother you if
I smoked?" In truth, it would, but I told he no and added that it's
so rare to be asked that these days. When my bus came I got up and
thanked her again for being so considerate.
|9.15.09 @ 2:18PM|#
Most parks already have laws on the books about how people will
interact with one another when they use parks. People who enjoy a
beer now and then are welcome to use parks, just not when they are
drinking. People with pets are welcome to use parks, as long as
dogs are on leash and any mess is picked up by the owner. Likewise,
people who enjoy golf are welcome to use public parks but cannot
tee up and practice shooting golf balls. People who like camping
are welcome to use parks, but can't pitch a tent and create a
campfire just anywhere.
People who smoke are part of a consumer group, just like any other
group of people who share a common characteristic such as people
who own pets or boats or who drink soda. There is no constitutional
"right" to smoke and the behavior is one that goes beyond
individual choice when the health and equal ability to enjoy public
parks is concerned. I strongly support moving forward with adopting
a comprehensive tobacco-free parks ordinance as we have in some
communities in Snohomish County, Washington.
|9.15.09 @ 2:25PM|#
Finally, rather than looking at secondhand smoke as a health
issue, perhaps we should look at it as a nuisance issue. I'm not
allowed to make an obscene amount of noise (unless on a motorcycle)
because the right of the many to quiet outweighs my right to make a
racket. Perhaps, the right of the many not to have to smell and
smell of tobacco outweighs your right to get a nicotine fix
wherever and whenever you want.
You're right to not smell smoke ends at your feet taking your whiny
ass to where smoking is not going on.
@|9.15.09 @ 2:27PM|#
BTW, is there anything more pathetic than Harley
riders?
Adult bicyclists wearing dorky helmets?
GILMORE|9.15.09 @ 2:27PM|#
Annie Peterson | September 15, 2009, 2:18pm | #
I strongly support moving forward with adopting a comprehensive
tobacco-free parks ordinance as we have in some communities in
Snohomish County, Washington.
Annie,
For one, you live in the *boondocks*. In NY, we dont have lots of
'non-park' wide open spaces where we can exercise our consumption
preferences... we dont have *yards*. We dont have any public space
at all that isnt regulated! Basically, city parks and beaches are
the only places you can sit down and enjoy some relative peace and
quiet... There are no alternative spaces available in many
cases.
Your comparing golfing in Yosemite to smoking in Gramercy park (2
blocks square?) is meaningless. They have nothing to do with one
another. You are strongly for this sort of thing, and yet you live
thousands of miles from here? Do you not think that maybe people
who live here might have more credibility on this particular issue?
Or no = what you like in WA state can apply everywhere...?
Oh, and in regards to the 'right' to smoke? Pursuit of Happiness
doesnt apply? There sure as hell didnt ban it in the constitution.
Remember the whole limited government thing? You seem to suggest
any and all 'consumer' behavior can be regulated into non existence
if such is the will of the majority, and why not?
@|9.15.09 @ 2:31PM|#
There is no constitutional "right" to smoke
Ninth Amendment:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not
be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the
people.
Tenth Amendment:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,
nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States
respectively, or to the people.
|9.15.09 @ 2:34PM|#
Annie, I strongly disagree with you. Think about just how long it will take before you end up with a ban an individual right that you aren't in favor of. That day will come if they have it their way with this one. So by all means, go ahead and support this all you like but one day it will hit home with you and you will have no say in the matter.
@|9.15.09 @ 2:36PM|#
"I strongly support moving forward with adopting a
comprehensive tobacco-free parks ordinance..."
Looks like Annie pasted in an old letter to the editor.
|9.15.09 @ 2:47PM|#
Well good for Annie! I still don't agree with her. I would prefer to retain all that is left of my Freedom and that is dwindling every day now!
|9.15.09 @ 2:55PM|#
There is no constitutional "right" to smoke and the behavior
is one that goes beyond individual choice when the health and equal
ability to enjoy public parks is concerned.
:::looking through Constitution...Amendment 1...no...Amendment
2....no...Anendment 3...:::
Nope, no right to parks in here either. There is little thingy
about "freedom of association" however. You might want to look it
up.
Maybe the best thing for all involved is to privatize the parks.
That way, if you want a non-smoking park, then you can have one
without being a demonstrable pain in the ass and annoying those who
don't share your stilted and rigid views.
|9.15.09 @ 2:58PM|#
"There is no constitutional "right" to smoke and the behavior is
one that goes beyond individual choice when the health and equal
ability to enjoy public parks is concerned"
-------------------------------------------------------
There is no constitutional right to health or to "enjoy" parks
either. Were that the case, I would ban rabid antismokers from
parks, since they take away from my enjoyment of it.
BTW Annie, I bet it is A-OK to smoke medical marijuana in one of
your tobacco-free parks out there in the Progressive People's
Republic.
!|9.15.09 @ 3:01PM|#
Non-smokers shall be banned from my private park. Same with people not carrying a concealed firearm, unless they are a minor and have a note from their parent or guardian.
native nyer|9.15.09 @ 3:57PM|#
If I can't smoke why can't they kick the stinking, reeking homeless guys off the subway?
PicassoIII|9.15.09 @ 4:34PM|#
Clothing will be banned from my park!*
*subject to bmi and ht/wt proportion matrix.
Yo ... STFU Ceasar BLOOMBERG!
|9.15.09 @ 5:06PM|#
So how many smokers are needed to equal 1 city cab? Bus? Garbage Truck? I suspect eliminating 1 cab would more then offset the pollution and health risk created by all the smokers in Manhattan. No, I don't smoke, but I do think.
PicassoIII|9.15.09 @ 5:13PM|#
Mr Roberts,
You're close, a cab probably not. But, a single diesel truck ...
you betcha.
http://burningissues.org/car-www/medical_effects/comp-emmis-part-sources.htm
It takes 17 cigs to equal the pollution of running a modern gas car
for an hour.
A car w/ no catalytic converter is 88 cigs.
It takes a whopping 900-1750 cigs/hr to equal the pollution of a
single diesel truck (or piece of construction equipment or
generator or marine or..)
A fireplace? That's 750-1475/hr cigs worth.
How bout a charcoal grill, those are just as bad.
Just to get that flame broiled flavor so desired by aficionados
these gross polluters pump ~60 PACKS, 6 WHOLE CARTONS worth soot
into the atmosphere.
That's not even considering the lighter fluid.
|9.16.09 @ 2:29AM|#
The world has far more important issues to address, smoking is the least of your worries but it is an easy 'rule' to implement. Few years ago (before the indoor ban) I lit up at the airport in Boston and was almost jumped on I truly thought the 'officials' had thought I pulled a gun out not a ciggarette, in fact a gun would have been more acceptable. The UK always follow America (hence we are now in a terrible mess with financial crisis and war) thanks America, the land of the Free well not free but.......
SamTheCat|9.16.09 @ 2:42AM|#
BTW, HARLEY,:
I've cautioned you on this before: if you're going to make annoying
wallpaper out of a COPYRIGHTED article ["The Air According to
OSHA"), you damn well ought to give credit or a link to it-and
preferably instead of scrawling it on the wall:
www.nycclash.com/CaseAgainstBans/Introduction.html
As for the Constitution, I guess we're forgetting the 67th
Amendment: the right to never (ever!) be annoyed.
|9.16.09 @ 5:14PM|#
Right, when I'm surrounded by taxis, buses, litter, and
sewage, I want the illusion of cleanliness that only legislative
fiat can give me. Make my world look safer, dammit!
Is that any more bizarre than the very same (in all probability)
person demanding "greenspace" instead of moving to where the
"greenspace" already is? Rather than accepting an urban area for
what it is, suddenly every tiny strip of land next to a sidewalk
and every rooftop must become a pean to Gaia.
bernard b carman|10.27.09 @ 7:01PM|#
perhaps we should instigate a ban on politicians and lawyers, seeing how they are FAR more dangerous to America and ALL future generations! 8-)
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245