Smokers Beware! Proposed New York City Smoking Ban Targets Outdoor Facilities (1 Viewer)

[Kal'Stang]

I've said it before and now it's happening. It always starts out small. Just a little thing. Then it grows bigger and bigger. Pretty soon it becomes a way of life in which people have forgotten what it either was like or what it should have been like. I'm sure you're wondering what I'm talking about. Well at this point in time I'm talking about smoking. Though what I said above can certainly be applied to lots of other things. But for now, lets stick with smoking.

It started out by banning smoking in federal buildings. Then it moved onto buisnesses like grocery stores. Oh sure they were understandable. After all smoking IS a hazardous habit for more than just the smoker. So fine, we accepted that. Then came the ban on smoking in restaurants and bars. Using the same excuse. No matter that there were bars and restaurants that were non-smoking. They said that non-smokers "didn't have a choice". Yes those were the exact words that I have heard used. And now comes the next step in getting rid of smokers. The banning of smoking in the outdoors. Yeah you heard it right. New York's mayor wants to ban smoking "in parks, beaches, marinas, boardwalks and pedestrian plazas throughout the city". Including Times Square.

CBS: Smokers Beware! Proposed New York City Smoking Ban Targets Outdoor Facilities

This folks is what is called "baby steps". The government has been doing it for a long time, and will no doubt continue to do so. In the end this is how they get the populous to do what they want it to do. This is how the once meant to be small federal government has grown into "Big Brother". IE Big Government. And I would bet $1,000 dollars that once smoking is gone they will move onto drinking beer or some other "bad" thing.

 

[Erod]

I don't smoke. I detest it. One of my all time pet peeves.

However, far be it from me to tell someone they can't smoke, unless it is getting in my public air space. And far be it from the government to tell a private business owner how to run his business. If I don't like it that a restaurant allows smoking, I can go somewhere else.

Soon, we won't be able to smoke, the government will monitor our caloric intake, and we'll all get surprise raids to make sure we're using the right kind of light bulbs.

 

[Ikari]

Even as a non-smoker, I hated the laws against smoking in restaurants and bars. To me, it's private property and smoking is a legal activity; thus the property owner should be free to decide whether or not they wish to allow it on their property. Public property doesn't quite carry the same arguments with it. However, I think banning smoking from outside is pretty damned stupid. If we're not going to make laws that require hippies to shower and use deodorant, then why would we go after smokers?

 

[Republic_Of_Public]

Smokers are just one of the 'witches' hunted down by liberal-left twunts.

And I come on so heavy with that remark because whilst the likes of motorists, airliner passengers or smokers are treated as lepers, crime skyrockets and educational standards go to pot.

Mind, the public must like this misdirected energy - they voted for it!

 

[MaggieD]

Honestly? Smoking should be illegal. I smoke. I'll probably die from it. I know that, but I'm hooked. Smoking is so hazardous to one's health that I know the only reason it's a legal substance is because of powerful farm lobbies AND the ever-growing tax revenue it generates. It's a horrible habit.

The more places they ban it, the closer to illegal it gets. I don't care if they ban it outside because it absolutely positively should be illegal. And people who don't smoke shouldn't have to smell it -- shouldn't have to get it in/on their clothing and in their hair.

As to banning it in private restaurants/bars, that's an infringement on rights that I find obnoxious. "This is a smoking establishment. Don't smoke? Don't come in." As to those who say, "What about the employees?" I say, "Don't smoke? Don't work here." It's all a political game. No one is going to defend one's right to smoke anywhere. Except smokers. I can't say as I blame them.

 

[winston53660]

Officials said the proposed law is based on evidence that even brief exposure to secondhand smoke is deemed as a health risk.

"The science is clear: prolonged exposure to secondhand smoke, whether you're indoors or out, hurts your health," Bloomberg said in a statement.

Dang what about the car and truck pollution. And I'm sure the air quality is not the best in the subway. Can I sue the city for crappy air quality in the subway?

 

[ludahai]

Horray!!! Another step in the fight to end the tyranny of the smoker!!!

 

[Republic_Of_Public]

Though, of course, the liberal idiots who want to ban tobacco smoking on the grounds of personal freedom for passive smokers, also would want pot legalised - for reasons of personal freedom of course!

 

[Technocratic]

Boo hoo hoo. Sniffle.

Get over it. Smokers are annoying, and I support any law that pisses them off on that principle alone. If you want to smoke, smoke alone around no one else. Even in "outdoor" areas, it becomes more than annoying, They stink up the public areas with their filthy habits.

 

[hazlnut]

I really think that smokers should stick to those glass-walled lounges at the airport. Maybe NYC can put those up around the city. 10x10 glass rooms for smokers.
What I like best about those smoke lounges at the airport, is we get to stare at them like freakish animals at the zoo. "Look mommy, it's the death walkers."

I grew up in the 70s with ashtrays on the tables in restaurants and on the arm rests of airplane seats. Smoke was everywhere. But now, thankfully, my kids get to live in a world where smoking has become less acceptable socially. Smokers are the coughing, phlegm hawking minority.

Of course, the unintended consequences of more restrictions on smoking is that people live longer and Medicare will become insolvent by 2019. If we would just let people live their lives, smoke, drink, and eat fat as they like, refuse to treat lifestyle medical issues and let people die instead of keeping them alive... there'd be plenty of jobs.

 

[hazlnut]

Though, of course, the liberal idiots who want to ban tobacco smoking on the grounds of personal freedom for passive smokers, also would want pot legalised - for reasons of personal freedom of course!

You're too young to know who this is, but Steve Martin had a great line about smoking:

Mind if I smoke?

No. Mind if I fart?

 

[Moot]

Smokers are just one of the 'witches' hunted down by liberal-left twunts.

And I come on so heavy with that remark because whilst the likes of motorists, airliner passengers or smokers are treated as lepers, crime skyrockets and educational standards go to pot.

Mind, the public must like this misdirected energy - they voted for it!

Conservatives support the no smoking ban, too. And they've certainly done more their share of legislating morality and nanny laws. I think I should know since I live in one of the most conservative states in the union.

 

[Kal'Stang]

Boo hoo hoo. Sniffle.

Get over it. Smokers are annoying, and I support any law that pisses them off on that principle alone. If you want to smoke, smoke alone around no one else. Even in "outdoor" areas, it becomes more than annoying, They stink up the public areas with their filthy habits.

And it is people like you that allows big government to continue. Don't come running and crying about how your favorite sport was deemed "too dangerous" and hence became illegal. Because that is exactly where this country is headed.

 

[Kal'Stang]

You're too young to know who this is, but Steve Martin had a great line about smoking:

Mind if I smoke?

No. Mind if I fart?

Simple answer to his reply: Nope. I can just move upwind. ...oh wait...can't non-smokers do the same in Times Square?

 

[Orion]

Vancouver just did this... banned smoking in parks, beaches, boardwalks, etc. Don't understand why they aren't just banning smoking altogether. Why bother with the pretense? Or maybe that is the ultimate goal and they're just being gradual. I mean, even if someone smokes in their home, a lot of people are renters in apartment complexes, and the smoke goes down the halls, or to floors above and beside if people are doing it on balconies. Wherever there are smokers there are always going to be non-smokers somewhere in the vicinity to make the rule excusable.

I have to say, as a non-smoker and doctor I am personally biased in favour of this law. I hate having to share public spaces with smokers, even after I am making it clear to them that their smoking is bothering me. It is always I who has to get up and move, just because I don't want to be poisoned. I can even tolerate pot smoke way more than I can the poisonous stench of tobacco. If people are so hooked on nicotine, maybe they should administer it more directly, like with a patch, so that people nearby aren't getting dosed with carcinogens.

 

[Kal'Stang]

Vancouver just did this... banned smoking in parks, beaches, boardwalks, etc. Don't understand why they aren't just banning smoking altogether. Why bother with the pretense? Or maybe that is the ultimate goal and they're just being gradual. I mean, even if someone smokes in their home, a lot of people are renters in apartment complexes, and the smoke goes down the halls, or to floors above and beside if people are doing it on balconies. Wherever there are smokers there are always going to be non-smokers somewhere in the vicinity to make the rule excusable.

Oh they're starting to ban that also....

Smoking Ban Hits Home. Truly.

I have to say, as a non-smoker and doctor I am personally biased in favour of this law. I hate having to share public spaces with smokers, even after I am making it clear to them that their smoking is bothering me. It is always I who has to get up and move, just because I don't want to be poisoned. I can even tolerate pot smoke way more than I can the poisonous stench of tobacco. If people are so hooked on nicotine, maybe they should administer it more directly, like with a patch, so that people nearby aren't getting dosed with carcinogens.

I understand that you hate to share public spaces with smokers. I can even respect that. But smokers have rights also. I would rather them out right make it illegal than do what they are doing now. Because as it stands with it being legal they should have no right to tell you where you can/can't smoke...except on federal property, that I don't mind them telling me no. But when it comes to public property or a private buisness? That is an invasion of privacy and rights as far as I am concerned.

 

[Orion]

I understand that you hate to share public spaces with smokers. I can even respect that. But smokers have rights also. I would rather them out right make it illegal than do what they are doing now. Because as it stands with it being legal they should have no right to tell you where you can/can't smoke...except on federal property, that I don't mind them telling me no. But when it comes to public property or a private buisness? That is an invasion of privacy and rights as far as I am concerned.

I don't support the war on drugs. They should therefore either legalize everything, or criminalize everything. Call me consistent. Tobacco smokers shouldn't have the right to poison me with their fumes if I can be arrested for possessing a joint and smoking it nearby them. In line with that, everyone should have the right to choose their own mode of self-destruction as that's what freedom means, but your rights end where mine begin. If you came into a park with a machine that pumped cyanide gas into the air you would be arrested instantly, yet it's okay for you to smoke a product which contains that and much more, and in proximity to others. The air quality in cities is bad enough as it is because of industry, but I should be able to enjoy a walk in relatively clean air without having to inhale noxious gases from nearby smokers.

I agree you should be able to do what you want in your home, or in private businesses. Public spaces though... I don't think you should have that right. It's shared space and I should be able to enjoy the park with my partner and children (if I had any) without feeling the need to move, or suffer through the stench of ignorant smokers.

 

[hazlnut]

Simple answer to his reply: Nope. I can just move upwind. ...oh wait...can't non-smokers do the same in Times Square?

Wind blows this way, wind blows that way... Time Square now has a huge pedestrian area with chairs and tables, and these bleachers. People hang out and people watch. Europeans come around and light up, pollute the air.

 

[Cold Highway]

Smoking bans are utterly stupid, let businesses decide if they want smokers to smoke or not.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

Bloomberg is a statist tyrant, this is all part of the incrementalism we warned about years ago.

 

[Moot]

Bloomberg is a statist tyrant, this is all part of the incrementalism we warned about years ago.

Statist. That's Bircher talk. Are you a Bircher?

 

[Cold Highway]

Bloomberg is a statist tyrant, this is all part of the incrementalism we warned about years ago.

..and the city re-elected the Feudal Lord because he was able to strongarm the city council. Granted things couldve been worse if he decided to run for Governor.

 

[Coronado]

Statist. That's Bircher talk. Are you a Bircher?

There's only about five Birchers left, and I doubt the Rev is one of them. :roll:

 

[Ikari]

Boo hoo hoo. Sniffle.

Get over it. Smokers are annoying, and I support any law that pisses them off on that principle alone. If you want to smoke, smoke alone around no one else. Even in "outdoor" areas, it becomes more than annoying, They stink up the public areas with their filthy habits.

Authoratative jerks should be shot.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

..and the city re-elected the Feudal Lord because he was able to strongarm the city council. Granted things couldve been worse if he decided to run for Governor.

It wasn't even a strongman, it was a quid pro quo.... Lets vote each other out of term limits though the people overwhelmingly voted for them....


Bloomberg is a criminal, the law means nothing to him,.