New York extends smoking ban to beaches, parks

[onehandle]

Source: AFP

NEW YORK (AFP) – New York's City Council approved a law Wednesday that extends a smoking ban to municipal parks, beaches and other pedestrian zones such as Times Square. "This summer, 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," Mayor Michael Bloomberg said after the vote.

"By voting to prohibit smoking in all 1,700 city parks and 14 miles (23 kilometers) of beaches, the City Council will help us protect more New Yorkers from the harmful effects of second-hand smoke -- particularly children who suffer from asthma." The measure, approved by a vote of 36-12, goes into effect three months after the mayor signs it. Violators will be fined $50.

Bloomberg said the new law builds on anti-tobacco efforts since the city banned smoking in bars and restaurants nine years ago. "Our efforts over the last nine years have resulted in more than 350,000 fewer smokers, and contributed to New Yorkers living 19 months longer than they did in 2002," he said.

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110203/lf_afp/healthustobacco_20110203002347

[brooklynite]

1. Am I allowed to smell the smoke from my BBQ grill?

[snappyturtle]

2. New York is trying to ban e-cigarettes too last I read. nt

[Newest Reality]

3. Good to know that New York has such simple

problems requiring, nay demanding immediate attention, ey?

Ban fucking everything! Collect fines! Profit!

[kster]

4. This coward should just ban the sale of cigarettes and e-cigs all together

what the hell is this guy waiting for? What is he afraid of? DO IT!


By the way, I'm a smoker.

[mindwalker_i]

5. As much as I don't like to regulate other's habits

I'm fucking sick of people throwing their butts out the windows of their cars/SUVs, throwing them on the ground as they walk, etc. It's just so easy to do and I know, having smoked a few times in the past. Kind of like dogs: it's just so easy not to clean up the pile.

That's the one reason I would support a ban on smoking.

[kster]

6. I know that pisses me off to no end and I'm a smoker but

doesn't that fall under littering. Why ban smoking when we can fine them for littering.

[hayu_lol]

8. They would do more to clean up the air by...

banning cabs.

This isn't about 2nd hand smoke.

Next up will be wine, beer and spirits.

[kster]

11. They limit the places I can smoke but won't ban the sale of cigs

Who are they afraid of? GO FOR IT ban the sale of cigs and e-cigs for that matter.

[smirkymonkey]

34. They want people to still smoke so they can FINE them when they

do. Bloomberg is so transparent.

[CreekDog]

13. we've had smoking bans here in CA for decades and alcohol has not been further restricted

you are wrong.

New York remains a remarkably easy place to get a drink, and in fact, easier to get a drink without breathing someone's second hand smoke.

[nyy1998]

9. Yeah, but how easy is it to fine them for littering? The no-smoking law is far easier to enforce

Even though I hate second-hand smoking and I agree that they might be taking the law a bit too far, I can't blame them for trying to find something they could actually enforce.

[bhikkhu]

7. As an ex-smoker I'm pretty biased on the whole thing...

its so much better to not smoke, and in retrospect so awful what people do to themselves by smoking, that any deterrent sounds good to me.

[kster]

10. Banning the sale of cigs would be a huge deterrent

but yet the states won't ban the sale of cigs,

"Our efforts over the last nine years have resulted in more than 350,000 fewer smokers"

so why not ban the sale of cigs all together if its working out so well.

[RobinA]

32. History?

Yes, prohibitions have a history of working quite well. Virtually wiped out the use of alcohol in the '20's and we all know illegal drug use is pretty much out of the picture now that all sorts of evil substances were banned starting in the '30's. Prisons have been emptying lately, states flush with cash with nothing to do with it, so lets create a whole new criminal class. We NEED more people made unemployable by a criminal record. :rofl:

[kster]

36. Whats next, no selling cigarettes to female customers?

while restaurants and cafes were barred from selling cigarettes to female customers

http://www.smokescam.com/nazias.htm

[Raine]

12. Yes the less places there are to smoke

makes it harder to light up and hopefully added incentive to quit.

[CreekDog]

14. when California banned smoking in the workplace and later the workplace kicked smoking off property

(this was a hospital)

2 of my colleagues that smoked, first, smoked less, at the second restriction they smoked still less and when it was disallowed not only from the building but from the surrounding parking lots --they quit altogether.

another colleague who still smokes a few cigarettes per day said the restrictions at work have reduced the amount of smoking that he does.

[frankieT]

19. and your point is ?

Oh i guess that you can ban anything and force people to do what you want.
BUT OF COURSE SMOKING IS EVIL SO ITS A-OKAY.
(you know the same reasoning with absurd security measures in airports AGAINST EVIL TERRORISM)

I'm f*ing tired of this dumb world.

[bhikkhu]

30. I see you're point on that

but on the other hand, how stupid is it to suck cancer-causing particulates into your lungs? Head injuries are bad for you too - if people were habitually and repeatedly banging their heads on public buildings, we'd probably have to pass a law against that as well.

I know it is "pleasurable" too, having enjoyed it myself, but then so is masturbation. We certainly don't encourage or admire people who do that in public...and so on. There are many cultural conventions which might be laws, or might as well be. I think it comes down to how harmful an activity is perceived to be to society as a whole.

[CreekDog]

33. where did i say smoking was evil?

it's not. but the secondhand smoke is smart to avoid.

and smokers themselves should smoke less if possible for the sake of their health.

[Mojorabbit]

37. I am an ex smoker

I smoked for 39 years. Glad I quit.
I think this is pushing it way to far. It is never enough for these people, you give an inch and they take a mile.

[Nossida]

15. AntiSmoking Witch Hunt Expanded.

Total behavioral modification is proceeding along splendidly.
Of course it is to create yet another Zero Tolerance Utopia.

Smokers are now 2nd Class Citizens. As are
Drug users, and those who Drink alcohol.

Perhaps just ban tobacco products altogether,
and start yet another Anti Substance Abuse War.
Billions to be made on enforcement, just like
the current Prohibition War on Drugs. So
successful, even the President of Mexico urges
an end to the current Puritan Crusade (Drug War)

The biggest beneficiaries in this foolishness is
the Gangs, that ensure supply.

[truthisfreedom]

16. Fuck smokers.

I'm an ex-smoker, quit on Sept 1 last year, and I hated being a smoker. I hate the smell of cigarette smoke... it's only a driver to make smokers smoke more. The less places smokers are allowed to smoke, the less they'll be a blight on society as a HUGE WEIGHT ON US ECONOMICALLY AS A NON-STOP HEALTH RISK TO US AND THEMSELVES.

Smoking sucks. End of rant.

[joeglow3]

35. I assume you feel even stronger about obesity.

OBESITY IS A MUCH BIGGER "WEIGHT ON US ECONOMICALLY AS A NON-STOP HEALTH RISK TO US AND THEMSELVES."

What laws can we make around this?

[truthisfreedom]

40. Obesity isn't necessarily a choice.

Smoking always is.

[boppers]

42. Obesity is *always* a choice.

NOBODY is force fed food.

Except for ducks, maybe.

The rest are obese BY CHOICE.

Sure, they may have a body that converts food to fat more often, so they can eat less.

They CHOOSE NOT TO.

Sure, they could ignore their hunger, when they are overweight.

They CHOOSE NOT TO.

[eowyn_of_rohan]

45. Seig Heil

smokers are a "blight on society"? I fear people with attitudes like yours are FAR more dangerous to society.

[CarolT]

55. They Use Nazi Pseudo-Science

Anti-smokers use studies based on lifestyle questionnaires that ignore the role of infection in order to falsely blame tobacco. Infections are the leading cause of cancer, heart disease, and other illnesses, and those studies are cynically designed to exploit the fact that the less privileged are more likely to have been exposed to those infections. This gives the elite a pretext to persecute people under the false colors of "science." This pseudo-science of lifestyle questionnaires was invented in Nazi Germany. And while the Nazis could hide behind the excuse of ignorance, the anti-smokers CANNOT!

[CarolT]

54. Your ilk are the ones getting the free ride.

Your ilk are the ones getting the free ride. Your phony smoking cost claims, such as the CDC's SAMMEC, pretend that non-smokers' costs don't exist at all. Here's a real study that looks at both sides' costs. Table 1 gives the bottom line: At age 20, smokers' lifetime costs will total 220k Euros, obese peoples' costs will total 250k Euros, and the "Healthy Living" will cost 281k Euros.

http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pmed.0050029

[Kablooie]

17. I don't smoke but this seems a little too invasive to me.

In a space where others are confined with you there is a health justification for bans.
But outside in the open is different.

[taught_me_patience]

59. NYC is one of the most densly populated cities in the world

Even outside, there could be hundreds of people around you breathing secondhand smoke.

[Kablooie]

64. Point taken. I live in Los Angeles where there is space to spread out.

[frankieT]

18. sick

I hope they'll all stop boasting about NY the greatest city in the world, it looks more like some fascist puritanian wet dream. I'm wondering everyday how the assholes pundits of NY give freedom advices to the rest of the world.

[Prometheus Bound]

20. Well done.

[Kolesar]

21. So how is a head going to sneak a hit on a number?

Just wanna enjoy the sunset!

[reggie the dog]

23. smoke your joint on the sidewalk, next to everyone

where you are still allowed to smoke, then go sit on the empty beach and watch the sunset.....

[reggie the dog]

22. Is this a tobacco smoking ban or is all smoke banned?

can you barbeque in parks now? will you get a double fine for smoking a joint?

[jerseyjack]

24. I spend a lot of time in Central Park (NY for Repubs)

and I end up inhaling someone's smoke at least once each time I am there. Good riddance to the tobacco.

[Vicar In A Tutu]

25. Alcohol causes far more death and injury

People say "but I can choose not to breath that in!", because it's a myopic, tedious argument. Tell that to the people who end up getting hurt by a drunken moron or hit by a drunk driver or suffering domestic abuse because someone has to get their fix. Alcohol kills more and it kills quicker.

I'm not saying it should be banned, but if you're going to ban shit, make it consistent. Otherwise, fuck off.

[truthisfreedom]

41. You can't drink in NYC parks or on beaches either.

[SOS]

48. Theoretically

But the guys who sell cold beer out of shopping carts in Central Park are making a living.

[LanternWaste]

72. Are they forcing the consumer to drink beer on the beach?

Are they forcing the consumer to drink beer on the beach?

[LanternWaste]

73. Well, no.People say that because it's true.

"because it's a myopic, tedious argument..."

Well, no.People say that because it's true. On the other hand, many people will say ,"because it's a myopic, tedious argument..." because they simply have no valid argument.

[rasputin1952]

26. Caveat: I am a smoker...

I have always, as most smokers, been pretty polite to those around me that don't smoke. I would go outside or just abstain for a while when in the presence of non-smokers.

This is what gets my goat...when people sneer at smokers, treat them like they are the lowest of the low, come right up to me from 30 feet away and complain about my smoking, I think they are little more than pompous assholes that don't have the right to come up to me and complain about my essentially common decency of being in the open air smoking a cigarette. The whole secondhand smoke thing in the great out doors is unmitigated crap., especially if someone is some 30 feet away and finds themselves compelled to come over to me and complain. I'm by myself, and the chance of someone 30 feet away instantaneously getting lung cancer from a molecule of tobacco smoke is ludicrous.

This is a two way street, not only should the "offender", (smoker), show some courtesy by finding a place to light up, but the "offendee" should show the same courtesy and perhaps move away. If someone can expend the energy to walk right into the "offending material", they could easily expend the energy to move away. If someone can smell smoke some 30 feet away from a burning cigarette, and are so terrified of secondhand smoke, why walk right into it...just to denigrate someone else?

My taking a smoke break outside for 5 minutes is far better than being stuck in an elevator with a nonsmoker that lets loose with a noxious fart in a crowded elevator where I have little recourse than to stand there and take it. I've never denigrated anyone for such behavior, but God forbid, I stand in a park or on beach and have a smoke while watching a sunrise...:eyes:

Should I go next door to my neighbor and complain that his lawnmower is killing me slowly because of all of the emissions from said device, should I sneer at him or her because they fire up a BBQ and cover the entire neighborhood with odor of charred flesh? What about a clambake on the beach where people allow a vast amount of smoke into the air...all the while tossing beer cans on the beach, or worse, bottles that break and end up cutting the feet of little kids walking in the sand? Peeing behind a dune that someone later will find some respite to watch a sunset, not knowing they are sitting on someone else's urine? Should I track down the clown that didn't flush the toilet before I walked into the stall and hammer them into the ground?

I'm addicted to nicotine, a seriously addictive substance, I fully admit that, and I know what it can do to my body; I also respect those that might be concerned about this situation. But being treated as a pariah is far from what I would consider the human ideal. I occupy about 1 square foot of beach when I smoke...there are hundreds of thousands of square feet for others to occupy...not to mention that the sea breeze quickly disperses the smoke. Why come to my one square foot and harass me?

[AnOhioan]

28. well said...and some of those pompous assholes are in this thread

[ronnie624]

38. I think you're exaggerating.

I smoked for thirty years, and I never felt like I was treated like a pariah. In all those years, it never really occurred to me how offensive cigarette smoke can be, especially in an enclosed space. For most of the last century, nonsmokers have been made to feel like they were weird and whiny if they complained about second-hand smoke. I can see that element within some of the messages posted here. The corporate propaganda that enticed so many millions to become addicted to tobacco, was very powerful.

You should quit. You can, you know. You'll consider it one of your best personal achievements, and it will give a tremendous boost to your self-confidence.

[rasputin1952]

44. I'm not exaggerating,

I've had s few people come up to me and tell me I was a noxious individual because I smoke.

When outside, well beyond the 10' limit or walking from one building to another, I've heard people say, "smoking, just plain disgusting", all of this outside. People sneer, some glance up and give me, (or other smokers), a "weird" look. I worked in a hospital in WA, when indoor smoking was banned, I figured that was fine, there were areas set aside outside even built to a considerable expense to protect those of us with this habit to protect us from the elements...inevitably, someone would walk over and complain...from well over 30 feet away.

As I said above, I know this is an addiction, one I honestly wish I had never started, however, I, and others should not be used as targets for an overzealous individuals that demand control over the lives of others. I don't drink, but I don't go to bars and tell people to put down their drinks and leave. I don't do a lot of things others do that I find offensive to a degree...but I most certainly don't go out of my way to denigrate individuals for their behavior, with two exceptions, I will try to stop violence where it becomes apparent that it is about to break out, or already has and do whatever I can to keep a drunk driver off the road, generally just getting the keys is good enough, but I've paid for taxis and driven drunks home, often in their own vehicles and walking home myself.

[eowyn_of_rohan]

47. mainstream propaganda is now aimed at ostracization of smokers

My friend and I were sitting on a pier enjoying the lakeview and having a smoke when a group of 12-13 year old girls walked by and harassed us about it - one calling out "I HATE SMOKERS". Times have changed.

[rasputin1952]

49. I am often offended by what some people say or do that denigrates others...

I recall some years back when a couple of teens were waiting on line while an elderly woman was searching for some change to balance out her bill at one of the local stores. . One kid said, in a somewhat snotty voice, just enough to be overheard by the woman, "I sure wish Granny would get moving." Without missing a beat, I said, "Mom, do you need some change?" Faces hit the floor so to speak, and the cashier looked at me, knowing full well this was not my mother, the elderly woman said, without missing a beat, "No, thank you son, I've got it."

Judging by the way these two took off, after their time at the cashier, I'd say a lesson was learned that day...;)

[LanternWaste]

71. Been smoking since 1985, and never got the tail end of a bad attitud

Right?

Been smoking since 1985, and never got the tail end of a bad attitude because I was smoking. Attitudes because I was being a jerk about it, sure. But never due only to the smoke.

I think we often translate the deeds and words of other people to better validate our own martyrdom sometimes.

[eowyn_of_rohan]

46. Thank you

couldn't have said it better.

[FLPanhandle]

51. Unfortunately, there is an equally inconsiderate smoker for every one of you.

If they were all like you, I doubt people would complain enough to get a law passed.

[rasputin1952]

57. Thanks, but this isn't all about 2nd hand smoke...

it's also about some people that want to control others. I'm not doing a tap dance here...there are people all over the place that for whatever reason, find themselves, "morally superior"and find almost any reason at all to find fault with others, once they gain a little ground, they keep hounding away, they are all around us and some have small, but other have huge agendas.

Take the people that want to take some books out of libraries or have them banned; the people that insist that Creationism be taught along with the Theory of Evolution, or better yet, just Creationism alone be taught in Public Schools. The Texas School Textbook Purchasing Board is a perfect example of this type of behavior, their simplistic view of what books and subjects should be taught affect a vast amount of territory nationwide.

It's a combined effort by a few to regulate the behavior of others. Some people do actually steal Rx meds from others, the answer, further restrictions on narcotics, making it even more difficult to treat people in severe pain. Every action has it's consequence. Prohibition gave organized crime vast wealth to pursue other ventures; the War on Drugs drove up the price to the point where thousands have died simply trying to edge into a marijuana market that is extremely lucrative so death has become the calling card for those that would try to make a dollar. Cocaine and heron are the same way...and the WoD's does nothing to eradicate the situation, it actually has expanded it, just as Prohibition did for alcohol.

If we didn't have so called "moralists" running around in everyone else's business, half the "problems" we have would disappear, or at the least, become what they have always been, small enclaves of people that will pursue what they desire in much small groups, and a much reduced cost to society. But there will always be "moralists" out there, constantly seeking a way to control others. Today it's smokers, tomorrow it will be some other perceived "evil". They want the world they want, and they are doing it slowly and to great pain for people of every religion, color, place of origin, ethnic group across the nation. These people vary in their "causes", but it all about control over others, and they can never have enough.

To be sure, smoking isn't good for my health, it's an addiction I have, and it's a very hard one to break...but I am not addicted to something far worse, an oversized sense of my own morality that I will impose my will on others.

[taught_me_patience]

60. Why should the offendee move away?

Should the one creating a nuisance provide the remedy?

Oh yeah... cigarette smoke easily travels 30 feet. In a city as populated as NY, that could affect hundreds of people.

[rasputin1952]

63. And why sholuldn't they?

Smokers are generally relegated to specific areas, most of which the non-smoker would not go near anyway.

As I said earlier, 2nd hand smoke dissipates into the open air rather rapidly. Why should one group of people be relegated to a second class citizen status because someone else is offended, especially when the one person can walk in any direction other than the one where they are apparently so offended? Why is it so often only a "one way street"?

And in a city such as NY, Chicago, LA, SF, Houston...your chances of taking in far more particles that are toxic come from sources that are quite distant from tobacco. The toxins you breathe in from cars, buses, trucks, far out weigh what you might receive from an individual smoking in a park or on the beach.

I was brought up in NYC, way back when smoking was a "normal" part of the social experience. Am i in favor of indoor smoking in public places, no, not really. But when people are being forced further tot he fringe of society, regardless of whether it's smoking, or some other item, just reinforces that any "group" can become a social pariah. In all honesty, I've had people I've never met in my life come across a considerable distance to show their "disdain", when they simply could have walked on. They made the choice to be rude and infringe upon me and my little space...all the while walking through noxious fumes created by our society that can harm them far worse than a molecule or two of 2nd hand tobacco smoke.

[LanternWaste]

74. 2nd class citizens, huh?

2nd class citizens, huh?

Can't vote? Can't make purchases? Counted as 3/5ths? Can't get a library card? Have to show citizenship papers to buy lettuce? Or just melodramatic enhancement...? (I'm voting for the last one myself)

I've never felt like a second class citizen-- so please tell me, what specifically am I, as a second class citizen, being denied that the first class citizens are not also and concurrently being denied?

[rasputin1952]

77. As soon as you are designated as part of a "group"...

that can be stigmatized, you become a 2nd class citizen.

Smokers are not being treated as people with an addiction to a substance, basically a medical/psychological diagnosis; anti-smoking advocates that increase their pull "exhibit" smokers as evil killers of innocent children and others via 2nd hand smoke. That is the classic tactic of moving people down the scale of citizenry. It has been used time after time against group after group, regardless of the situation, the object is dehumanize a segment of population...it works.

That is why many smokers are receiving scornful looks from others, or worse yet, actual confrontation to the point where an individual is denigrated...second class citizenry in the works.

[no_hypocrisy]

27. More chance of chronic lung disease from particulate from bus and car exhaust

and smog generally.

Bloomberg is looking for revenues from fines any chance he can.

[LanternWaste]

75. Cost benefit ratios, yes?

Cost benefit ratios, yes? Cars and trucks, while obvious pollutants, also allow the mass transit of goods, services and people.

How many co-workers fit on a cigarette for the carpool to work? How many packs of smokes does it take to get food from FL to CA? I would imagine it cannot be done. But it can be done with cars and trucks... hence Cost Benefit Ratios.

[TheMadMonk]

29. Generally below the high tide mark is under a waterways authority.

Check the rules for NY then stand in wet sand, light up, and thank the nice policeman for the lawsuit against the city.

[SOS]

31. Their "concern" for children with asthma is rubbish

Asthma in Bronx County

Bronx County has some of the highest rates of asthma in the United States. Rates of death from asthma in the Bronx are about three times higher than the national average. Hospitalization rates are about five times higher.

Recent attention has been focused on diesel exhaust particles. This is an important component of fine particulate matter (PM2.5). These particles, which have a diameter of 2.5 microns or less, are considered to be particularly dangerous to long-term human health because they are able to penetrate deep into the respiratory system and the lungs. Diesel exhaust is of particular concern to residents of the South Bronx because a large number of diesel trucks drive to and from waste transfer stations and other commercial destinations in the area. 

http://www.icisnyu.org/south_bronx/AsthmaandAirPollution.html

The city deliberately poisons the poor in the South Bronx and then says it is "concerned" about asthma in children.
It's a farce.

[CarolT]

53. It's a Big Lie

The EPA's Sorry Status Report on Children and Asthma
"America's Children and the Environment. Measures of Contaminants, Body Burdens, and Illnesses," Second Edition, US EPA, Feb. 2003. EPA Administrator Christine Todd Whitman boasts that "This report marks the progress we have made as a nation to reduce environmental risks faced by childen," including "Implementing the Smoke-Free Home Pledge campaign, designed to protect millions of children from the risks of tobacco smoke at home." On pdf p. 75, "Between 1980 and 1995, the percentage of children with asthma doubled, from 3.6 percent in 1980 to 7.5 percent in 1995." The graph on pdf page 67 boasts of declines in cotinine levels during this same period.

http://www.epa.gov/opeedweb/children/publications/ace_2003.pdf

[ttwiddler]

39. Northeasterners pass dumb laws as part of yet another moral crusade

In other news, grass is green.

[boppers]

43. They should make a law banning "being mean".

That'll fix things right up!

[defendandprotect]

50. Good ...

[Name removed]

52. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[IrishBuckeye]

56. Good for NYC!

I've been to the beach many of times and had smokers light up making the area reek. The world in not your ashtray (or shitbowl, to those who don't pick up after their dogs in the park).

[LeftishBrit]

58. While I am all in favour of smoking bans in enclosed public buildings...

banning smoking in the open air seems to cross a bridge too far. You're not likely to pick up a lot of 'passive smoke' that way.

[CarolT]

61. Anti-Smokers Commit Scientific Fraud and Censor Dissent

The anti-smokers commit flagrant scientific fraud by ignoring more than 50 studies which show that human papillomaviruses cause at least 1/4 of non-small cell lung cancers. Smokers and passive smokers are more likely to have been exposed to this virus for socioeconomic reasons. And the anti-smokers' studies are all based on lifestyle questionnaires, so they're cynically DESIGNED to blame tobacco for all those extra lung cancers that are really caused by HPV. And they commit the same type of fraud with every disease they blame on tobacco.

Just Google "HPV Causes Lung Cancer" because anti-smokers don't want you to link to the list of studies.

And, all their so-called "independent" reports were ring-led by the same guy, Jonathan M. Samet, including the Surgeon General Reports, the EPA report, the IARC report, and the ASHRAE report, and he's now the chairman of the FDA Committee on Tobacco. He and his politically privileged clique exclude all the REAL scientists from their echo chamber. That's how they make their reports "unanimous!"

You are here forced to Google "Surgeon General Lies" Samet

For the government to commit fraud to deprive us of our liberties is automatically a violation of our Constitutional rights to the equal protection of the laws, just as much as if it purposely threw innocent people in prison. And for the government to spread lies about phony smoking dangers is terrorism, no different from calling in phony bomb threats.

[LanternWaste]

69. Puff another one, smokey.

Puff another one, smokey.




(Being a smoker myself, I found it's easier to simply tell the truth and say I'm addicted than it is to equate smoking laws to terrorism... but then again, I'm honest with myself)

[Snellius]

62. This is the kind of thing that turns people off to pc liberals

There's a certain point where protection of public safety turns into a kind of politically correct Puritanism. Not a health but a moral issue. Witch-hunting out all the "bad" people who eat too much or watch dirty pictures or play violent video games or drink too much or smoke too much or have too much fun. Let Charlie Sheen party 'til he drops. It's his life.

[Prometheus Bound]

67. I think support for smoking bans in public places tends to cross all party lines doesn't it?

[dflprincess]

65. Why just last May when I was walking through Times Square

I thought how very pleasant and safe the air there would be if not for the smokers :crazy:

I'm an ex-smoker but I think this is pushing the smoking bans too far.

[M155Y_A1CH]

66. Just one more good reason...

not to go to NYC.
Cranky smokers everywhere.

[The Straight Story]

68. I will make the same offer on this thread I do on others - WHO will take me up on it?

If smoking is so bad and you are worried about the health of others:

I will chain smoke for 2 hours in a garage with my friend/relative/other.

You go into the same, or similar garage, and run your car (obviously, non-electric - but you have an electric one keep in mind it is probably fueled by coal and such at the outlet...) for two hours with someone you love.

Which one is worse for people? I thought so.

[LanternWaste]

70. Isn't there an inherent cost/benefit ratio though

Isn't there an inherent cost/benefit ratio though? Automobiles, though polluting, also allow the a mass transit of goods, services and people. How many people can carpool to work on a cigarette? How many truckloads of produce can a pack of smokes carry from FL to CA? You bring up what I believe has been referred to as a "false equivalency"

I'm an addicted smoker... but I'm also honest about it.

[firehorse]

76. I live in NYC, glad the sand won't be a giant ashtray for butts anymore

I'm tired of smokers throwing butts everywhere, as if its too small to be considered litter, including sidewalks, sewers, etc.