NYC Mayor Considering Push to Ban Smoking At Parks/Beaches

[Dreadnaught]

July 6, 2010
Mayor Leans Toward a Smoking Ban at Parks and Beaches
By ANEMONA HARTOCOLLIS
After being caught off guard when the city’s health commissioner first proposed the idea, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg said on Tuesday that he was leaning toward seeking a ban on smoking at city parks and beaches.

Mr. Bloomberg said the ban made sense because it would cut the health risks of secondhand smoke and reduce littering by smokers.

“We’re talking about banning smoking on beaches and in parks, and it’s partially because you can breathe the air,” Mr. Bloomberg said when he was asked about a ban. “It’s in the open air, but the air wafts in your direction. But it is also because people take their cigarette butts and the packages and just throw them away.”

“When you ask people in our parks and beaches,” he added, “they say they just don’t want smokers there.”

The city’s health commissioner, Dr. Thomas A. Farley, said Tuesday that smoking was the leading preventable cause of death among residents, killing 7,500 New Yorkers per year, more than AIDS, drugs, homicide and suicide combined.

He said a smoking ban would be the equivalent of bans on loud radios and glass bottles on beaches, and could save millions of dollars in trash cleanup.

Dr. Farley cited a health department study, published online in the journal Nicotine and Tobacco Research in April 2009, that found that 57 percent of nonsmoking adult New Yorkers had elevated levels of cotinine, a marker for smoking, in their blood, compared with 45 percent nationally. The researchers, who sampled New Yorkers in 2004, a year after the city’s ban on smoking in most indoor working and public spaces took effect, said the density of city living might be to blame.

“In reviewing the literature and thinking through the arguments, there is reason to seriously consider prohibiting smoking on parks and beaches,” he said. A ban would probably have to be approved by the City Council, Dr. Farley said.

The City Council speaker, Christine C. Quinn, is interested in the idea, a spokeswoman said, but “feels that fines should be modest.”

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger of California recently vetoed a bill that would have prohibited smoking at beaches and parks.

Cheryl G. Healton, chief executive of the American Legacy Foundation, a smoking prevention group, said municipalities across the country have put the ban in place.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/07/nyregion/07smoke.html

Okay, this seems over the line to me. It's a park or beach. There's plenty of ventilation. I hate when smoke in a public place gets on me like that, but usually people will help it move in another direction. And where will smokers be able to smoke if this is somehow passed?

[Angel_Mapper]

[GGT]

I hear Germany is banning smoking at their outdoor beer fests. I also hear NYC has imposed so many "sin taxes" that a pack of smokes will cost ~10 bucks. But they also use that tax to fund something or other program.

Bloomberg also wanted to ban trans-fats in restaurants, didn't he?

[Khendraja'aro]

I hear Germany is banning smoking at their outdoor beer fests. I also hear NYC has imposed so many "sin taxes" that a pack of smokes will cost ~10 bucks. But they also use that tax to fund something or other program.

Bloomberg also wanted to ban trans-fats in restaurants, didn't he?

Uh, actually the "outdoor" beer fest usually consists of huge tents which are indeed "outdoors." However, it's inside those tents that smoking is banned from now on - at least in Bavaria.

[agamemnus]

Sounds OK to me...

They can always cross over to Jersey...

Or maybe organized smoking junkets? A boon for NYC's boat tourism... buy those stocks now!

[RandBlade]

I'd support this except it doesn't go far enough. Public streets it needs to he banned in too.

[Ominous Gamer]

Its not so much the ventilation, even though the horrible smell of the smoke can travel a good distance.
Its the litter. No one packs out what they pack in, especially when they are playing in what their minds can only conceive as a giant ashtray.


This "big bad government wants to tell us what to do" article belongs in Timbuk's thread.

[RandBlade]

It's not as if people are crying you can't have glass bottles. And despite the cocktails name, you'd probably be done for having sex on the beach too.

[littlelolligagged]

Hey now, I've never got in any sort of trouble for sexing on beaches.

I agree with OG. The problem isn't with the act of smoking, it's that the smokers then toss their butts on the ground. I'm not crazy about glass bottles, either - but that would make romantic picnics much more complicated.

[RandBlade]

I'm going to guess if you've done it, you didn't do it in a crowd with a ton of other people, maybe even with your own and others kiddies there.

[']['ear]

According to Loki, as long as a simple majority of the public favors it, the Mayor has an obligation to pass it. Amiright?

[Hazir]

I think it's totally over the line, but not entirely unexpected with the anti-smoke nazis having the upper hand in the US. As for the littering problem; there is a solution against littering. It's called a garbage bin. In Istanbul by the way they have opted for frequent cleaining of the streets because garbage bins are considered a security hazard.

[Ominous Gamer]

It's called a garbage bin.

Those totally work for smokers

Wonder how the anti big/wasteful government supporters juggle a thought like this. Government telling us what to do = bad. Government paying public employees (bin cleaners) to encourage a fraction of the population to continue a hobby that benefits few and harms many = bad.
Sounds like a tough one.

[']['ear]

I think it's totally over the line, but not entirely unexpected with the anti-smoke nazis having the upper hand in the US.

I'm very anti-smoking, but I also think this is over the top. Then again, a lot of politicians are acutely aware of the health care piece in state and federal budgets, and smoking is one of the biggest optional negative health factors. So, I suspect that making smokers pariahs (and thus facilitating their quitting) is in their interests.

As for the littering problem; there is a solution against littering. It's called a garbage bin. In Istanbul by the way they have opted for frequent cleaining of the streets because garbage bins are considered a security hazard.[/QUOTE]

[Hazir]

Those totally work for smokers

Wonder how the anti big/wasteful government supporters juggle a thought like this. Government telling us what to do = bad. Government paying public employees (bin cleaners) to encourage a fraction of the population to continue a hobby that benefits few and harms many = bad.
Sounds like a tough one.

Oh right, I forgot only smokers litter.

[littlelolligagged]

(many) Smokers don't consider tossing their butts on the ground to be littering.

[Dreadnaught]

Those totally work for smokers

Wonder how the anti big/wasteful government supporters juggle a thought like this. Government telling us what to do = bad. Government paying public employees (bin cleaners) to encourage a fraction of the population to continue a hobby that benefits few and harms many = bad.
Sounds like a tough one.

Making sense fail.

(many) Smokers don't consider tossing their butts on the ground to be littering.

True, I've never been able to figure out that bit of cognitive dissonance.

[Aimless]

Making sense fail.

I think he means that the first thing is bad but the second thing is also bad esp because it's stupid, and people who object to the former should recognise this truth.

[Dreadnaught]

Yeah, I agree littering is bad. But it's against the law either way.

[Aimless]

If your land is covered with cigarette-butts then your law may not be very effective, in which case you may need to get tougher, I dunno. I think littering sucks and I wish people would be smacked upside the head for doing it.

[Ominous Gamer]

The littering laws are pretty much ignored, especially by smokers. Its extremely hard to catch them in the act. Considering how often that one is ignored, bitching over an extension of it seems a little off.

Making sense fail.

Considering the whole thing was directed at you, this is an unsurprising response.
Cigarettes on beaches are a problem. Do you ban the act because the troublesome party has shown themselves to be unrelenting, or...
do you install more reciprocals (we all know regular trash cans won't cut it), thus acquiring more expenses in an effort to cut down on litter. At that point where does it stop? How many more cig stations is enough, yet not over the top, who is going to empty/clean/replace them?
Do you ban a practice that appears to be pissing off alot of people, or do you spend tax money from everyone in an effort to appease the habit of a few?
Oppressive government vs. wasteful government.

[Dreadnaught]

This is stupid. You do realize that, right?

BTW, how many times have you seen a cop give someone a citation for littering cigarette butts on beaches, sidewalks, parking lots, parks, etc.?

[Ominous Gamer]

This is stupid. You do realize that, right?

Tell us then Dread, why do you take such offense to this idea? The ventilation defense is already buried, and cigarette litter is a serious issue, so lets try a different angle this time. This tangent is becoming too sticky, lets try a fresh approach before you decide to "stop following" it again.

[Dreadnaught]

Tell us then Dread, why do you take such offense to this idea? The ventilation defense is already buried, and cigarette litter is a serious issue, so lets try a different angle this time. This tangent is becoming too sticky, lets try a fresh approach before you decide to "stop following" it again.

Taken offense to what? I know you think you're being cunning, but your angle is shallow and almost unintelligible. Can you make a cogent point please?

[Ominous Gamer]

Taken offense to what? I know you think you're being cunning, but your angle is shallow and almost unintelligible. Can you make a cogent point please?

Alright, you're having a serious problem making a connection between the possible opposition to this law, and the balancing issues behind a law like this. So lets take baby steps.
Do you support a law that bans smoking in public places that all tax payers and their families use, ie parks and beaches?

er hang on i thought ISPs were companies trying to sell stuff rather than like governments or the like. in fact i'm pretty sure this is the case

another quality loki analogy. You're correct. Maybe Loki is confusing limiting bandwidth with throttling (recent FCC case), or maybe he confusing actual abuse with the claims companies make (like AT&T's recent abandoning of unlimited mobile data).

[Dreadnaught]

Alright, you're having a serious problem making a connection between the possible opposition to this law, and the balancing issues behind a law like this. So lets take baby steps.
Do you support a law that bans smoking in public places that all tax payers and their families use, ie parks and beaches?

No, I get your point, it's just vague and incoherent. Littering is illegal. The legality of smoking doesn't impact that any more than keeping Haagen-Dazs bars legal. And if you're going to operate a public beach, putting out some garbage cans is reasonable in any circumstance. Interesting how you think the presence of garbage cans on public beaches is some kind of raging philosophical dilemma.

[Loki]

I take it you'd be fine with internet providers limiting bandwidth use to some number that 95% of users don't reach, right? After all, why make the internet more expensive for everyone if we can just screw 5%.

[Aimless]

er hang on i thought ISPs were companies trying to sell stuff rather than like governments or the like. in fact i'm pretty sure this is the case

[Loki]

er hang on i thought ISPs were companies trying to sell stuff rather than like governments or the like. in fact i'm pretty sure this is the case

Except a few percent of the users hog most of the bandwidth.

[Aimless]

Except a few percent of the users hog most of the bandwidth.

Sure, and ISPs have the option of restricting usage in various ways, but in today's market, in many countries, that can often just be a stupid move. people can (and usually will) switch to a more chill ISP. I think, although I'm not sure, that it's easier and cheaper to just give your customers uncapped connections than it is to clean up after litterers.

I'm really not sure why you're making this comparison other than the obvious "get ominous where it hurts" angle. i thought cleanup in NYC was a public service