NYC Mayor Considering Push to Ban Smoking At Parks/Beaches

[GGT]

This is where our levels of governance fall apart. Is tobacco a food? No, of course not. But it is more like a drug, and it's also an agricultural product. That would fall under the auspice of the FDA, right? Wrong. It falls under ATF, mixed in with alcohol and firearms. The US just can't seem to figure out how to place certain legal items, who regulates them or how to tax them. States don't do much better. In PA most of our "sins and vice" taxes from gambling, lotteries, booze and smokes..... also funds things like education or elder care.

The Russians are running a campaign now, to encourage smoking, drinking and gambling. Because those activities generate a lot of taxable revenue. And those taxes help fuel the rest of the population's needs, like education.

[oldmunchkin]

I don't understand the "legal substance" talking point; substances are legal and illegal by the mercy of the State, if she so chose, she could make tobacco an illegal substance too Whether that'd be sensible is dubious, see prohibition and subsequent war on drugs, but shaming and humiliating the smokers seems like a fairly prudent course of social correction.

The "State", as you correctly point out, has the ability to make substances legal or illegal. The point I am making is, at this moment in time, tobacco products ARE legal for those over 18 years of age! Therefore, they should be allowed. Yes, at this time it's illegal to smoke a joint anywhere, so it makes sense to not allow pot smoking in the parks or on the beaches...for that matter, it makes sense to regulate it's use in buildings too. Personally, I think ALL smoking laws are nonsense and should be immediately repealed. Hell, should we shame and humiliate...and regulate where they can eat and what they can eat and how much they can eat...fat people into losing weight? Or maybe we should shame and humiliate gum chewers? Or people who drive SUV's? Or any number of other things that I think shouldn't be allowed in public? That's what Bloomberg is trying to do, shove his ideas of what he thinks is right and wrong down everyone else's throats! Just because he doesn't like smoking! Hell, I bet he likes his salary...the salary that is paid with tax-payer money! And if you don't think the taxes on cigarettes are ridiculous, you are seriously mistaken!

This is where our levels of governance fall apart. Is tobacco a food? No, of course not. But it is more like a drug, and it's also an agricultural product. That would fall under the auspice of the FDA, right? Wrong. It falls under ATF, mixed in with alcohol and firearms. The US just can't seem to figure out how to place certain legal items, who regulates them or how to tax them. States don't do much better. In PA most of our "sins and vice" taxes from gambling, lotteries, booze and smokes..... also funds things like education or elder care.

The Russians are running a campaign now, to encourage smoking, drinking and gambling. Because those activities generate a lot of taxable revenue. And those taxes help fuel the rest of the population's needs, like education.

I'm glad I am not the only one that sees that "sin taxes" are paying for a whole helluva lot of worthwhile programs.

[GGT]

Aren't parks and beaches, at least partially, funded by tax dollars? If so, then shouldn't a NY resident who smokes have the right to enjoy a legal product in those areas? After all, his taxes are helping pay for the upkeep of said park or beach! ....[snip]

Do you remember how that ideology impacted our state roadways/highways/interstates and speed limits? If a state wanted federal funds to help build or maintain a commercial connection the the rest of the country, they had to agree to the 55 mph speed limit.

Federal funding has a lot of power, and the ability to influence our behaviors and attitudes. When it comes to tobacco and smoking, it gets really complicated. My town now has one of these tobacco packing terminals in certain areas, that are apparently exempt from federal taxation, and can sell smokes at half the price. I posted about this in some other thread but right now I can't remember where it was.

[oldmunchkin]

State and Federal funding, and the threat of with-holding said monies, is something that shouldn't be allowed. It's almost like legalized blackmail! If I owned a bar or restaurant in any place that had indoor smoking restrictions, I would be applying for restitution of lost income! Of course, parks and beaches and other outdoor venues can't really do that. We have to rely on common sense of our elected officials to keep the encroachment out of our recreation areas. Unfortunately, for far too long, we have relied on those same idiots without cutting them off at some point. We have let too many radical (both right and left wing) people remain in office for far too long. Sure, when they started out, we liked some of their ideas, but as time has gone on, and especially in a year they aren't up for re-election, they have become much too radical with their ideas. The very idea of banning outdoor smoking because it might be bad for you is reaching way too far over the line, IMO!

[Ziggy Stardust]

Can you still smoke within two blocks of Ground Zero? I like to know in what regard smokers are held in comparison to Muslims in America.

I already know about atheists.

[GGT]

Sure, but it wouldn't matter if places like Wyoming didn't need federal funds for interstates or airports, to bring in more people. Or to be able to move out your mineral products to the rest of us. There's no way Wyoming could support itself as a closed loop state. You need both commerce, transportation, and tourism, and federal funds. That's where these small gummint or private industry folks lose their logic.....

edit this post was aimed at munchkin

[GGT]

Can you still smoke within two blocks of Ground Zero? I like to know in what regard smokers are held in comparison to Muslims in America.

I already know about atheists.

Ooooh, good question Ziggy! I think you could stand right there and light up. But what you do with your butt might start a riot. Or something.

[oldmunchkin]

Sure, but it wouldn't matter if places like Wyoming didn't need federal funds for interstates or airports, to bring in more people. Or to be able to move out your mineral products to the rest of us. There's no way Wyoming could support itself as a closed loop state. You need both commerce, transportation, and tourism, and federal funds. That's where these small gummint or private industry folks lose their logic.....

edit this post was aimed at munchkin

I didn't say we didn't need the funding...I just said it's a form of legal blackmail. If you don't do XYZ, you won't get money to fix your roads!

[GGT]

State and Federal funding, and the threat of with-holding said monies, is something that shouldn't be allowed. It's almost like legalized blackmail!

Yes, that's what you said. You can disallow it, but then Wyoming would be a closed loop economic system, wouldn't it? I can't imagine what private moguls would care to invest in all the infrastructure for your state, let alone any worker who'd agree to that. Can you?

[oldmunchkin]

No I don't think that would work. That doesn't mean I have to like ultimatums about things like smoking or drinking age or speed limits. And you know the ultimatums are coming with regard to smoking regulations! Just wait and see...pretty soon the Feds will try to with-hold some needed funds if we don't all agree to ban smoking in certain places.

[GGT]

No I don't think that would work. That doesn't mean I have to like ultimatums about things like smoking or drinking age or speed limits. And you know the ultimatums are coming with regard to smoking regulations! Just wait and see...pretty soon the Feds will try to with-hold some needed funds if we don't all agree to ban smoking in certain places.

Or control people having babies. sshhh don't awaken Chaloobi, he's had his EYE on just this sort of thing.

[RandBlade]

There seems to be very little opposition to this in the City Council. While I will personally benefit from a smoking ban in parks and beaches, I'm shocked and dismayed this is actually being pushed.

Yes it doesn't go far enough.

Regarding Dread's/OG's debate: It is not surprising for me to see smoking scumbags stood within a meter or two of a public ashtray and just stub their butt out on the floor, they just don't care. Even if an Officer started trying to catch people dropping the litre you'd just get people continue to smoke and litter when they can but dispose of it correctly only when an Officer is visible.

The litter argument is a sideshow to the fact that its a horrendous, smelly, cancerous poison.

The "State", as you correctly point out, has the ability to make substances legal or illegal. The point I am making is, at this moment in time, tobacco products ARE legal for those over 18 years of age! Therefore, they should be allowed. Yes, at this time it's illegal to smoke a joint anywhere, so it makes sense to not allow pot smoking in the parks or on the beaches...for that matter, it makes sense to regulate it's use in buildings too. Personally, I think ALL smoking laws are nonsense and should be immediately repealed. Hell, should we shame and humiliate...and regulate where they can eat and what they can eat and how much they can eat...fat people into losing weight? Or maybe we should shame and humiliate gum chewers? Or people who drive SUV's? Or any number of other things that I think shouldn't be allowed in public? That's what Bloomberg is trying to do, shove his ideas of what he thinks is right and wrong down everyone else's throats! Just because he doesn't like smoking! Hell, I bet he likes his salary...the salary that is paid with tax-payer money! And if you don't think the taxes on cigarettes are ridiculous, you are seriously mistaken!

Absolute bullshit.

Smoking, besides being one of most frequent forms of child abuse is a cancerous poison. Only someone insanely selfish could remotely think smoking on a sidewalk or other public space is OK. You seem to think that your smoking only affects you, in which case if you do I'm sorry but you have to be one of the most obtuse, thickest and closed-minded people to have never heard of the second-hand effect of smoke . Its not about 'values' its about the serious health and safety implications to others.

Being fat doesn't affect others. So either you're trying to mislead or have honestly had your head in the sand for so long as to be too stupid to understand the difference. And I don't think you're stupid.

[GGT]

Well what the hell happened to you as a child, Rand? Did someone force you into a tiny box for your whole childhood and pipe cigarette smoke in there or something? You're over-reacting, just a tad. You're too young to have sat in an airplane cabin with smokers, worked in a confined space with smokers, had a physical while the doctor had a fag hanging from his mouth, and I know you've never been in combat with fellow soldiers smoking, so stop your lily ass whining.

You will be impacted by all sorts of carcinogens over your lifetime, from formaldehyde in new homes and furniture off gassing to PBA in the plastics of the tent thing on your pizza, chemicals in your drinking water, mercury in the fish you eat, hormones or fucking mad cow in the beef you eat, particulates in the air you breathe (from those pesky things like trains, planes and automobiles) but you'll still live longer than previous generations.

[Dreadnaught]

As far as it goes, what's the big deal about having a few more employed people who gather up the garbage bags and pick up the butts? Hell, there are millions of people out of work right now! Maybe tie unemployment benefits in with 30 hours a week community service, policing the parks and such and cleaning up the litter! Or what about all those people who get sentenced to community service thru the courts? Why can't they be used for litter control?

Because this isn't China, where we employ a dozen people at minimum wages to clean a single subway stop all day, even if it's not dirty. There's no virtue in putting people to work as busybodies when we can just enforce littering laws.

Can you still smoke within two blocks of Ground Zero? I like to know in what regard smokers are held in comparison to Muslims in America.

I already know about atheists.

Arguably, smoking will not be allowed at the Ground Zero memorial because I imagine it will be a public park. Though praying will be allowed.

Yes it doesn't go far enough.

Regarding Dread's/OG's debate: It is not surprising for me to see smoking scumbags stood within a meter or two of a public ashtray and just stub their butt out on the floor, they just don't care. Even if an Officer started trying to catch people dropping the litre you'd just get people continue to smoke and litter when they can but dispose of it correctly only when an Officer is visible.

The litter argument is a sideshow to the fact that its a horrendous, smelly, cancerous poison.

I agree, it is a sideshow. And I despise smoking, you know that I've defending smoking bans in bars for years now.

But I think banning it outside, in public parks is a step too far. The confined-space ventilation arguments that exist in restaurants, bars and other indoor places are thrown out the window. Can you at least acknowledge there is a difference between banning smoking in public indoor places, and banning it in wide-open public parks?

[Ominous Gamer]

Regarding Dread's/OG's debate: It is not surprising for me to see smoking scumbags stood within a meter or two of a public ashtray and just stub their butt out on the floor, they just don't care. Even if an Officer started trying to catch people dropping the litre you'd just get people continue to smoke and litter when they can but dispose of it correctly only when an Officer is visible.

The litter argument is a sideshow to the fact that its a horrendous, smelly, cancerous poison.

no doubt nicotine has its own merits for banning use, even remotely around other people.

I was going for a wider approach to the problem. When there is a public nuisance and already existing restrictions don't work in an effective manner (as even you pointed out), a person has to realize that stonewalling nanny government and a wasteful spending government pretty much halts anything from getting done to fix the problem. You have to wake up to reality and understand sometimes actions you don't agree with are needed. Its the same problem the tea party / conservatives have as they continue to push for the repeal of the 20th century.

[RandBlade]

Well what the hell happened to you as a child, Rand? Did someone force you into a tiny box for your whole childhood and pipe cigarette smoke in there or something? You're over-reacting, just a tad. You're too young to have sat in an airplane cabin with smokers, worked in a confined space with smokers, had a physical while the doctor had a fag hanging from his mouth, and I know you've never been in combat with fellow soldiers smoking, so stop your lily ass whining.

If I was concerned about a child being repeatedly punched in the face by her drunken father would you tell me to "stop my lily ass whining"? I don't like either form of child abuse.

Your list of stupid crap means nothing. Smoking is an evil vice that causes tremendous harm to others.

You will be impacted by all sorts of carcinogens over your lifetime, from formaldehyde in new homes and furniture off gassing to PBA in the plastics of the tent thing on your pizza, chemicals in your drinking water, mercury in the fish you eat, hormones or fucking mad cow in the beef you eat, particulates in the air you breathe (from those pesky things like trains, planes and automobiles) but you'll still live longer than previous generations.

Guess what, we try and make such stuff not in our food etc which is why we're able to live longer

I don't eat "mad cow beef" and would not want to, the idea that I would so therefore I should accept smoking is the most bizarre logic I've heard all thread. Yes smoking can reasonably be compared to mad cow beef which is why we shouldn't have it.

Because this isn't China, where we employ a dozen people at minimum wages to clean a single subway stop all day, even if it's not dirty. There's no virtue in putting people to work as busybodies when we can just enforce littering laws.

Can we?

I agree, it is a sideshow. And I despise smoking, you know that I've defending smoking bans in bars for years now.

But I think banning it outside, in public parks is a step too far. The confined-space ventilation arguments that exist in restaurants, bars and other indoor places are thrown out the window. Can you at least acknowledge there is a difference between banning smoking in public indoor places, and banning it in wide-open public parks?

Yes, it should have been banned in public spaces first. I always said it should be banned in public places before private places indoors. A bar or restaurant at least has an owner who might want to permit smoking and I can see the argument for that. There is no equivalent argument for public spaces, no reason whatsoever to tolerate it there.

I would have a 100% ban on smoking in all public places (indoors or outdoors), anywhere with children (indoors and outdoors) and for anyone pregnant. Clear, simple

[GGT]

Then you would want to ban growing tobacco, and make it an illegal substance, huh Rand? When did you become such an extremist? Or does that only work for things you've decided are harmful or bad? What if I said the same thing about any form of alcohol?

[RandBlade]

Then you would want to ban growing tobacco, and make it an illegal substance, huh Rand? When did you become such an extremist? Or does that only work for things you've decided are harmful or bad? What if I said the same thing about any form of alcohol?

Is there such a thing as second-hand alcohol? No.

I missed one as well, it should be illegal for people in the vicinity of pregnant women to smoke as well as illegal for pregnant women to smoke. Even at home.

[GGT]

Is there such a thing as second-hand alcohol? No.

Wrong. ETOH reduces inhibitions, which leads to random sex. Not to mention embarrassing flailing of limbs called "dancing". Second hand alcohol often means "beer goggles", and unprotected sex, which means unintended pregnancies or STDs. It also leads to drunk driving, or bar room brawls, both of which claim innocent victims. Second hand alcohol claims many more victims in just one night than a whole pack of bar-hopping smokes.

I missed one as well, it should be illegal for people in the vicinity of pregnant women to smoke as well as illegal for pregnant women to smoke. Even at home.

I had no idea you were such a fascist dictator. When do you start up the mandatory baby gestation centers, to be sure they're doing it right?

[RandBlade]

Wrong. ETOH reduces inhibitions, which leads to random sex. Not to mention embarrassing flailing of limbs called "dancing".

Ooh dancing, how bad

Second hand alcohol often means "beer goggles", and unprotected sex, which means unintended pregnancies or STDs.

No, idiots do that - and first-hand alcohol. If you drink next to me, I do not get "beer goggles" - only you do.

It also leads to drunk driving, or bar room brawls, both of which claim innocent victims.

Both of those are illegal though! Same as smoking in front of children should be.

I have drank all my adult life and never once had unprotected sex with a stranger or hit someone or got behind a wheel. It takes a choice for anyone to do any of that, it does not take a choice between smoking in front of children to having that smoke reach children, it is automatic.

Second hand alcohol claims many more victims in just one night than a whole pack of bar-hopping smokes.

Prove it, because you've not named any consequences of second-hand alcohol, just consequences of people.

I had no idea you were such a fascist dictator. When do you start up the mandatory baby gestation centers, to be sure they're doing it right?

I never proposed that. But we do have child's welfare laws already. Anyway, taken the children bit to a new thread.

[Flixy]

Aren't parks and beaches, at least partially, funded by tax dollars? If so, then shouldn't a NY resident who smokes have the right to enjoy a legal product in those areas? After all, his taxes are helping pay for the upkeep of said park or beach! All whining about "second-hand smoke" aside, these are open air spaces where something a little as a cigarette (or cigar) certainly doesn't contribute that much to the pollution in those areas when you consider all the other carcinogens being released by cars, trucks, buses, etc! And what about pipe smokers? They seldom, if ever, leave litter around when they are done. They tap out their dead ashes and go on their way.

You know that is a crap argument. Alcohol is a legal substance too, but you can't drink just anywhere either. Just because something is funded by tax dollars doesn't mean anything is allowed. Hell, guns are legal there right, but you're not allowed to bring those just anywhere.

[GGT]

Ooh dancing, how bad
No, idiots do that - and first-hand alcohol. If you drink next to me, I do not get "beer goggles" - only you do.
Both of those are illegal though! Same as smoking in front of children should be.

I have drank all my adult life and never once had unprotected sex with a stranger or hit someone or got behind a wheel. It takes a choice for anyone to do any of that, it does not take a choice between smoking in front of children to having that smoke reach children, it is automatic.
Prove it, because you've not named any consequences of second-hand alcohol, just consequences of people.
I never proposed that. But we do have child's welfare laws already. Anyway, taken the children bit to a new thread.

You're being extreme. Unable to distinguish between risk behaviors or "consequences of people". From how you speak, child welfare laws would pretty much make any pregnant woman a ward of the state, so she should be contained and monitored. For every tid bit of air she breathes and food she eats or move she makes, including driving. Next step would be containing child and mother in some state sanctioned facility, to monitor every behavior and prevent any possible harm.

but then you started the new thread about smoking as child abuse, so I know you seriously think second hand smoke is on par with child rape. And you're crazy.

[RandBlade]

That's garbage. Just to use again the example of a sexually-abusive father ... is every single child with a father a "ward of the state" if they have a father in their household? Of course not, don't be ridiculous. Because the vast majority of father's are not abusing their children by raping them, there needs to be evidence.

Should every child be a ward of the state to protect them from abuse by smokers? Of course not, don't be ridiculous. The vast majority of parents are not abusing their children by smoking around them now, smoking is thankfully a minority addiction of about 1/5 of the adult population now. Those too thick or selfish to get beyond their addictions. The vast majority don't abuse others by doing it any more and there would need to be evidence before taking action.

You clearly think its acceptable to abuse children to the point that they get sick. You're not just crazy but quite sick then if you think that.

[Lewkowski]

The Jihad continues!

[Khendraja'aro]

Well what the hell happened to you as a child, Rand? Did someone force you into a tiny box for your whole childhood and pipe cigarette smoke in there or something? You're over-reacting, just a tad. You're too young to have sat in an airplane cabin with smokers, worked in a confined space with smokers, had a physical while the doctor had a fag hanging from his mouth, and I know you've never been in combat with fellow soldiers smoking, so stop your lily ass whining.

I've been confined several times with heavy smokers in a small box (read: bus) during my childhood. Thus I think I fulfill your criteria and I also think that Rand has a point.

You will be impacted by all sorts of carcinogens over your lifetime, from formaldehyde in new homes and furniture off gassing to PBA in the plastics of the tent thing on your pizza, chemicals in your drinking water, mercury in the fish you eat, hormones or fucking mad cow in the beef you eat, particulates in the air you breathe (from those pesky things like trains, planes and automobiles) but you'll still live longer than previous generations.

Strangely enough, there are all kinds of limits to those chemicals - if you surpass those limits, you may no longer sell the goods.

Now, in Germany, we also have certain kinds of limits to the chemicals which may be found in the air of a chemical laboratory. If we smoked in the laboratory, we'd pass several of those limits quite quickly.

And of course, just because some essential activities (like, eating (you don't eat, you die))have a certain contamination risk, it's also okay to introduce cancerogenic and toxic substances from an absolutely useless activity? What kind of twisted logic is that?

GGT, Food serves a purpose. Smoking does not. And if I eat food, I do not force everyone else around me to eat as well.

[GGT]

Open-air is not a closed system like a lab or office. Overall air quality (pollution) matters, but a few smokers pollute less than industrial plants, cars or trucks. Water, food and nutrition matters prenatally more than one smoker downwind in a park. But I posted in Rand's thread about smoking as child abuse.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Regarding Dread's/OG's debate: It is not surprising for me to see smoking scumbags stood within a meter or two of a public ashtray and just stub their butt out on the floor, they just don't care.

It's not surprising to your because of your generalizations and prejudices towards smokers? They're mostly assholes so they will litter. You never see cans or wrappers a meter away from trashcans deposited by non-smokers, because they are shiny happy social people. Not like them icky smokers. I give up. I'm not ever going to go out of my way to throw my cig in a trashcan or water drain again. I'm not going to step outside in my own house when the kids of relatives or friends are over. Fuck. You. All.

No really, fuck you

Yeah you, fuck you very, very much.

Especially you right wing Brits and left wing Germans. Bunch of fascist hippies.

Khen, your insistent whining about smoking just served a purpose, made my life a hell of a lot easier, especially during the winter.

Spoiler:

Of course not! You simple people have no influence over me

I'll always be a very nice guy, I just can't help myself.

I love yous all

[Khendraja'aro]

So, you see, this seems to turn all smokers into what they really are: A bunch of asshat trolls. Didn't we agree to "No trolling" in D&D?

No? That's great. I don't see why I should accept the ad-hominems directed at me here.

[Ziggy Stardust]

So, you see, this seems to turn all smokers into what they really are: A bunch of asshat trolls. Didn't we agree to "No trolling" in D&D?

Dude, do you see what you wrote here?
"All smokers are asshat trolls!"
"Didn't we agree to no trolling?"
You ever heard of the term generalisation?

Now, kindly explain what the "this" is what turns "all smokers" into "a bunch of asshat trolls"? And please explain to me how calling me an asshat troll is justified? Did you not read the spoilered bit?

edit: rereading it, it might have been unclear, so I'll simply spell it out: I was acting as the smoking scumbag Rand was talking about. In the spoiler I hoped to clarify I didn't mean any of that and I'm not going to bother my friends just because some random interweb person has some weird ideas about smokers. I feel really strange explaining this. Let me put it clear, I do not think you are insistently whining, I do however think you're generalizing with regard to the character of smokers.

And I didn't direct an ad-hominem at you. Learn what a term means before you throw it around?

An ad hominem (Latin: "to the man"), also known as argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to link the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise.

How did I try to link the validity of a premise you made to a characteristic of you?

[Dreadnaught]

Folks, this really doesn't need this level of tension. Ziggy, you basically dragged-up a two-day-dead post to say, "fuck you". While Khend, you contradictorily called "all smokers" an "asshat troll" and asked Ziggy not to troll.

Can we agree this is all a bit over-the-top?