Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
NYC To Try Banning Smoking In Parks And Beaches  
User currently offlineTheCommodore From Australia, joined Dec 2007, 2890 posts, RR: 8
Posted (4 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 2531 times:

Can this be done, legally ?

If governments are going to allow the manufacturing and sale of cigarettes to the general public. then why have all the restrictions.
Wouldn't if be better if they (the government) just banned cigarettes altogether if they are so concerned about our health, or the health of other people.

In Australia it seems, the government likes the taxes it collects from the sale of cigarettes, and alcohol, so much so that they would never consider banning them, to much $$$$ in it.

The health benefits would be fantastic, but yet no government seems willing to take the next "step" and ban them.

What are you views.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news...ticle.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10673855


Flown 905,468 kms or 2.356 times to the moon, 1296 hrs, Longest flight 10,524 kms
18 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineTSS From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 3070 posts, RR: 5
Reply 1, posted (4 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 2513 times:

Well, beaches (from the high tide line to the water, a rule which might vary from state to state) and public parks are the property of the state, so they can make up whatever restrictions they deem appropriate and that the local populace will bear.

One thing I have noticed is that the people who get militant and start foaming at the mouth every time they see someone light a cigarette are usually ex-smokers themselves. Generally, non-smokers are much more laid-back about the whole thing as long as their boundaries are respected, e.g. don't smoke in their house or car, try to stay downwind of them when smoking outdoors, and always extinguish and dispose of all smoking materials in a proper receptacle.

However, not all smokers are considerate of other people and some have a nasty habit of leaving a trail of cigarette butts everywhere they go, and this is a particularly disgusting thing to do in public parks or on public beaches, so in light of that I'll have to say that I agree with NYC on this particular ban.

Mind you, I still think that NYC is insane for banning smoking in bars because, well... THEY'RE BARS! No-one goes into a bar, pub, or tavern for their health. Is it really so hard to require a sign on the entrance door stating "Smoking Permitted Throughout Premises" so that people can choose for themselves whether or not to offer their patronage to smoking-friendly establishments?

But banning smoking in parks and on beaches I can understand.



Able to kill active threads stone dead with a single post!
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19963 posts, RR: 59
Reply 2, posted (4 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 2510 times:

Quoting TheCommodore (Thread starter):

If governments are going to allow the manufacturing and sale of cigarettes to the general public. then why have all the restrictions.
Wouldn't if be better if they (the government) just banned cigarettes altogether if they are so concerned about our health, or the health of other people.

Oh yes! More prohibition! Let's do more prohibition! It's worked so well with drugs so far. Thanks the the War on Drugs, nobody does drugs anymore and we're all completely healthy! It was a SPECTACULAR success with alcohol! Nobody drinks anymore, either!

And so CERTAINLY it will be a slam-dunk with tobacco, which is merely one of the most addictive substances known to man.

And, if you don't terribly mind, I am going to take my leave to get my tongue surgically disimpacted from my cheek.


User currently offlineMaverick623 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 5675 posts, RR: 6
Reply 3, posted (4 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 2502 times:

Quoting TheCommodore (Thread starter):
the government likes the taxes it collects from the sale of cigarettes, and alcohol, so much so that they would never consider banning them

Yup. That's the reason.


It really begs the question why on earth marijuana is still Schedule I in the US.



"PHX is Phoenix, PDX is the other city" -777Way
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19963 posts, RR: 59
Reply 4, posted (4 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 2491 times:

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 3):

It really begs the question why on earth marijuana is still Schedule I in the US.

Easy. Tax revenue can't be as high. 1/8 oz goes for about $50. A seriously heavy smoker might use that up in a week. An occasional smoker might use it up in two or three months. AND it's not nearly as addictive as tobacco. The vast majority of pot smokers are occasional smokers. The vast majority of tobacco smokers are habitual smokers. So a tobacco smoker needs a lot more tobacco on average to maintain that habit.


User currently offlineMD11Engineer From Azerbaijan, joined exactly 11 years ago today! , 14080 posts, RR: 62
Reply 5, posted (4 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 2472 times:

Doc is right. A typical tobacco chain smoker goes through two to three packs a day. A pot smoker would be constantly stoned to his eyeballs, sitting giggling on the sofa, if he did the same. A serious pot smoker a might smoke two to three joints a day and that would leave him pretty tight. Most would smoke maybe a joint on weekend to relax. So tax revenue would be much lower.

Jan


User currently offlinesoon7x7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (4 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 2453 times:

This mayor has gone over the edge...in the interest of "public health"...I will admit it is nice to walk into a bar or Penn station and no longer walk IFR through cigarette smoke. But if I was to believe that banning outdoor smoking was a kind ,concerned reaction by our mayor to save lives...I'd be Santa Claus. Just another idea for the city to generate revenue by issuing fines and collecting taxes. This from the very person that wanted to ban all forms of "photography" from the sidewalks and streets in Manhattan, yet he lauds tourism is an essential ingredient to the success of NYC's economy. Argh!...I wish guys like him would lighten up, put the pen down and stop thinking for a while. It is ridiculous as every aspect of the "little peoples" lives is being legislated by fluff laws. Mr. Mayor...go out and have a smoke and chill!

User currently offlineLTBEWR From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 13141 posts, RR: 15
Reply 7, posted (4 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 2445 times:

I have no problem with banning smoking in such locations when people are grouped together for a concert or play in a specified section of the park for a limited time period, as well as some areas of parks, like wooded areas would be ok to ban smoking in for legitment fire concerns, but to do so otherwise is just foolish.

User currently offlineus330 From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 3873 posts, RR: 14
Reply 8, posted (4 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 2438 times:

Quoting TheCommodore (Thread starter):
If governments are going to allow the manufacturing and sale of cigarettes to the general public. then why have all the restrictions.
Wouldn't if be better if they (the government) just banned cigarettes altogether if they are so concerned about our health, or the health of other people.

True, but governments have never been known for their consistency. If they can ban drinking in certain places, then I see no reason why they couldn't also ban smoking as well.


User currently offlinelewis From Greece, joined Jul 1999, 3657 posts, RR: 5
Reply 9, posted (4 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 2346 times:

Quoting TSS (Reply 1):
But banning smoking in parks and on beaches I can understand.

Already done in Los Angeles. I don't mind going out to smoke when at a restaurant or even a bar/club, but here they have specific areas when you are outdoors to smoke, like on a pier. I gave up regular smoking here anyway because I always get weird stares whenever I smoke. People in LA do not mind breathing the disgusting air that cuts visibility to a few miles everyday, but they aparently do mind me smoking in a 50meter radius from them.

Quoting TSS (Reply 1):
However, not all smokers are considerate of other people and some have a nasty habit of leaving a trail of cigarette butts everywhere they go, and this is a particularly disgusting thing to do in public parks or on public beaches, so in light of that I'll have to say that I agree with NYC on this particular ban.

As long as there are cigarette butt disposals on the same location as the normal trashcans, all smokers that I know including me have no reason to litter just to piss off non-smokers. I see lots of people here throwing their cans, bottles and tissues wherever they are, so lets ban eating, drinking and carrying any sort of packaging in public.


User currently onlineNIKV69 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (4 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 2318 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 2):
Oh yes! More prohibition! Let's do more prohibition! It's worked so well with drugs so far. Thanks the the War on Drugs, nobody does drugs anymore and we're all completely healthy! It was a SPECTACULAR success with alcohol! Nobody drinks anymore, either!

Doc who is making your coffee in the morning!

Hmmm, I am as some of you know for legalizing all drugs, gambling and prostitution. I agree with Doc that it's a waste of police resources since it does nothing to stop the use of such things. With that said from what I see here this is more of just a way to keep it away from some areas. Not the same thing. Is this a stretch? I don't know. I am a little alarmed at the TS thing but as long as this doesn't get out of control I don't mind it.


User currently offlineCMHSRQ From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 995 posts, RR: 4
Reply 11, posted (4 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 2298 times:

I think Sarasota banned smoking at it's public beaches simply because smokers used the beach as an ash tray. Butts were the largest form of pollution in the sand. Sorry smokers, but the most of you are disgusting and lazy when it comes to cleaning up after yourselves. Any curb at a stop sign will show you that. I don't mind you smoking, just don't throw your butts on the ground.


The voice of moderation
User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6731 posts, RR: 12
Reply 12, posted (4 years 1 month 1 week 3 days ago) and read 2267 times:

I never smoked and always hated smoke in bars and clubs. Not that I'm particularly sensible to smoke in general, but in such places when there were a lot of smokers it became unbearable, red eyes, all your clothes and body and hair stinking, that was clearly over the top, even without considering health.

So I was all for banning smoking in public indoor places and am grateful for it.

OTOH the idea of banning outdoor smoking is stupid. There is no harm done, it clearly is infringing on freedom, I feel. Not that I like being in the trail of a smoker, but if you ban that, then why not also ban the guy who didn't shower or the woman who wears an horrible perfume ? Living in a society means you have to put up with people to some extent.

Now, one argument for outdoor banning is cigarette butts, so I suggest to make laws (or enforce them if they already exist, like is often the case) about people discarding them on the street/park/beach, and be done with it.



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19963 posts, RR: 59
Reply 13, posted (4 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 2243 times:

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 10):
I agree with Doc

Woah woah woah WOAH.... You WHAT with me?

Dude, this is all touchy feely and sh!t. I'm not sure how I feel about this "agreeing" stuff. *backs away suspiciously*


User currently onlineNIKV69 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (4 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 2236 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 13):
Dude, this is all touchy feely and sh!t. I'm not sure how I feel about this "agreeing" stuff. *backs away suspiciously*

Nahh it's ok I still like women. In fact that female reporter in the Jet's locker room should even be enough for you to turn straight!

Back to topic I do agree with you on drugs and such. As for some of these laws they couldn't hurt. It's a park in NY. Which is a rare commodity ya know!


User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19963 posts, RR: 59
Reply 15, posted (4 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 2221 times:

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 14):

Back to topic I do agree with you on drugs and such. As for some of these laws they couldn't hurt. It's a park in NY. Which is a rare commodity ya know!

Actually, one of the few things I really did like about NYC was the abundance of parks. The greenest borough is... Manhattan! The Bronx is the second. But there are a lot of parks. It's not just Central Park. It's also a ton of smaller parks scattered all over the place.


User currently offline57AZ From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 2550 posts, RR: 2
Reply 16, posted (4 years 1 month 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 2061 times:

Here in Arizona, the regulations are even more strict. Under state law, no smoking is permitted in any workplace other than shops that derive more than 50% of their income from sale of tobacco or tobacco related products. The income must be declared on a sworn affidavit by the merchant. That means that outside of Indian Reservations and the great outdoors, a smoker may only smoke in their home, car or a designated smoking room in a hotel. If you are smoking outdoors, you may not smoke within 25 feet of an openable window, door or vent. Also, each workplace is required to place specific no smoking signs in conspicuous places. These signs cite the specific Arizona Revised Statute and the telephone number to report violations-which the state Attorney General has strongly enforced. A couple of bars in PHX tried to flaunt the law and paid heavily for that.


"When a man runs on railroads over half of his lifetime he is fit for nothing else-and at times he don't know that."
User currently offlineMaverick623 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 5675 posts, RR: 6
Reply 17, posted (4 years 1 month 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 2047 times:

Quoting 57AZ (Reply 16):
If you are smoking outdoors, you may not smoke within 25 feet of an openable window, door or vent.

Unless said door is the access door to an outside patio, where smoking is allowed.



"PHX is Phoenix, PDX is the other city" -777Way
User currently offlineexFATboy From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 2974 posts, RR: 9
Reply 18, posted (4 years 1 month 3 days ago) and read 1995 times:

Quoting TSS (Reply 1):
Is it really so hard to require a sign on the entrance door stating "Smoking Permitted Throughout Premises" so that people can choose for themselves whether or not to offer their patronage to smoking-friendly establishments?

The theoretical logic of the bar ban is not to necessarily protect smokers, it's to protect non-smoking employees. There's a certain degree of logic to this, since just as flight attendants faced breathing smoke in all day back when you could smoke on planes, bar employees face breathing it in all day.

That said, while the practical side of me likes being able to go out for a night and not come home smelling like I rolled in an ashtray, the libertarian side of me says that if a private business owner wants to allow patrons to smoke, that's his business, potential customers who don't like it can take their custom elsewhere, and potential employees can take their labour likewise, or demand a wage premium for taking the risk.

There is a certain logic to banning smoking on beaches - many smokers put their cigs out in the sand, believing that cigarettes are bio-degradable. Many filters aren't.

However, the real reason the crusaders are pushing for the ban - and at least they're honest about it - is...

...wait for it...

...it's For The Children.

Big surprise there, eh?

They don't want children to see people smoke, since that way they'll never get the urge to smoke themselves. It's the same logic behind the drive to require any movie which shows smoking to carry either a "R" or a "NC-17" rating (the rating depends on the zealotry of the anti-smoker), ban any depiction of smoking from TV, and basically shield "the children" from seeing smoking at all.

(At least most of them stop short of calling for smoking to be banned outright, realizing that'd just create a black market with resulting violence that make drug prohibition look like a pillow fight by comparison.)

As for Bloomberg himself, I'm not sure where his anti-smoking zealotry comes from. I have mixed feelings about him - on the one hand, he is a competent administrator and sometimes takes admirable stands on principle. On the other hand, like so many rich men, he has an almost complete inability to understand average people, which sometimes manifests itself in ridiculous attempts to appear to be a "common man", such as his insistence on being seated whenever possible in the middle of a work area rather than in an office, not understanding that that comes across not as "I'm in the trenches with you" to many workers but as "I don't trust you and have to watch over you", or his insistence in riding the subway as much as possible, even though he has pretty much nothing to do with the governance of the subway system (MTA is a state agency, he gets to recommend 4 out of the 17 directors to the governor, and that's it) and it puts a strain on his security detail - some critics estimate it costs us more for him to ride the subway than it would to just use the limo and have done with it.

At the end of the day, like most rich people of a liberal bent he simply thinks he's better than we are, and he has to "protect" us even if we don't want to be protected.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
CTA To Try Out NYC Style Subway Seating In Trains posted Mon May 17 2004 05:12:40 by CcrlR
I Was In Line To Vote At 5:45am In NYC... posted Tue Nov 4 2008 05:52:37 by TWFirst
Sex To Be Allowed In Parks In Netherlands! posted Mon Mar 10 2008 11:12:55 by 797
Tip: Plan To Spend New Year's In NYC posted Sat Jun 23 2007 15:57:34 by Coal
What To Do In Seattle And Vancouver posted Thu May 11 2006 12:50:23 by Safs
What To Do In Somalia And Mogadishu? posted Sat Feb 25 2006 22:46:46 by RootsAir
For Those In Chicago And Love To Shop posted Sat Dec 17 2005 09:11:34 by Crewtagdotcom
Places To Visit In Spain And Portugal posted Sat Jan 8 2005 16:54:11 by United Airline
I Want To Curl Up In A Corner And Die posted Fri Oct 15 2004 03:53:12 by Tbar220
What To Do In Montreal And Vermont? posted Mon Feb 16 2004 08:10:16 by Saxman66