Outdoor Smoking Ban Effective Monday

[zuluwarrior]

Outdoor Smoking Ban Effective Monday
Below:
 Related
 
Advertise | AdChoices


By Katherine Creag
NBCNewYork.com
updated 17 minutes ago
Share Print Font:
The city's outdoor smoking ban officially goes into effect Monday, and violators who are caught puffing away at parks, plazas and beaches could get fined $50.
Smokers were getting their last puffs in at Union Square Park Sunday, though some were skeptical the new law would be effective.
"A lot of people smoke," said Michael Deleon DeJesus. "What are you going to do, hand out a million tickets in one day?"
Dennis White, also a smoker, told NBC New York, "I think in restaurants, in stores, everything like that, it's a good law because you're in a building. But outside, I mean, you got all the smog. What's a cigarette gonna do?"
City health leaders say it will protect New Yorkers from secondhand smoke in what they call family-friendly places.
Mohamed Hussein said he and his 7-1/2-month pregnant wife support the smoking ban.
"We just don't like smoking in public," he said. "I have a baby right now. I don't like my wife standing near a smoking person."
The city plans television and print ads to get the word out about the ban but for the most part is relying on the public to enforce the law.

[rotatopoti3]

not advocating smoking but this is a dumb law....

Seeing that TNT "so called" policymakers love to adopt anything American..

this will soon be coming to a Borough near u

                                                           

[Bakes]

not advocating smoking but this is a dumb law....

Seeing that TNT "so called" policymakers love to adopt anything American..

this will soon be coming to a Borough near u

                                                           

Why is it a "dumb law"?

[rotatopoti3]

.so where exactly are my nic fit brothers and sisters going to be puffing away....its a violation of their rights ... ....smokers are being discriminated against... 

Additionally, I feel this law could have some serious social consequences on society....when man stressed....instead of having ah smoke...he could rest ah revolver in somebody ass...no every sane soul can take ah deep break and count from 1 to 10....

A couple years ago back I was travelling through Vancouver and their was a law enacted where u could only smoke i believe 5 metres away from the bar....imagine people standing in the middle of the street having a puff....or where bars were less than 5 metres away...what are u suppose to do

[Socapro]

.so where exactly are my nic fit brothers and sisters going to be puffing away....its a violation of their rights ... ....smokers are being discriminated against... 

Additionally, I feel this law could have some serious social consequences on society....when man stressed....instead of having ah smoke...he could rest ah revolver in somebody ass...no every sane soul can take ah deep break and count from 1 to 10....

A couple years ago back I was travelling through Vancouver and their was a law enacted where u could only smoke i believe 5 metres away from the bar....imagine people standing in the middle of the street having a puff....or where bars were less than 5 metres away...what are u suppose to do

How about trying to give up smoking or at least cutting down and living a healthier life style without inflicting your smoke on others? Isn't that an option? 

But I will still defend ah addict's right to poison his own lungs and will speak out against anyone who seeks to make it difficult for him to kill himself slowly so we can at least have one less addict on the planet to worry about!   

[Bakes]

.so where exactly are my nic fit brothers and sisters going to be puffing away....its a violation of their rights ... ....smokers are being discriminated against...  

Additionally, I feel this law could have some serious social consequences on society....when man stressed....instead of having ah smoke...he could rest ah revolver in somebody ass...no every sane soul can take ah deep break and count from 1 to 10....

A couple years ago back I was travelling through Vancouver and their was a law enacted where u could only smoke i believe 5 metres away from the bar....imagine people standing in the middle of the street having a puff....or where bars were less than 5 metres away...what are u suppose to do

There are more people who DON'T smoke than there are people who smoke... non-smokers don't have rights?  By the way, there is nothing that says you have a right to smoke, at least not in this country.  Second-hand smoke is a real threat, if you don't belived it just ask the persons suffering from cancer as a result of second-hand smoke.

If yuh addicted get help... if yuh don't want help and still want to smoke stay home.

[Arimaman]

.so where exactly are my nic fit brothers and sisters going to be puffing away....its a violation of their rights ... ....smokers are being discriminated against... 

Ignorant statement.....

[rotatopoti3]

Ignorant statement....

How so?

[giggsy11]

It is about time! Disgusting habit and hardest addiction to kick!

[Montjoy]

Will make some sort of sence to me when only electric cars are running on the street 

[Bakes]

Will make some sort of sence to me when only electric cars are running on the street 

Carbon monoxide doh kill people at the rates that lung cancer does.  Think about it... it'll make sense to you.

[FF]

Will make some sort of sence to me when only electric cars are running on the street 

Carbon monoxide doh kill people at the rates that lung cancer does.  Think about it... it'll make sense to you.

It say Parks, Plazas and beaches... places where families might gather for recreation..

I don't think it extend to streets and pavements... because I see endless people smoking outside this morning.
So is either that or dem smokers ent business at all 

[Bakes]

It say Parks, Plazas and beaches... places where families might gather for recreation..

I don't think it extend to streets and pavements... because I see endless people smoking outside this morning.
So is either that or dem smokers ent business at all 

Nah... is not ah comprehensive ban, unfortunately.  Parks, beaches and "pedestrian plazas, such as Times Square".  For now they targeting places where families and crowds tend to gather.

[Ray Agostini]

Just a reality check here.

Why McDonald's May Be Worse Than Marlboros

The study's findings also confirm that obesity causes more illnesses than smoking and that it's a greater contributor to disease and a shorter life expectancy.

Is Obesity Worse Than Smoking?

They found obesity was equal to, or possibly greater than, smoking in decreasing quality of life. Smoking has a primary impact on death, but obesity has a greater effect on the development of disease leading to mortality.

I've only given two links, but anyone who cares to Google will find many more confirming that obesity is as bad as, and probably worse than smoking.  Anyone can tolerate the smell of a Big Mac and chips, even though they know it's equally bad for them, but not everyone can tolerate smoke. As usual we're off with the pixies on misguided personal "agendas".

[Bakes]

Just a reality check here.

Why McDonald's May Be Worse Than Marlboros

The study's findings also confirm that obesity causes more illnesses than smoking and that it's a greater contributor to disease and a shorter life expectancy.

Is Obesity Worse Than Smoking?

They found obesity was equal to, or possibly greater than, smoking in decreasing quality of life. Smoking has a primary impact on death, but obesity has a greater effect on the development of disease leading to mortality.

I've only given two links, but anyone who cares to Google will find many more confirming that obesity is as bad as, and probably worse than smoking.  Anyone can tolerate the smell of a Big Mac and chips, even though they know it's equally bad for them, but not everyone can tolerate smoke. As usual we're off with the pixies on misguided personal "agendas".

Sorry Ray... you're off your rockers on this one.  This has NOTHING to do with personal "agendas" as you put it.  Your McDonald's example is complete non-starter.  The person gouging themselves on Big Macs is harming no one but themselves... and in a more remote sense, their families.  The smoker is harming himself and everyone else around him.  This isn't about people not being able to stand the smell of cigarettes... that's ridiculous.  Second-hand smoke offends more than just the nostrils, it is a health hazard.

[Ray Agostini]

Sorry Ray... you're off your rockers on this one.  This has NOTHING to do with personal "agendas" as you put it.  Your McDonald's example is complete non-starter.  The person gouging themselves on Big Macs is harming no one but themselves... and in a more remote sense, their families.  The smoker is harming himself and everyone else around him.  This isn't about people not being able to stand the smell of cigarettes... that's ridiculous.  Second-hand smoke offends more than just the nostrils, it is a health hazard.

No problem, Bakes. A McDonald's advert, on TV, on the Net, and "all around" town, inviting people to fatten their arteries and experience hardening of the arteries and an early death is no less harmful. Smoke is at least visible, and noxious to many, but fat (raised cholesterol) is the silent killer. So it's like shooting the dog who barks, but leaving the one who may not bark, but inflict a serious bite.

[Bakes]

No problem, Bakes. A McDonald's advert, on TV, on the Net, and "all around" town, inviting people to fatten their arteries and experience hardening of the arteries and an early death is no less harmful. Smoke is at least visible, and noxious to many, but fat (raised cholesterol) is the silent killer. So it's like shooting the dog who barks, but leaving the one who may not bark, but inflict a serious bite.

Again you're missing the point though... this isn't about what the individual chooses to do with/to themselves, the goal isn't to prohibit smoking, but rather to limit smoking in public where others might be harmed.  Until you can come up with an example of the fatty at the picnic table eating the Big Mac and endangering the health of the family walking their dog nearby... then the hamburger argument fails.

[Ray Agostini]

Again you're missing the point though... this isn't about what the individual chooses to do with/to themselves, the goal isn't to prohibit smoking, but rather to limit smoking in public where others might be harmed.  Until you can come up with an example of the fatty at the picnic table eating the Big Mac and endangering the health of the family walking their dog nearby... then the hamburger argument fails.

I agree that non-smokers should not be subjected to smoke, in public or private. They also shouldn't be subjected to carbon monoxide fumes.

The obesity epidemic in Australia costs taxpayers about $1.2 billion per year.

All I'm calling for, Bakes, is consistency. I've never been a fan of the "health police", but if we are going to have the "health police", then they should enforce their rules and regulations across the board, and not to one specific segment of the community. So McDonald's (and like fast food outlets) will either have to shut down, or offer only "healthy meals".
 

[Bakes]

I agree that non-smokers should not be subjected to smoke, in public or private. They also shouldn't be subjected to carbon monoxide fumes.

The obesity epidemic in Australia costs taxpayers about $1.2 billion per year.

All I'm calling for, Bakes, is consistency. I've never been a fan of the "health police", but if we are going to have the "health police", then they should enforce their rules and regulations across the board, and not to one specific segment of the community. So McDonald's (and like fast food outlets) will either have to shut down, or offer only "healthy meals".
 

You can regulate burgers all you want (just as tobacco is regulated), but you CANNOT prevent people from eating them.  What exactly are you calling for then?  The two issues are NOT the same, therefore "consistency" is not in issue.

Non-smokers shouldn't be exposed to carbon monoxide fumes... agreed, but that is a necessary evil, we need vehicles to efficiently live our lives, you as a taxi driver would know this of all people.  Besides all of that, the twio aren't even comparable as CO2 fumes don't kill the way lung cancer from second-hand smoke does.

Still waiting on your example of how second-hand burgers affect the casual bystanders. 

[Ray Agostini]

You can regulate burgers all you want (just as tobacco is regulated), but you CANNOT prevent people from eating them.  What exactly are you calling for then?  The two issues are NOT the same, therefore "consistency" is not in issue.

Non-smokers shouldn't be exposed to carbon monoxide fumes... agreed, but that is a necessary evil, we need vehicles to efficiently live our lives, you as a taxi driver would know this of all people.  Besides all of that, the twio aren't even comparable as CO2 fumes don't kill the way lung cancer from second-hand smoke does.

Still waiting on your example of how second-hand burgers affect the casual bystanders. 

Bakes, do you think that you can prevent people from smoking? Just like you "cannot prevent people from"...eating burgers? What makes you think that eating unhealhty hamburgers and other fattening stuff which contribute $billions to our health costs is "better"? Weigh the bottom line, in terms of costs and lives. Did prohibition work? What happened during the Prohibition era? What we are going to create now is  underground tobacco sales, and places like Afghanistan will willingly provide it. Cigarettes will become cheaper, and even more available in an underground market. You're not going to stop people smoking, any more than you're going to stop people having sex. I'm all for limitations on where people can smoke, but if this is going to lead to another kind of dreaded "Prohibition era", I'm totally against it. I really do get the feeling that some fanatics want smoking banned altogether, and this will have disastrous consequences, and it will only fuel criminal elements. The choice to stop doing something detrimental to health must remain an individual decision based on accumulated knowledge, whether it be fat, or smoke. Having a certain section of society imposing rules and regulations on "what's best for society" is a complete can of worms. Should we ban pornography? Shall we get into this debate? Should we ban alcohol because of the negative effects it has on society? How about we limit you, and other pub goers to only two alcoholic drinks per pub? For "the greater good of society"? Are you yet comprehending how this is "Orwellian"? If people are going to stop obssessively eating or drinking or inhaling what they shouldn't, then they need a "higher vision", which transcends "laws". Punitive measures will never work.

[Bakes]

Bakes, do you think that you can prevent people from smoking? Just like you "cannot prevent people from"...eating burgers? What makes you think that eating unhealhty hamburgers and other fattening stuff which contribute $billions to our health costs is "better"? Weigh the bottom line, in terms of costs and lives. Did prohibition work? What happened during the Prohibition era? What we are going to create now is  underground tobacco sales, and places like Afghanistan will willingly provide it. Cigarettes will become cheaper, and even more available in an underground market. You're not going to stop people smoking, any more than you're going to stop people having sex. I'm all for limitations on where people can smoke, but if this is going to lead to another kind of dreaded "Prohibition era", I'm totally against it. I really do get the feeling that some fanatics want smoking banned altogether, and this will have disastrous consequences, and it will only fuel criminal elements. The choice to stop doing something detrimental to health must remain an individual decision based on accumulated knowledge, whether it be fat, or smoke. Having a certain section of society imposing rules and regulations on "what's best for society" is a complete can of worms. Should we ban pornography? Shall we get into this debate? Should we ban alcohol because of the negative effects it has on society? How about we limit you, and other pub goers to only two alcoholic drinks per pub? For "the greater good of society"? Are you yet comprehending how this is "Orwellian"? If people are going to stop obssessively eating or drinking or inhaling what they shouldn't, then they need a "higher vision", which transcends "laws". Punitive measures will never work.

Did you even read the law?  Exactly what is your argument... the law does NOT ban smoking, it limits where people can smoke?  There are already similar prohibitions about the use of alcohol in public parks in NYC and many other major US cities.  There are similar laws regarding where pornography can be sold.  Somehow the world hasn't come to an end and criminal elements haven't taken over the underground market for selling alcohol in public places.  Instead, people who want to drink know that they will have to find another place to imbibe their mood altering beverage of their choice.  I'm willing to bet that smokers will follow suit.  You argue that "the choice to stop doing something detrimental to health must remain an individual decision"... agreed which is why your hamburger example fails... this law doesn't prevent smokers from killing themselves, it just prevents them from killing the rest of us who consider it a nasty, dirty, filthy habit.

Call me a fanatic  *shrug(

[kicker]

Ray your Analogy is very flawed - just accept it and move on.

The smoking laws will (hopefully) have an indirect effect of discouraging cigarette smoking but the law itself is really to protect non-smokers who are offended by second-hand smoke.  There is no direct comparison to unhealthy eating.  Should there be a stronger movement to discourage consumption of junk food? Sure why not?  But the answer to that question has no bearing what so ever on what is being done to prevent non-smokers from dangerous 2nd hand smoke... A more pertinent question might be why is cigarette smoking on the whole not illegal to begin with considering how harmful it is to health- I think we all know the answer to the question...or we can probably piece it together if we tried hard enough . 

[kicker]

Still waiting on your example of how second-hand burgers affect the casual bystanders. 

Take a stroll by any McDonalds in NYC... Start with the one in Union Square, and then stroll by the one on St Marks and 3rd ave.... Casual observation of the clientele will depress you to death.  Let's not even start with the clientele at the rest stops along any major interstate...

Also if yuh spend too much time pondering if to hit up the McDonald's at the airport (the only time I ever consider eating that crap)...yuh might miss yuh flight...

And the list goes on....

 

[Ray Agostini]

Did you even read the law?  Exactly what is your argument... the law does NOT ban smoking, it limits where people can smoke?  There are already similar prohibitions about the use of alcohol in public parks in NYC and many other major US cities.  There are similar laws regarding where pornography can be sold.  Somehow the world hasn't come to an end and criminal elements haven't taken over the underground market for selling alcohol in public places.  Instead, people who want to drink know that they will have to find another place to imbibe their mood altering beverage of their choice.  I'm willing to bet that smokers will follow suit.  You argue that "the choice to stop doing something detrimental to health must remain an individual decision"... agreed which is why your hamburger example fails... this law doesn't prevent smokers from killing themselves, it just prevents them from killing the rest of us who consider it a nasty, dirty, filthy habit.

Ray your Analogy is very flawed - just accept it and move on.

The smoking laws will (hopefully) have an indirect effect of discouraging cigarette smoking but the law itself is really to protect non-smokers who are offended by second-hand smoke.  There is no direct comparison to unhealthy eating.  Should there be a stronger movement to discourage consumption of junk food? Sure why not?  But the answer to that question has no bearing what so ever on what is being done to prevent non-smokers from dangerous 2nd hand smoke... A more pertinent question might be why is cigarette smoking on the whole not illegal to begin with considering how harmful it is to health- I think we all know the answer to the question...or we can probably piece it together if we tried hard enough . 

I’m not familiar with US laws in detail, but I gather (from perusal) that they are similar to Australian laws. I know the laws in Oz in detail, and I have no problem with them as presently constituted. What is alarming me is talk, and at this stage it’s only talk, but coming from the powers that be, of extending smoking bans to all outdoor venues, which means that you’ll basically only be able to smoke in your home/yard, or perhaps outdoor areas away from people. This drew a response from ABC journalist Simon Chapman, with which I entirely agree, and this should give to a clearer idea of where I stand (the following are only excerpts, and I encourage a full reading of the article):

I commence with these images because they provide salutary perspective on the debate about secondhand tobacco smoke -- hereafter, SHS and my concern on whether policy and advocacy for the regulation of SHS might sometimes go "too far". Many people are comforted by the smell of camp and log fires, even seeking out such exposures.

But the same people will sometimes become outraged by the occasional, fleeting exposure to tobacco smoke. While nearly identical in terms of their noxious content both forms of smoke have entirely different meanings.

Among the many key determinants of meaning and outrage are whether a noxious agent is seen as voluntary or coerced; natural or artificial; and whether the risk has been amplified by lots of media attention. We don't read much about the dangers of inhaling campfire smoke, smoke from incense or candles or cooking, but we read a lot about the dangers of secondhand cigarette smoke.

"Going too far" connotes several undesirable features in policy. It can imply a questionable departure from the evidence base, a loss of proportionality, and the abandonment of important ethical principles in the development of public health policy. A careless attitude to matters of such importance can have repercussions that will be regretted and which do not stand up to close ethical audit.

To me, "going too far" in SHS policy means efforts premised on reducing harm to others, which ban smoking in outdoor settings such as ships' decks, parks, golf courses, beaches, outdoor parking lots, hospital gardens and streets. It is also the introduction of misguided policies allowing employers to refuse to hire smokers, including those who obey proscriptions on smoking indoors while at work.

I emphasise that I am very supportive of preventing smoking in crowded, confined outdoor settings such as sports stadia, in most outdoor dining sections of (particularly small) restaurants and in unblocking the entrances to buildings by having smokers move further away. In outdoor stadia, the concentration of smokers and their sardine can proximity to others can result in significant prolonged SHS exposure over many hours.

The evidence used to justify restricting smoking in public settings has always rested on a bedrock of studies concerning the relationship of chronic diseases like lung cancer, respiratory and cardiovascular disease to prolonged and repeated exposures in domestic and indoor occupational settings, generally over many years.
Added to this, are studies which show that even brief exposures to SHS can produce measurable changes in coronary flow velocity and distensibility of the aorta to name just two.

However, these studies of acute exposure, most recently reviewed by the US Surgeon General, typically define "brief" exposure to SHS as lasting between 15 to 30 minutes - considerably more than the typical encounter with SHS in a park, beach or street -- and were all conducted in indoor environments designed to replicate typical indoor exposure conditions. These effects are also considered to be partially reversible.
In an increasing number of nations, public policy has moved to outlaw all indoor occupational exposures, where the implication is that the exposure is both prolonged and involuntary. So the question we face today is whether it is reasonable to outlaw involuntary, fleeting outdoor exposure…..

Outdoor smoking bans imply zero tolerance for exposure to SHS. In 2005, the WHO announced that it would no longer employ smokers in any capacity. Presumably, it would not matter to the WHO if the world's most potent health workers in, for example, malaria, HIV/AIDS or the prevention of injury smoked: they would no longer be welcome inside the world's peak health agency.
The WHO policy came under heated debate on an international tobacco control listserver. Several participants -- also advocates for outdoor smoking bans -- supported the WHO policy. They advanced a bizarre argument relevant to the debate on zero tolerance for SHS exposure….

Should we encourage the WHO to also refuse to hire tanned Caucasians (for sending the wrong message about skin cancer risk); people who rode motorcycles (hugely risky as attested by insurance premiums); anyone who chose to participate in extreme sports (eg: mountaineering, lone ocean sailing, base jumping where again the risks are immense); anyone who was overweight or obese; anyone who made a virtue out of not exercising; anyone who drank excessively after hours? The list could go on…..

The 2006 US Surgeon General's report on involuntary exposure to tobacco smoke made no recommendations and reviewed no evidence in its 709 pages on the dangers of outdoor exposure or the public health importance of controlling it.
There should be a lesson in this for all of us.

Going too far on smoking bans (Emphasis mine)

Bakes, I hope yuh eh bussing bamboo anymore, because dem kerosene fumes go kill yuh man.

[Bakes]

Bakes, I hope yuh eh bussing bamboo anymore, because dem kerosene fumes go kill yuh man.

Ray yuh mad or what... buss bamboo in deez people dem country?  Yuh eh see what dey doing tuh anybody suspected of terrorism or what?  Next thing yuh know I wake up in Saudi Arabia with ah bag over mih head? 


But in all seriousness, even that ABC article flawed... the man making comparison between campfire smoke and tobacco smoke and claiming that they contain the same ingredients.  Really?  Why he didn't list them?  That's the kind of pseudo-authoritative journalism that some in the media use to push their own agendas.  Unless the logs you're burning around your campfire contain carcinogens then I maintain that cigarette smoke much more detrimental.



Kicker, as a one-time McDonalds devotee (Mc Chicken if you please) I know what yuh saying... I dunno how people could eat that crap.

[Ray Agostini]

Ray yuh mad or what... buss bamboo in deez people dem country?  Yuh eh see what dey doing tuh anybody suspected of terrorism or what?  Next thing yuh know I wake up in Saudi Arabia with ah bag over mih head? 

Speaking of Saudi Arabia, check out some of the laws in that country, especially in regard to the consumption of alcohol. Might we be heading the same way? While this stems a lot from religious tradition, I wouldn’t under-estimate it happening in the “West” at some future point. Alcohol is a far more serious social issue than tobacco and SHS.

Alcohol is a legal drug sanctioned by cultural and social norms in Australia. In 2007 84% of the South Australian population over the age of 14 years reported that they had consumed at least 1 standard drink in the previous 12 months. Alcohol contributes to gross national product yet the annual cost to the Australian community of alcohol-related social problems is estimated to be $15.3 billion.

Drug/Alcohol/Services.

Alcohol-Related Statistics

Doh worry, eventually Big Brudder go get us all.

But in all seriousness, even that ABC article flawed... the man making comparison between campfire smoke and tobacco smoke and claiming that they contain the same ingredients.  Really?  Why he didn't list them?  That's the kind of pseudo-authoritative journalism that some in the media use to push their own agendas.  Unless the logs you're burning around your campfire contain carcinogens then I maintain that cigarette smoke much more detrimental.

I still agree with his basic premise that in regard to outdoor smoking we’re over-reacting, and here’s one reason why:

Automotive Exhaust Chemicals: disease causing effects

How would you address this serious health risk, Bakes?

Kicker, as a one-time McDonalds devotee (Mc Chicken if you please) I know what yuh saying... I dunno how people could eat that crap.

I’ll have a double-beef and bacon burger, thanks.