PDA

View Full Version : The Smoking Ban



Pages : 1 [2] 3

MidtownGuy
January 25th, 2006, 07:06 PM
Ninjahedge,
I stopped reading after the word "bullshoot".

Ninjahedge
January 26th, 2006, 08:30 AM
Ninjahedge,
I stopped reading after the word "bullshoot".

That's great.

You never read the previous posts either, so why does that not surprise me.

MrSpice
January 26th, 2006, 10:17 AM
I believe that this approach of taxing more things that are "bad for you" is dangerous and at least somewhat un-american. So some people want to smoke. They are already taxed beyond their imagination in this city. They because an easy source of revenue where any time the city needs more money, the government increases the tax on cigarettes since it only affects smokers. But tax is a tax. It's like saying: "we will increase taxes on donuts, but you can just have a bagel if you don't want to pay so much, and this tax will only affect dounut-eaters" Certainly, cigarettes are not donuts, They are more harmful to one's health than donuts by far. But one can make a case that hambjurgers are harmful to your health and to the environment (waster and farming of cows can be harmful), donuts are harmful since they contain a lot of sugar and calories and contribute to a variety of deceases that the public often has to pay for (through medicaid and medicare). This is a slippery slope where you want to change people's behavior through taxes. I understand limiting smoking in restaurants where it can affect others (workers, non-smokers). But when will we stop raising taxes on other people? We are already grossly overtaxed in this city. It's kind of interesting that Ninjahedge would be so mad about NSA spying on convesations with suspected terrorists from abroad without the FISA warrant, yet so happy that many New Yorkers will have less money in their pockets just because they smoke. Taking about misplaced priorities...

Ninjahedge
January 26th, 2006, 10:33 AM
I believe that this approach of taxing more things that are "bad for you" is dangerous and at least somewhat un-american. So some people want to smoke.

Smoking is one of the leading cause for health problems in the city and it costs the city, and the taxpayers, money.

I think they should maybe directly affiliate any cigarette tax to the programs taht are most directly effected by it (medical services) instead of a general tax (similar to my other idea about parking tickets going toward funding public garages...).

Call it "Smokers Health Insurance. Because dispite what any smoker says while they are lighting up, MOST will not refuse medical care when they are having a heart attack, and no medic will just stand by and let the guy die.



They are already taxed beyond their imagination in this city. They because an easy source of revenue where any time the city needs more money, the government increases the tax on cigarettes since it only affects smokers. But tax is a tax. It's like saying: "we will increase taxes on donuts, but you can just have a bagel if you don't want to pay so much, and this tax will only affect dounut-eaters"

No it isn't. the analogy is not well suited. It may be akin to taxing all fast food restaurants due to the fact that things liek type 2 diabetes is starting to take a huge toll on our medical system, and that simply being overweight is putting a strain on things like air travel, mass transit, and other public services.


Certainly, cigarettes are not donuts, They are more harmful to one's health than donuts by far. But one can make a case that hambjurgers are harmful to your health and to the environment (waster and farming of cows can be harmful), donuts are harmful since they contain a lot of sugar and calories and contribute to a variety of deceases that the public often has to pay for (through medicaid and medicare).

The analogy was weak, just let it go.



This is a slippery slope where you want to change people's behavior through taxes.

Oh, and I guess it is OK to do so through lobbiests that get farm subsidies for tobacco farmers, or for peoples opinions and habits to be shaped by advertising. If they want to spend money to make money off of making people consume something that will kill them, I guess that is OK too.


The main reason for the tax is to offset the expense. The main PR reason is to get children to stop/never start.


I understand limiting smoking in restaurants where it can affect others (workers, non-smokers). But when will we stop raising taxes on other people? We are already grossly overtaxed in this city.

You think so? Try NJ with the property taxes. Everyone is taxed in different ways, but the percentages, for urban areas, is not that different.


It's kind of interesting that Ninjahedge would be so mad about NSA spying on convesations with suspected terrorists from abroad without the FISA warrant, yet so happy that many New Yorkers will have less money in their pockets just because they smoke. Taking about misplaced priorities...

Again, two totally unrelated subjects. You might as well bring up the fact that I don't like the Iraq War and that means, somehow, that I should be against a cigarette tax.

Straw man arguement.

MidtownGuy
January 26th, 2006, 05:35 PM
ninjahedge,
i am going to indulge you by doing what you seem to like best- quoting every line of a post and then picking it apart like a lunatic. But I'll warn you, I'll only stroke you on this one occasion, because I have more stimulating ways to spend my time here. I find this whole line for line quoting thing to be juvenile and niggling.


Who says it was in insult? And how is it hypocritical?
Do you often use "addict" in an endearing way? I't hypocritical for the reason stated in my next line, which you must have read since you quoted it next.


Um, when that is ALL OF THEM, it gets hard to be choosy. Do you live in Hoboken? Try coming in here and finding a restaurant that you can eat at without walking near a bar. It is not easy.
So now you don't want smokers to have a choice. I don't live in Hoboken but if you are so intolerant that even walking by a bar where someone is smoking is means for legislation to you, then you are an obsessive personality. This might be further evidenced by your previous rantings on this very thread, which you erroneously assumed I have not read:


Read the rest of this thread to see the reasons why, they have already been stated, and restated.
It's true, you HAVE stated and restated and triple stated YOUR reasons, the trouble is that none of your views are evidenced by fact. After reading the exchanges between you and Shadenfraud it seems she cleaned your clock, my friend. (condescending tone fully intended.)


And the smoke does not have to be thick to leave you smelling like it for hours afterwards.
That is BS, to use one of your favorite expressions.


I don't force you to drink, and I do not spit on you when I am drinking. If you would let the person next to you, totally healthy, piss on you in the mens room, then I can see where you can validate the whole "free to do what you want if it is not hurting anyone" position.
Look, you have repeatedly employed that comparison on this thread and it is laughably outrageous, and getting quite tiresome to read.


You have not seen the taxes on alcohol?
I have, and alcohol is just one example. When I called for some consistency, my point was that this whole law sends us on a slippery slope towards over-regulation and over-taxing of more and more behaviors.


And that is more BS. The whole thing is that it is a DETERRANT! There are not enough rich people out there to make it worth a damn if they got every single one of them to stop. But make it cost 50¢ a cig and the kiddies will be less likely to start.
My point about rich people, which flew completely over your head, was that
using economic means like taxes to deter behaviors which are not already ILLEGAL (like putting 'em in kiddies' hands), is inherently unfair because only lower economic classes feel the pinch of paying them. Let's face it, people are going to get cigarettes somehow even if it is illegally like the 5
dollar packs on 125th street. Oh, and that 50cent a cig thing- where have you been? The "kiddies" all over this town buy "loosies" all the time for 25-50 cents each, so if parenting hasn't prevented them from smoking, neither will higher taxes.



But the smell does not stick on you. It is also very easily controllable. It is liquid, so the spill is the only thing you are talking about.
The dreaded "lasting smell" thing again! I've had booze spilled on me. It wasn't nice, and it smelled horribly. left a stain too. Know what? I never complained to a bar owner, the legislature, or anyone else except whoever was standing next to me at the time. And sticky, smelly spills happen in every bar, every night. So give up the smell thing, ninjahedge. Bars don't naturally smell like rose gardens, and boozers don't smell like lilies either.
Someone like you , with his sensitive (if somewhat selective) smell and all, might be happiest at home-far away from nasties.


That's great.

You never read the previous posts either, so why does that not surprise me.
*This is a bonus one. It is an illustration of how to really piss someone off by being so completely, arrogantly, presumptuously, WRONG.

After this post, I will no longer waste my time answering anything addressed *by you, to me or anything I said*. It's like arguing with a smarty-pants 7 year-old. I am not in the habit of making attacks on people in this forum. I will not do so again. I am here to learn and exchange ideas. Disagree with the spirit of my post , but don't try to talk me down, call my views BS, or do the idiot quote-for-quote thing. [Deleted]

MidtownGuy
January 26th, 2006, 06:37 PM
2. Your arguments are a better case for further restricting alcohol, rather than easing the restrictions on cigarettes.

I agree with many of your points. However, I need to make clear to everyone that I am as against any further restrictions of alcohol, as I am against the recent ones on cigarettes.

This is what I would like to see: I believe in compromise between smokers and non-smokers, not "my way or the sidewalk". Such compromises, such as were allowed under '95 laws, could be a starting point. Business owners should be allowed to choose, within guidelines, what they will do...
A possible compromise previously mentioned- allowing some bars and clubs to apply for tobacco licenses, for example? Perhaps the zealots who like the total ban are afraid of what capitalist competition will prove- that most tolerant people think there should be choices when it comes to smoking in bars and clubs.

lofter1
January 27th, 2006, 12:15 AM
Calif. classifies second-hand smoke a toxic risk

Reuters
Jan 26, 2006

http://go.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=domesticNews&storyID=10991744&src=rss/domesticNews


SACRAMENTO, California (Reuters) - A California agency voted on Thursday to classify second-hand tobacco smoke as a "toxic air contaminant," a first-in-the-nation move that could ultimately toughen state regulations against smoking.

The designation by California's Air Resources Board starts a process that could lead to further smoking bans in the nation's largest state, which has often pioneered in health and environmental regulation.

Scientific studies in recent years have warned about the health impact from second-hand smoke and linked it to a wide array of ailments including heart disease, lung cancer and other respiratory ailments, and breast cancer.

"I think there is no question that this puts California way ahead," said John Froines, chairman of the Air Resources Board's Scientific Review Panel.

"To actually have the major air pollution agency in the state of California to list ETS (environmental tobacco smoke) as a toxic air contaminant is going to have immense impact, we think, in terms of public education around other states," he said. "It will clearly lead to regulatory changes within the state."

The panel's 2005 study found that about 16 percent of all Californians smoked, but 56 percent of adults and 64 percent of adolescents were exposed to second-hand smoke.

"Because the diseases are common and ETS exposure is frequent and widespread, the overall impact can be quite large," the study found.

California's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment estimates that as many as 5,500 non-smoking Californians die annually of heart disease related to second- hand smoke and as many as 1,100 die from lung cancer caused by second-hand smoke.

GROWING TOBACCO BANS

The decision in the California state capital kicks off a process that will likely take two or three years as officials study ways to reduce exposure to second-hand smoke.

A spokeswoman for tobacco giant Philip Morris USA, a unit of Altria Group Inc., declined to comment.

In 1994, California became the first U.S. state to bar smoking in the workplace, and then followed up with bans on smoking in restaurants and bars. Other American cities and states have since adopted similar prohibitions.

Several California cities have enacted wider bans, such as San Francisco, which now prohibits smoking in city parks, and Los Angeles, which bars smoking at piers and beaches.

Some health experts say the ultimate impact of California's decision to classify second-hand smoke as a toxin could reach beyond the United States.

"It is important because it has included important new findings, new scientific information that will not only help California policymakers but will help those across the United States address this issue," said Paul Knepprath of the American Lung Association of California.

"And, as I think some board members mentioned, this impact on the international community could be very helpful." Some foreign countries, including Ireland, Norway and Sweden, have workplace smoking bans.

© Reuters 2006

Ninjahedge
January 27th, 2006, 09:32 AM
Midtown, in response to your rant:

Are you saying that smokers are not addicts? If the truth hurts it is still the truth.

Smokers always had the choice. It is an INVASIVE PRACTICE. We have laws against noise, public urination, and people, in general, don't take it kindly if you pass gass in a restaurant. But somehow it is a right of the people to spew an unhealthy, distrubing, damaging substance into the air because it is their choice? No, it isn't.

None of my views are evidenced by fact? Where have you been living? She did not clean ANYONES clock. Thank you for just reaffirming that you are in this as an emotional tirade, not as a logical position.

You say that it doesn't last for hours? Let me introduce you to my GF who can smell it on me hours after, and is worse with her with long hair.

Or my father, who when he sneaks one, OUTSIDE, still has the smell on his shirt THE NEXT DAY, or a miriad of other people that have expressed the same FACT. I call your BS and I announce a red herring.

As for me making the comparisons/analogies and you calling it laughable, that is another straw man. you have not refuted it, just called it stupid. I am sorry, but that does not work on anything but Reality TV.

Your point about rich people was a worthless distraction brought on in full force by those trying to turn this into a class issue instead of the fact that they are pissed that they ghave to pay more for their addiction.

As for "looseys" I was referring to the price per cig if you buy a pack. If that goes up to 50 cents a cig, the "loosies" would go up to 75 or a dollar. You think kids would do that? You think ALL of them would? Or would they want their cash for other more pressing matters like clothes, food, and cell phones?

And as for higher taxes not reducing juvenile participation, please show me where the ammount of teen smoking has gone up after the price has gone up.


As for booze being spilled on you, that is akin to having ash flicked at you. Neither is nice, but booze spilling is not akin to smoke. I have also yet to see anyone die from lung cancer, or suffer an asthmatic attack from a beer spill. Are you a smoker? If you are, I suggest you stop smoking and be able to smell the roses.

ALL the ex-smokers I have heard and talked to have mentioned how they never realized how bad it smelled.

Also, if the smell is so great, why do SO many smokers not smoke at home? Why do they dislike the smell on their clothes, they ARE smokers, aren't they? If they find no problem having other people smell like that, why do so many of them not subject their family to the same?

*Thanks for the bonus, the bonus being you will not post on this anymore. You are a pig-headed bullistic individual that doesnot like being told he is wrong even when he is wrong.

And you could do yourself a favor and listen to the "smarty pants 7 year old" if he is making more sense than an insulting, downcasting individual that does not refute statments, but simply derides them.

As for talking you down and calling your comments BS, I have already done so. They are BS and they will always BE BS on this issue.

And thank you for proving who s the real juvenile. Nice call on the "prick" comment. You really no how to "debate" an issue, don't ya?

Ninjahedge
January 27th, 2006, 09:37 AM
I agree with many of your points. However, I need to make clear to everyone that I am as against any further restrictions of alcohol, as I am against the recent ones on cigarettes.

This is what I would like to see: I believe in compromise between smokers and non-smokers, not "my way or the sidewalk". Such compromises, such as were allowed under '95 laws, could be a starting point. Business owners should be allowed to choose, within guidelines, what they will do...
A possible compromise previously mentioned- allowing some bars and clubs to apply for tobacco licenses, for example? Perhaps the zealots who like the total ban are afraid of what capitalist competition will prove- that most tolerant people think there should be choices when it comes to smoking in bars and clubs.


Again, they tried this and it does not work.

You allow both and all become both. You have one smoker in a group of five, and more often than not they will go to a place that allows smoking.


Financially, a partial ban will never work.



The only thing you can do that would work would be to simply have LITERAL smoking bars. No alcohol, but the thing like the turkish smoke houses.

If you want to go in to have a pipe, cigar, cigarette, or Waterpipe (forgot the name) you can.

Hell, they can even serve small foods (donuts and the like). But nothing else.

Draw the line and keep to it.

The whole fallacy of a smoking section has never really worked well because of two things.

1. The smoking section always had the bar.
2. It was almost impossible to keep the smoke out of the non smoking sections, especially in small places (like the ones found in NYC).

So whatever. You know this to be true too, and as unfair as you see additional taxes, or a ban, you know that other solutions, although they sound feasable, would never work.

MrSpice
January 27th, 2006, 10:34 AM
It seems like what NJ and many other states have done is a great compromise where most restaurants and bars have special smoking sections where those who smoke can enjoy their time and do what they like doing.

I am frankly surprised to see people like Ninjahedge in this "land of the free" advocating draconian measures to teach people a lesson. We all make choices in life. Many of those choices may be viwed as harmful to us and to others. Those riding a motorcycle have a higher chance of hurting themselves and others than those riding in the car. Those eating unhealthy food contribute to higher medical costs and lost productivity. Those who drink a lot of beer are not very healthy either. I am sure those who are pro-choice (like me) would admit that abortions have high social and economic cost associated with them. We cannot respond to anything that can be deemed unhealthy or wrong or harmful with more and more taxes and more and more regulations/bans/restrictions. People should be free to do what they desire if it does not adverselu affect other people. One of the great virtues of free country should be respecting other people's choices even if they appear inappropriate or wrong to you.

lofter1
January 27th, 2006, 10:56 AM
IMO (and I've been known to enjoy a puff or ten, so I'm not a non-smoker but do know the nastiness of the habit -- all described in gritty detail by ninjahedge) the California-type laws mentioned in the article above are the wave of the future. Don't be surprised if before too long there is no smoking allowed in NYC parks.

Think of the revenue the city could bring in with all those tickets!!

ZippyTheChimp
January 27th, 2006, 11:24 AM
I've allowed a few inappropriate personal remarks to remain in this thread to illustrate the passionate nature of the smoking ban.

No further remarks of that nature will be permitted.

I know it's hard, but if you smoke, try to quit. It's a pain in the ass, and will get worse.

NYatKNIGHT
January 27th, 2006, 11:55 AM
Obviously name-calling is disrespectful and is not allowed, nor does it help promote any argument and won't be tolerated.

However, this is a subject open for debate, no matter how strongly anyone feels about it. Claiming that anybody does not like being told he is wrong even when he is wrong is irritating and as disrespectful as name-calling.

Let's everyone stop the use of drowning out each other's opinions with three feet of nitpicking posts, in this and all threads, the immaturity is embarrassing to this otherwise respected board.

Ninjahedge
January 27th, 2006, 11:59 AM
It seems like what NJ and many other states have done is a great compromise where most restaurants and bars have special smoking sections where those who smoke can enjoy their time and do what they like doing.

But that simply does not work.

they had the smoking rooms at workplaces too for a while, but they found that to be an inconvenience, an added expense, and it did not really accomplish anything.


I am frankly surprised to see people ... advocating ... measures to teach people a lesson. We all make choices in life. Many of those choices may be viwed as harmful to us and to others. Those riding a motorcycle have a higher chance of hurting themselves and others than those riding in the car.

But it does not directly effect others if they ride responsibly. Repeated use does not make others get sick or die. AND you cannot ride a cigarette to work. So the analogy does not fit Spice....


Those eating unhealthy food contribute to higher medical costs and lost productivity.

I never said I was against taxing the people who not only sell this to people, but market it and make wads of cash from it. I do, however, feel that any tax placed to try to alleviate a problem should have its funds directed towards mitigation methods. Parking tickets for Garage Building, "fat tax" for weight loss programs and health studies, Tobacco Tax for cancer wards and research, alcohol for city run AA clinics. The whole 9 yards.


Those who drink a lot of beer are not very healthy either.

Bad example. Those that drink a little lower their cholesterol, and those that drink a healthy ammount of red wine actually do their body good!


I am sure those who are pro-choice (like me) would admit that abortions have high social and economic cost associated with them.

This is a confusing point, and it brings in the red herring of abortion, which I will not even touch.

The purpose of smoking prohibition is to limit exposure to non-participants without forcing them to go out of their way to do so. The purpose of the taxes is to discourage use, limit initial use, and provide funding which SHOULD be earmarked to help with the costs the habit incurs.


We cannot respond to anything that can be deemed unhealthy or wrong or harmful with more and more taxes and more and more regulations/bans/restrictions. People should be free to do what they desire if it does not adverselu affect other people.

But this does. It also costs other people money. It is not fair that I should have to pay for a medicare person with ling cancer he got from smoking. I feel bad for him but, as many smokers say "[he] knew what he was doing, don't tell him what to do!"



One of the great virtues of free country should be respecting other people's choices even if they appear inappropriate or wrong to you.

Unless they effect YOU. And this does.

MidtownGuy
January 27th, 2006, 12:01 PM
I am proud do say that I do not smoke. In fact, I am what some would call a "health nut". I am also proud to say that I have a more tolerant and compromising view than many other non-smokers.

Kris
December 21st, 2006, 05:37 AM
December 21, 2006
Mayor’s Curb on Smoking Is Credited With Saving Lives
By RICHARD PÉREZ-PEÑA

Could Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg’s antismoking crusade have already saved hundreds of lives? It has, city health officials said yesterday.

Smoking-related deaths in New York City fell by more than 800 a year from 2000 to 2005, a drop of more than 10 percent, according to the city’s annual Summary of Vital Statistics report, released yesterday. Asked how much of that can be credited to the mayor’s measures, Dr. Thomas R. Frieden, the city health commissioner, said, “I think most of it.”

In another piece of good news, New Yorkers are living longer than ever, after an unusually big one-year rise in longevity. In 2004 (this statistic lags the others by a year) average life expectancy in the city reached 78.6 years, almost five months more than in 2003.

After trailing for six decades, New York City overtook the national average for longevity in 2000, and by 2004, the city led the nation by almost 10 months. Health officials say it is fairly clear why the city would have improved faster than the nation over the last decade, starting with the much reduced tolls of murder and AIDS, but they are not sure why the advantage continues to grow.

Infant mortality dropped slightly in 2005, to the lowest level ever recorded, 6 deaths among every 1,000 babies. But after decades of steep decline, progress has slowed nearly to a stop, and the infant mortality rate has changed little in the past five years.

The birth rate continued to drop, to 15.1 per 1,000 people. In more than a century of keeping track, the city has been less fecund in only two periods: the mid-to-late 1970s, and the Great Depression.

Even so, New Yorkers entering the world outnumbered those departing by more than 2 to 1, as the death rate fell very slightly, to a record low of 7 per thousand. The Bayside section of Queens had the city’s lowest death rate, while Brownsville, Brooklyn, had the highest, almost three times as high.

The leading cause of death, heart disease, continued to decline steadily as a killer, as it has for several years, possibly helped by the development of cholesterol-lowering drugs.

Dr. Frieden said he was frustrated by some areas that could be improved with education and better care, but show little or no change, including H.I.V.-related deaths and the racial disparity in infant mortality.

Black infants were twice as likely to die before their first birthdays as white or Hispanic babies. “Black women go into pregnancy and go through pregnancy in much worse health status, and that translates into higher infant mortality,” Dr. Frieden said.

H.I.V. deaths in the city peaked in the mid-1990s at more than 7,000 annually, then fell sharply with the introduction of new drug treatments, but progress slowed in recent years. The death count fell last year to 1,419, the lowest in more than two decades, but only 32 fewer than the year before.

After taking office in 2001, Mr. Bloomberg sharply increased the city’s cigarette taxes, and the state later imposed another steep increase. Then the mayor closed loopholes in the ban on smoking in restaurants and extended the ban to bars. The city also gave away nicotine patch kits to tens of thousands of people.

Despite fierce opposition at the time, the tax and the smoking ban were widely accepted. Since then, surveys have shown significant drops in the number of New Yorkers who smoke, which antismoking activists attribute largely to the city’s actions.

Using formulas developed by the federal Centers for Disease Control, the city calculated the number of smoking-related deaths at 8,096 in 2005, down from an average of 8,960 between 1999 and 2001.

Most of that decline was in death from cardiovascular disease. Death from the cancers associated with smoking also dropped, but Dr. Frieden said that was a continuation of a long-term trend, not a result of Bloomberg policies.

“Cancer takes 10 or 12 years to go down after people quit,” he said. “Cardiovascular disease goes down right away. For an individual smoker, within a year after quitting smoking, your risk of a heart attack is about half what it was before.”

Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company

ZippyTheChimp
June 22nd, 2007, 06:43 AM
June 22, 2007

City Smokers’ Ranks Drop 19%, Study Says

By ANTHONY RAMIREZ

The city’s department of health, citing a combination of high taxes, workplace limits and $10 million in grim television advertising, said yesterday that the number of smokers in New York City had declined by 240,000 in the last five years.

That change represents the sharpest drop since the city began keeping records in 1993, and one of the steepest declines in the nation since 1965, when the surgeon general first warned Americans about the dangers of smoking.

“When we look at the U.S. data overall, from 1965 to the present, this is faster than the United States as a whole in any period,” said Jennifer Ellis, the city health official who helped direct the study.

City researchers, writing in a widely followed publication of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said the share of the city’s residents who smoked had dropped by 19 percent during the period of the study.

They said that in 2002, about 1,305,000 city residents smoked, or about 21.6 percent of the adult population, and that in 2006, about 1,065,000 residents, or 17.5 percent, smoked. The study was based on interviews with 10,000 city residents and used the same measures that the C.D.C. uses. The sharpest drops were in the Bronx, where smoking dropped from 25.2 percent of the population to 19 percent, and in Manhattan, where the rate dropped from 21.2 percent to 16.1 percent. Staten Island was flat, at 27.3 percent in 2002 and 27.2 percent in 2006.

Dr. Thomas R. Frieden, the commissioner of the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, said in a telephone interview, “The big picture is that if you are willing to do the right thing and take political risks as Mayor Bloomberg did” with curbs on smoking in public places, “you can get enormous health benefits.”

Moreover, Dr. Frieden said, the administration will continue to press for higher cigarette taxes of 50 cents more per pack. Adjusted for inflation, he said, a pack is actually 60 cents cheaper now than when taxes were last raised in 2002.

At that time, New York City increased the excise tax on cigarettes from 8 cents to $1.50 per pack. New York State also raised its excise tax from $1.11 to $1.50. Both resulted in the highest combined city/state tax in the United States at the time.

The tax increases raised the average price of a pack from $5.20 to $6.85. The city’s revenue from cigarette taxes has declined to $120 million this year from $123 million in 2005.

Councilman Tony Avella, Democrat of Queens, who has clashed with Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg about smoking curbs in restaurants, said he would oppose higher taxes.

“People who smoke are addicted,” he said. “All you succeed in doing is making addicts pay more in taxes.”

Dr. Frieden said the city would continue to buy television advertising. “The tobacco industry is spending at least $400 million in New York City alone for marketing and promotion,” he said. Even if the city and state spent $20 million annually, he said, “We would still be outspent 20 to 1.”

Bill Phelps, a spokesman for Philip Morris USA, the nation’s largest tobacco company, declined to comment.

The health department researchers, writing in the most recent issue of the C.D.C.’s morbidity and mortality report, said the rapid drop in smoking in the city represented a continuation and an acceleration of long-term trends.

The drop, they said, represents as many as 80,000 fewer premature deaths from cancer and other smoking-related diseases, if the smokers quit the habit permanently.

The researchers attributed the most recent drop in the smoking rate to the 2006 television campaign highlighting the physical ravages of smoking.

The commercials ran on broadcast and cable channels. The researchers said that the typical New York viewer would see the city’s antismoking ads, called “Nothing Will Ever Be The Same,” as many as 110 times over the course of a year.

Moreover, the researchers said that separate research suggested that 9 of 10 city smokers had seen the ads.

Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

MikeW
June 22nd, 2007, 10:29 AM
So when are they going to just ban smoking in public?

Ninjahedge
June 22nd, 2007, 11:10 AM
:rolleyes:

I am still amazed at the % of people that smoke. What is the average % of people that work in the city that smoke? (I don't remember seeing 1 in 5 walking along the street to work puffing away...)

NYatKNIGHT
June 22nd, 2007, 12:37 PM
^Smokers don't smoke constantly, so you wouldn't see 1 in 5 at any given time.

Ninjahedge
June 22nd, 2007, 01:14 PM
^Smokers don't smoke constantly, so you wouldn't see 1 in 5 at any given time.

Most that I have known try to get that last one in before they go to work. So I am surprised that I see less than 1 in 10 puffing when I come in in the morning.

Mid-day and other times is all up to the individuals......

ZippyTheChimp
June 24th, 2007, 01:35 PM
Do you really count them?

lofter1
June 24th, 2007, 08:25 PM
My self-imposed smoking ban is now starting week 13 ...

Funny what triggers the urge for a smoke ... this weekend while painting my bathroom I had huge urges to smoke when I would finish a coat or other tasks. In the past my breaks (no matter what it was I was doing) would usually start with a smoke -- and sometimes finish with one as well :cool: ...

I did not give in -- but did yell a few times, "G** Dammit, I want a F***ing Cigarette!".

Somehow that helps the moment pass :D ...

Finished the painting project without one smoke. For me I find that smoking is really a mental thing much more than a physical addiction. Sure don't miss coughing up the cash to pay for a pack or ten ...

pianoman11686
June 25th, 2007, 12:01 AM
Congratulations on making that sort of progress, lofter. Even with all the patches, gums, and pills these days, I still hear from most smokers that it's too hard to quit.

Ninjahedge
June 25th, 2007, 09:23 AM
Do you really count them?

Sadly, yes.

I also know that the red hand flashes 11 times before it goes solid and that you have 7 seconds between then and the light changing green on most of the avenues...


I don't know why, but I pick up on these things. I wish I could filter them out...

Ninjahedge
June 25th, 2007, 09:26 AM
Congratulations on making that sort of progress, lofter. Even with all the patches, gums, and pills these days, I still hear from most smokers that it's too hard to quit.

It IS mostly psychological.

Geez, I find it hard not to bite my nails, and as far as I know there is nothing physically addictive about that!


Good job Loft! You will always get the cravings from time to time. But hopefully the return of the sense of taste and smell (FOOD!!!) will more than offset the nicotine rush. that is what I have heard is one of the most welcome thing from recent ex-smokers I know....

GL!

ZippyTheChimp
July 1st, 2007, 07:06 AM
July 1, 2007

Staten Island Up Close

Even as the City Rejects the Habit, One Place Is Still Tobacco Road

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/07/01/nyregion/thecity/smok600.jpg

By EMILY BRADY

From the southernmost tip of Manhattan, even on a clear summer day, Staten Island can appear shrouded in a smoky haze.

There’s the pollution, which has earned the island the dubious distinction of having the worst air quality in the city. And there’s the cigarette smoke, which, according to a report released 10 days ago by the city’s Health Department, has hardly dissipated over the last four years, despite declining numbers in every other borough.

According to the report, 27 percent of adult residents of Staten Island puffed away in 2006, the same percentage as in 2002. During the same period, smoking rates among adults plummeted elsewhere in the city, bringing the city’s 2006 smoking average to 17.5 percent, a record low.

As to why Staten Islanders are the only city residents who don’t seem to be quitting smoking, no one is quite sure.

“It’s the $64,000 question,” said Sarah Perl, the assistant commissioner of the city’s Bureau of Tobacco Control, who credits the sharp drops elsewhere to higher cigarette taxes, a ban on indoor smoking and an antismoking ad campaign.

Donna Shelley, an assistant professor at the Columbia Mailman School of Public Health, was also unsure how to explain the Staten Island results, but she noted that the borough has a long history of high smoking rates. She also wondered, as Ms. Perl did, if the city’s antismoking ads need to be tailored more to the borough population.

Staten Islanders themselves are mystified by their behavior.

“God, I have no idea why,” said Christine Morrill, a 33-year-old Staten Islander from West Brighton.

“I had lymphoma, and I still smoke,” she added as she sat at the bar in Duffy’s, a neighborhood tavern on Forest Avenue, her miniature dachshund nibbling on her burger.

Down the avenue in front of Jody’s Club Forest bar, Norman Senk, a 49-year-old Staten Island native with a white stubbly beard who smokes two packs a day, had a more philosophical take on things. “We like to smoke; hey, what are you gonna do?” he said as he leaned back in a green plastic lawn chair and took a drag on a Marlboro Red.

As the Health Department works to develop a plan of action, Ms. Perl intends to send researchers to Staten Island to interview residents directly.

Maybe she should consider a suggestion from Kevin Gill, who said at Jody’s bar that his 23-year-old daughter has been a smoker for 10 years. “I’d like to take her to the morgue and show her a pink, healthy lung and then a black smoker’s lung,” Mr. Gill said. “I think that would make anyone stop right there.”

Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

ZippyTheChimp
January 3rd, 2008, 09:26 AM
January 3, 2008

Paris Journal

Even France, Haven of Smokers, Is Clearing the Air


http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/01/03/world/03smoking.600.jpg
Tomas van Houtryve for The New York Times
As of Wednesday, people could smoke at outdoor cafes,
but not indoors. There are fierce pockets of resistance to the ban.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/01/03/world/03smoking_2.650.jpg
Owen Franken for The New York Times
A smoker puffed on a hookah on a heated terrace in a water-pipe
tea house on Wednesday.


By ELAINE SCIOLINO

PARIS — Overnight, conviviality has taken on an entirely new meaning in France.

Under a sweeping decree that took effect Wednesday, smoking has been banned in every commercial corner of “entertainment and conviviality” — from the toniest Parisian nightclub to the humblest village cafe.

No matter that cigarette is a French word. Or that the great icons of French creativity — Colette to Cocteau, Camus to Coco Chanel — all smoked. Or that Paris boasts a Museum of Smoking. Or, in fact, that Paris has named a street after Jean Nicot, the 16th-century French diplomat who took tobacco leaves imported from America to Catherine de Medici to treat her migraines. (Nicotine was named after him.)

The ban is the final step in a 2006 prohibition on smoking in public places, which had granted postponements to restaurants, bars, discos, casinos and other commercial pleasure enterprises so that they could better brace themselves for smokelessness.

On Wednesday, Health Minister Roselyne Bachelot visited the high-ceilinged, 100-year-old Wepler brasserie in Paris and announced that there was “perfect” compliance with the new rule.

“This is a new art de vivre,” she said, even as she warned of consequences for “repeat offenders and rebels.” (Smokers who break the rules will face fines of $100 to $661. Owners can be fined $198 to $1,100.) Michèle Alliot-Marie, the interior minister, has told the country’s police that they do not have to meet quotas in issuing fines and urged them to leave policing to “competent” agents like public health inspectors.

The ban was supposed to take effect on Tuesday, but to preserve the New Year’s Eve party spirit — and avoid the risk of violence — French smokers were given an extra day of grace.

About 12 million French people — about 20 percent of the population — are smokers, according to official figures, and more than 70,000 people die in France every year from smoking-related illnesses and secondhand smoke.

The decree coincides with a broad Europe-wide nonsmoking movement that began four years ago when Ireland banned smoking in public places. But here, there are fierce pockets of resistance. Opponents say the ban signals the erosion of French liberté. They say it is undemocratic because it was not passed through Parliament but imposed by government decree.

Some owners of smaller bars and cafes contend that the ban is unfair because it favors large, wealthy establishments that can take advantage of loopholes. (Smoking is allowed in outdoor cafes and sophisticated indoor “hermetically sealed areas, furnished with air-extraction systems.”) Indeed, in writing the ban, little thought seemed to have been given to the country’s 800 water-pipe tea houses, most of them extremely modest enterprises owned by ethnic Arabs.

“We have sacrificed everything to open these little places, borrowing money from our family members, using our cars and apartments as collateral, and what’s going to happen to us?” said Tariq el-Hamri, the 33-year-old owner of Dar Daffia (House of Hospitality), a water-pipe bar in Paris. “If the government wants to have healthy people, it should stop selling cigarettes — and alcohol.”

Mr. Hamri belongs to the Union of Hookah-Pipe Professionals, which plans to challenge the ban in French courts and is lobbying for the same exception for water-pipe smokers that is in effect in parts of the United States and Canada. Expensive and space-consuming hermetic sealing is not an option for most of them. “We are second-class citizens,” said Badri Helou, president of the union, which was created last February and has 270 members. “The reason you come to a water-pipe club is to smoke a water pipe. The mint tea and the pastries come afterward. We cannot survive on them. It would be as if you go to the movies and there’s no film — just popcorn.”

The Confederation of Tobacco Dealers, which represents 28,000 tobacconists in France, has accused President Nicolas Sarkozy of duplicity.

During the presidential campaign last year, Mr. Sarkozy called for flexibility to protect small businesses. “To ban smoking in places where tobacco is sold, is somehow strange,” he said at the time, adding that there should also be leniency for the small cafe-tabac in a village of 750 people where “if it closes, there is nothing else.”

The confederation’s newsletter reprinted the opening two-page spread in a recent issue of Paris-Match that shows Mr. Sarkozy at his desk, lighting a cigar. “Is the Élysée Palace a private space where one can smoke or a place of work?” said René Le Pape, president of the confederation. “The president is setting a bad example. This is a provocation.”

For Mr. Le Pape, the ban signals the demise of a part of French culture. “It means the destruction of village life,” he said. “What will happen to the ritual of arriving at the cafe in the morning to read the morning paper over a coffee and a cigarette?”

At Le Musée du Fumeur (The Museum of Smoking), there is concern that the French may not be able to think as well without their cigarettes. “All our great writers seem to have been smokers,” said Michka Seeliger-Chatelein, one of the curators.

Still, there are efforts to keep a sense of humor. The cafe-restaurant Le Fumoir (The Smoking Room) has made gifts of its signature ashtrays. The cover of the current issue of Le Figaro Magazine retouched black and white photos of Che Guevara, Jacques Brel, Brigitte Bardot and other passionate smokers; they grip giant yellow buttercups instead of cigarettes between their lips.

Most establishments seemed resigned to the ban. “We are not taking sides,” said Colin Peter Field, the head bartender at the Hemingway Bar at the Ritz. The bar will continue to sell 40 to 50 types of upscale cigars and is studying plans to renovate its outdoor spaces to accommodate smokers.

“Once you’ve hung yourself,” Mr. Field said, “you’re not going to drown yourself as well.”



Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company

Ninjahedge
January 3rd, 2008, 09:57 AM
I feel bad for the Hookah bar owners, but this:


“What will happen to the ritual of arriving at the cafe in the morning to read the morning paper over a coffee and a cigarette?”

Garners no sympathy from me.


How do you think smaller establishments, who rely on smoking as their primary income, could get around this w/o others taking advantage of it and ruining the desired effect?

Fahzee
January 3rd, 2008, 10:50 AM
speaking as a non-smoker here: smoking a cigar at The Hemingway Bar will be missed.

lung cancer will not be missed

Ninjahedge
January 3rd, 2008, 11:50 AM
That is kind of what I am saying...

How can you sepearate the two though? How can you survive just on the sale of tea and pastry in France? (Especially when your consumer base was primarily smokers).

The line is tricky to draw between a bar that you smoke at and a smoking lounge that you eat/drink at.....

Fahzee
January 3rd, 2008, 12:35 PM
^ well put - I've wondered the same thing.

Harry's New York Bar (sure - it's a tourist haunt - but I freakin' loved it) had a cigarette girl - I'm actually a little worried about her. I guess she sells gum now.

But in the long run, bars & restaurants have all survived the smoking bans. After all, the pubs in Ireland are doing fine - why wouldn't the cafes in France do the same?

Also: In New York, Hookah Bars are still allowed to operate - they just can't serve tobacco (instead, you smoke dried fruit). More Hookah bars have opened SINCE the ban than before.

TonyO
January 3rd, 2008, 01:03 PM
Also: In New York, Hookah Bars are still allowed to operate - they just can't serve tobacco (instead, you smoke dried fruit). More Hookah bars have opened SINCE the ban than before.

I've been to Hookah bars here and they certainly sell tobacco as well as allow you to smoke it (and cigarettes).

Seeing the French adopt a no smoking law is surprising. If they could now take it a step further and require "pomposity free" establishments things would be that much better.

Fahzee
January 3rd, 2008, 01:44 PM
If a Hookah bar is allowing you to smoke tobacco, they are doing so illegally.

That being said, many (if not ALL) Hookah bars could potentially get away with allowing you to smoke flavored tobacco, as the testing & enforcement policies of the NYC Department of Health are notoriously lax

- basically, a DOH representative has to ask for a sample of whatever is being smoked in the Hookah - but the hookah bar doesn't have to give the representative the actual substance in the Hookah! Instead, the Bar owner gives the DOH representative a piece of "fresh" substance - and no tests are done to ensure that the fresh substance and the smoked substance are one and the same

Cigarettes are an entirely different story - if you've seen people smoking cigarettes in a Hookah bar, chances are it's only a matter of time before someone cracks down on that particular establishment

Ninjahedge
January 3rd, 2008, 02:26 PM
Maybe that is a deliberate blind eye that is being turned on those establishments....

The only thing I would find hard would be to try to seperate the Smoking Primary establishment from the Smoking Accessory establishment. You say you can have smokes at this and such a bar, but only if it does not serve beer, or food, or something, the line gets a bit blurry.

Maybe the Hookah is the only way to go with potential tobacco allowances. They definitely take up space that could be used to fill with more patrons, and they are not cheap in themselves....

I don't know. I do think it is unfair to have an absolute ban on all establishments, but I do not see any other way that would work with a substance that is that addictive and prevalent in a culture. If you want to protect non-smokers from it, i is very hard and very convoluted to give rights to some without taking something away from the non-smokers (like smoke free bars).

Although it is silly, maybe they need to seperate tobacco from full-food/liquor establishments. NJ does something similar with strip clubs (or is it CT) where Alcohol cannot be served where full frontal is shown. (that is the silly thing I was talking about). Theory being that it prevents unruly behavior, etc etc...

Would making it so that only wine/liquor could be served at a smoking bar (where only specialty ciggs/cigars/hookah could be used/sold) make it?

I think people would still be upset that they could not bring their own, but this would at least give them a place to try something different. It works for Alcohol (why pay $5 for a pint when you can get the same beer for $1 at the store?)......

I don't know. I like that they are doing this, but I still feel sorry for the small guys that are running smoking establishments, not bars where people smoke....

Fahzee
January 3rd, 2008, 02:40 PM
^ plus, it's economically unfair that owners of establishments with roofbars/outdoor bars can still allow smoking, but your average dive bar cannot.

all of this being said - I was recently in a bar where smoking WAS allowed (I forgot where I was - Virginia maybe?) - and it was awful. I will always feel bad for the little guy - but I have ZERO nostalgia for the smoke filled bar.

Radiohead
January 3rd, 2008, 10:56 PM
Smoking bans in restaurants don't bother me at all, since I'd prefer to eat a meal without the smell of smoke wafting my way. Bans in bars I can live with as well, since the majority of drinkers don't smoke anymore.

What does bother me is the Bloombergonian nanny-state that tells ALL establishments that they HAVE to be smoke free. Why can't an entrepreneur open a restaurant or bar exclusively for patrons and employees who do smoke? If you don't like the smoke, don't eat there and don't apply to work there. There are hundreds of other places in town to eat and work.

Unfortunately, the PC nannies, who of course have only the health of the the public in mind, will have none of this. The smokers are addicts who must be protected from themselves. A restaurant/bar for smokers? Egads!

TonyO
January 4th, 2008, 09:36 AM
If a Hookah bar is allowing you to smoke tobacco, they are doing so illegally.

That being said, many (if not ALL) Hookah bars could potentially get away with allowing you to smoke flavored tobacco, as the testing & enforcement policies of the NYC Department of Health are notoriously lax

- basically, a DOH representative has to ask for a sample of whatever is being smoked in the Hookah - but the hookah bar doesn't have to give the representative the actual substance in the Hookah! Instead, the Bar owner gives the DOH representative a piece of "fresh" substance - and no tests are done to ensure that the fresh substance and the smoked substance are one and the same

Cigarettes are an entirely different story - if you've seen people smoking cigarettes in a Hookah bar, chances are it's only a matter of time before someone cracks down on that particular establishment

Legally, you are correct. There are only 8 establishments that legally allow tobacco smoking. However, as is everything here, reality is not the law. Hookah bars routinely sell/allow flavored tobacco and people smoking their own cigarettes.

Ninjahedge
January 4th, 2008, 09:42 AM
What does bother me is the Bloombergonian nanny-state that tells ALL establishments that they HAVE to be smoke free. Why can't an entrepreneur open a restaurant or bar exclusively for patrons and employees who do smoke? If you don't like the smoke, don't eat there and don't apply to work there. There are hundreds of other places in town to eat and work.


That does not work.

People kept asking "why not let this and such do this". But what you end up with is ALL the bars becoming "special" and going right back to what they were.

Smoking is addictive both physically and psychologically. Most people have the hardest time separating past behavior from smoking after they quit (they can't do this or that because they start craving when they do). Bars are just that.

They developed the link over many years of the two being hard-linked and making it possible for an establishment to be "special" and offer both will prompt many to do the same.

So the hard part that I am talking about is drawing that line. How do you make it so that you can have a few establishments that cater to smokers without going right back to square one where anyone in NYC that wanted to be social (with alcohol) had to put up with the smoke?

ZippyTheChimp
January 4th, 2008, 11:32 AM
Funny how the term politically correct has become synonymous with the simple incorrect, the added benefit being the implication that the offender knows his position is incorrect, and is just avoiding offending some group (the actual meaning of PC).

So just what group are the PC nannies trying not to offend? The non-smokers? That would be themselves.

Radiohead
January 4th, 2008, 07:17 PM
That does not work.

People kept asking "why not let this and such do this". But what you end up with is ALL the bars becoming "special" and going right back to what they were.

Smoking is addictive both physically and psychologically. Most people have the hardest time separating past behavior from smoking after they quit (they can't do this or that because they start craving when they do). Bars are just that.

They developed the link over many years of the two being hard-linked and making it possible for an establishment to be "special" and offer both will prompt many to do the same.

So the hard part that I am talking about is drawing that line. How do you make it so that you can have a few establishments that cater to smokers without going right back to square one where anyone in NYC that wanted to be social (with alcohol) had to put up with the smoke?

I think most establishments would remain non-smoking so as not to alienate the majority non-smokers. Most would also not want to pay for any special license to allow smoking. Also, the government could choose to limit the number of such establishments if too many applied for such a license.

The bottom line is, in a free society, shouldn't adults have the CHOICE to go to a restaurant that caters to smokers if they so wish, and shouldn't business owners be able to open an establishment that caters to such a crowd? Who are they really hurting other than themselves. If you don't like the smoke, don't go there. Do we really want the government mandating what type of legal activities can be indulged in a particular establishment, no matter it's health effects. Alcohol itself can cause many negative health issues, but do we want the government telling a bar what types of alcohol it can serve? No shots, their alcohol content is too high. No double mixed drinks, it speeds up intoxication. A Red Bull and Jager?....nope, those energy drinks speed up the heart and promote more consumption. Where does it stop? Once the precedent is set with smoking, it likely won't end there.

And that is quite chilling....
http://www.fotosearch.com/thumb/ARP/ARP114/Chilled.jpg

AmeriKenArtist
January 4th, 2008, 09:05 PM
Cigar Bars? Can they exist? (I didn't read all 20 pages here.)

Sheff1
January 6th, 2008, 10:01 PM
I went to Lexington Bar and Books in the UES over Christmas. You must wear a shirt, but basically it is a bar that allows cigar smoking. No cover but a bottled beer is $9. No draught beers. No cigarettes allowed.

Radiohead
January 6th, 2008, 11:50 PM
I went to Lexington Bar and Books in the UES over Christmas. You must wear a shirt, but basically it is a bar that allows cigar smoking. No cover but a bottled beer is $9. No draught beers. No cigarettes allowed.

Cigar smoke is far more invasive and odorous than any cigarette; I wonder how that is allowed. Likely that too many big shots with political connections smoke cigars.

$9 beers?? Now that's more offensive than any kind of smoke:eek:

mykingdomlisa
January 7th, 2008, 02:02 AM
I agree.

I hate smoke and hate coming home wreaking of smoke, but it's NYC and it's a bar. *Hello, don't go and don't work there...

Also, the city needs to lighten up on bars, clubs (dance and strip), etc. *NYC nightlife has been and should always be a MAJOR part of NYC. *It's why many people are here and it is one major factor that sets us apart from everywhere else.

It annoys me that a business that makes a lot of money for the city and the owners/employees is looked upon as "evil."

Damnit, I'm gonna start ranting, so...


good point

Ninjahedge
January 7th, 2008, 03:09 PM
I think most establishments would remain non-smoking so as not to alienate the majority non-smokers. Most would also not want to pay for any special license to allow smoking. Also, the government could choose to limit the number of such establishments if too many applied for such a license.

I do not think that will work. There is still a strong pull for smoking by those that still smoke. Most establishments would go back to what would bring in people. And if the bars started smoking, the non-smokers would stop coming and the smokers would determine the course of the market.

I am not saying that issuing limited permits is not a bad idea, but it would be very hard to make it fair unless you had some other special requirement (like Hookahs) to allow people to smoke, only what YOU sell, in your establishment....


And do not get started with the "alcohol is bad for you too" svhpiel. I cannot make another drink by sitting next to them and drinking. Any of my actions CAUSED by Alcohol are limited, and against the law if it were to harm another. Someone does not go home smelling like Alcohol if they were simply in the same establishment as someone else who was drinking, and alcohol does not stain the walls, ceilings, and fabrics of an establishment unless used with wonton abandonment and kenetic exhuberance.


IWO, apples and oranges.

All they have to do is make it so that smoking is, well, smokeless and many people would have no problems with it.

ZippyTheChimp
January 7th, 2008, 03:37 PM
All they have to do is make it so that smoking is, well, smokelessI think that thin blue line curling up from the tip, and the cirrus layers drifting in the room have a lot to do with the appeal.

I never enjoyed smoking on a windy day.

Ninjahedge
January 7th, 2008, 04:28 PM
I hate smoke and hate coming home wreaking of smoke, but it's NYC and it's a bar. *Hello, don't go and don't work there...

*bzzzt*

Nope. SO because someone else wants to smoke, I can either stink or stay home? Is that fair to me? For something that has been rammed through the public eye by way of movies and very expensive commercial association, it would be very difficult to make a "free market" argument for any kind of bar being able to be smoke free "of their own free will".

As was said many times before, one smoker in a group can make many turn away from your establishment.

If people are expecting something when they go out, your clientelle, or lack thereof, is determined by what was the standard before.

Bottom line is, a free market model does not work in cases like this. This is not a question of Freedoms, and if it was a question of Democracy, there is a good chance that more people would vote for the ban than not if posted to the general population.

Ninjahedge
January 7th, 2008, 05:12 PM
I think that thin blue line curling up from the tip, and the cirrus layers drifting in the room have a lot to do with the appeal.

I never enjoyed smoking on a windy day.

Actually, that is all "atmosphere", and I only saw it dramatized by people trying to create a specific image.

And it was pushed by the tobacco industry as well. Very good marketing.

But if everyone loves that "layer" so much, why do they smoke in the car with the window cracked open? Is there a limit to how much smoke a smoker can take? ;)


(PS, the *bzzt* was a little harsh, but I have a bit of work stress, so...... sorries!)

MidtownGuy
January 7th, 2008, 06:03 PM
Good grief, didn't we go all through this a few pages back? Ninjahedge, you have an obsession about this. The Cerberus of this thread.
You do seem stressed and shrill, lighten up Francis!

Ninjahedge
January 7th, 2008, 06:11 PM
"You call me Francis, I'll kill you!"

:p

MidtownGuy
January 7th, 2008, 06:20 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTUruCv4Qi4

:D

Radiohead
January 7th, 2008, 07:33 PM
I do not think that will work. There is still a strong pull for smoking by those that still smoke. Most establishments would go back to what would bring in people. And if the bars started smoking, the non-smokers would stop coming and the smokers would determine the course of the market.

I disagree. Sure there are many customers who would like to smoke, but there are many more who would not and they would have a bigger say in determining the course of the market. Surveys say that only about 20% of NYC residents smoke (17% of Manhattan residents). Even assuming that the rate is a bit higher for drinkers, the minority of smokers will not cause most bars to become smoking environments again. Most bar owners will not want to alienate the 75+% of customers that don't smoke.





And do not get started with the "alcohol is bad for you too" svhpiel. I cannot make another drink by sitting next to them and drinking. Any of my actions CAUSED by Alcohol are limited, and against the law if it were to harm another. Someone does not go home smelling like Alcohol if they were simply in the same establishment as someone else who was drinking, and alcohol does not stain the walls, ceilings, and fabrics of an establishment unless used with wonton abandonment and kenetic exhuberance.

IWO, apples and oranges.


First off, you're taking my alcohol can be bad" comment out of context. That was merely to make a point about the potential dangers of excess government intrusion in a business' day to day activities under the guise of protecting the public health. Besides, you're totally missing my point. If you don't want to breath in the smoke or have your clothes smelling of it, don't go into the designated cigarette or cigar bars. These establishments would be for the ones who DO wish to have a cigarette with their drink. If you don't, then don't go there.

I don't understand why smokers having a few places to go and enjoy themselves and their unhealthy habit bothers you so much. You seem to think that it will cause a snowball effect, and the bans will be recinded. That is not going to happen; the ban is here to stay. But a limited number of special licenses for on-premises smoking should be allowed. The "fairness" issues could be worked out.

pianoman11686
January 7th, 2008, 07:47 PM
That "minority of smokers" is sort of a circular argument, Radiohead. A major reason the smoking rate has kept going down is how much more difficult (and embarrassing, inconvenient, aggravating, etc.) it has become to smoke in public places. Try comparing smoking rates between places that restrict it, and others that don't.

You make it easier to smoke again, and more people may light up. Or, at best, the rate won't get much lower.

MidtownGuy
January 7th, 2008, 08:13 PM
How very unlibertarian of you.

Not only should there be businesses that allow patrons to smoke cigarettes, but there should also be businesses where it is legal to smoke marijuana.

Radiohead
January 7th, 2008, 09:13 PM
That "minority of smokers" is sort of a circular argument, Radiohead. A major reason the smoking rate has kept going down is how much more difficult (and embarrassing, inconvenient, aggravating, etc.) it has become to smoke in public places. Try comparing smoking rates between places that restrict it, and others that don't.

You make it easier to smoke again, and more people may light up. Or, at best, the rate won't get much lower.

Then we get into the argument of should the government be setting restrictions on behavior, however unhealthful, in order to eliminate it. It's easy to pick on smokers, because smoking obviously is bad for your health. But what if the government tries to restrict drinking in say, street festivals, because it encourages overindulgence (or god forbid, the premise of protecting children from observing alcohol consumption). Ninja calls it apples and oranges, but it's really not. There are already a number of supplements that the FDA has banned in the USA, due to trumped up health concerns (i.e. tryptophan(ban recently lifted), ephedra). And the push to severely limit dietary supplements has been ongoing in Europe the past several years, and could eventually cross the Atlantic:

http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag2003/2003_preprint_eu_01.htm

Governments can educate the public via PSA's all they want. But they do not need to be protecting people from themselves, or their bad habits, via legislation.

lofter1
January 7th, 2008, 10:39 PM
Ah, c'mon .. stop telling us what to do .. anybody who wants to smoke, go ahead ... SMOKE (http://whyquit.com/pr/071806.html) :cool:

http://whyquit.com/whyquit/KimScar.JPG

lofter1
January 7th, 2008, 10:42 PM
ooops ^ Sorry :o I meant to post the "Smoking is Sexy" pic ...

http://www.sexysmokingteens.net/uploads/smoking-fetish-teen-lorena.jpg

Radiohead
January 8th, 2008, 12:16 AM
You know, there's a whole subculture of men (and women) who have a deep-seated smoker fetish. The leathery skin, the wrinkles, the deep, throaty voice. Do we want to deprive people of that by banning all smoking?......

http://seniorjournal.com/Photos/4-12-15Smoker.jpg

http://www.clauss.dk/Billeder/Cuba/Old_cigar_smoker_from__Havana.jpg

http://www.drunkhollywood.com/images/tarasmoke01.jpg

http://dermnetnz.org/site-age-specific/img/smoker.jpg

http://health.learninginfo.org/images/damage.jpg

http://www.treatment-skincare.com/Images/January07/Vitamin-C-Irritating-Aging-Ineffective.jpg



:eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:
http://www.plu.edu/~health/img/leatherface.jpg


Despite even that last picture, I still think smokers should have places in the city to smoke. It's called choice, whether good for you or bad.

lofter1
January 8th, 2008, 12:27 AM
Precisely ^ The choice is to do it in the street or at home.

I smoked for many many years. But a certain body part recently made the choice for me: Stop now or else.

Were those many many years of enjoyment worth the eventual revolution within my body?

From my present standpoint ... Nope.

And I certainly shouldn't be inflicting any of that on someone who is employed to serve me ... especially if that server doesn't have the option to say, "Not going near that table."

But why should anyone let logic & reason get in the way of a few furtive puffs and momentary pleasure?

Ninjahedge
January 8th, 2008, 09:19 AM
RH, I know where you are coming from, but the key thing here to keep in mind is how your own freedoms infringe on others.

Like what I said before, if they had the smokeless ciggie, then it would have little, if any impact on anyone else.

But think about this. If everyone loved it so much and there was nothing wrong with it, why did so many people leave their coats at home when going to the bars? I can't tell you how many times I saw people walking to bars in Hoboken, in February (30 degrees or so) with nothing but a skirt and a tube top or button up long sleeve shirt and slacks.

I will tell you why. Their clothes STUNK after being in the bar for only 5 minutes! God FORBID you wear a wool coat in there, it would take MONTHS to get all the stank out.

And that is just cosmetic. That crap gets into your lungs as well. The first few times you are exposed, you cough, get respiratory irritation, your eyes water. It is your body telling you that it does not like it and you should stop. That goes for passive smoke as well.

So people would have to put up with that just so some could have their "freedom" to cater to an addiction that so many say "I can stop any time" but few ever can, or do.


Now, back OT, I think, as I said, that if the establishment was selling the tobacco, you were only allowed to get its product, and the bar was specifically set up to cater to just that, then that is different than just allowing smoking. You want to smoke? Go to one of those bars or just step outside for a puff. Better yet, petition the tobacco industry to put more $$ into research for a smokeless ciggie that does not look like a breathalyser mouthpiece (talk about humiliating) and tasting like licking a nicotine patch (not that I have tried, but that is another fault smokers have said about the smokeless).


Oh, OFF topic. That last pic looks more like a leatherback than a smoker. A Tan-a-holic.

Why she still does it when she looks that bad is, although not "beyond me", rather sad.... But, her life, her choice, doesn't effect me (although I am reluctant to have to pay medicare/medicaid if she needs it for skin cancer).

ZippyTheChimp
January 8th, 2008, 11:01 AM
That last picture gave me the heebie-jeebies.

MidtownGuy
January 8th, 2008, 11:39 AM
That one is definitely sun damage. A lifetime at the beach.

pianoman11686
January 8th, 2008, 02:32 PM
Governments can educate the public via PSA's all they want. But they do not need to be protecting people from themselves, or their bad habits, via legislation.

The slippery slope argument is certainly valid, and we should always be on guard against restrictions of individual liberty.

Smoking is an unusual case, as Ninja explained, because it does harm not only to smokers, but also anyone in the immediate vicinity of the smokers. Why should a substantial majority suffer from secondhand smoke in restaurants, bars, etc. because some people can't kick the habit? I consider that in itself an infringement of rights. And while I'm no fan of majority rule to make policy, no one's saying smoking should become illegal. Just don't do it where it endangers others.

Even aside from all of this, I have no problem with seeing big tobacco companies lose more and more of their business. Who knows if we'll ever be able to put a number on the total amount of damage they've done through their deliberate attempts to get people addicted to their products. We're talking about the worst of the worst of American corporations.

Ninjahedge
January 8th, 2008, 02:46 PM
Slight OT on that Piano, RJ Reynolds and the other Big Tobacco companies had some smarts. They did not stay all in one particular product. Many are buying things from property to cleaning products.

I would hazard a guess that they are paying their lawyers handsomely to make sure that their divestments are isolated, legally, enough from Tobacco so that they do not lose them when they are finally forced to close down some of their more illicit endeavors (such as research into more addictive plant progeny, etc).

They are probably trying to go the way of the coal mining companies. When enough people are successful in suing them, they close shop and say they have no $$, when really they have just been transferring all of their assets over to safer venues while making as much money off their sinking ship as possible while it is still above the waters surface.

Rats simply don't just jump ship these days. They make sure that others are tied to the hull to go down with it!


Back ON topic, yes, you got what I am saying. So long as I do not have to put up with it, and have my health effected by a completely voluntary act (in theory, we all know it is an addiction) I have no problem with it. But similar to, and worse than, other things I have mentioned which are NOT health risks but not tolerated (noise, body oder, etc), I see no reason they should be allowed or argued for under "free market" or "personal freedom" assertions/associations.

Radiohead
January 8th, 2008, 09:27 PM
I keep hearing arguments about second hand smoke that you do not wish to be exposed to, which is irrelevent to my argument, which are for bars that cater exclusively to smokers. These would likely be new establishments that need special licenses anyway, not existing ones. If you don't like the smoke, don't go there to drink, and don't go there to work. It comes down to voluntary choice. When I lived in the city, and when I visit city taverns today, I rarely smoke when I drink. So I would probably frequent the overwhelming majority of bars that don't allow smoking. But adult smokers should have the choice to go into an establishment and enjoy their habit with other adult smokers if they so wish.

It's quite scary how many are so gung-ho on controlling the activities of others. And it's ironic that many of the same are equally vocal in espousing the freedom to choose in other areas. Maybe I'm missing something in translation. I don't understand how someone sitting in a "cigarette bar" puffing away with other smokers undermines the rights of anyone who wouldn't be caught dead (no pun intended) in that same bar anyway. The truth is, it doesn't undermine either their rights or their health. It should be of no concern except those who choose to be there.

New York City.....the great liberal, tolerant city:rolleyes:

Radiohead
January 8th, 2008, 09:39 PM
But similar to, and worse than, other things I have mentioned which are NOT health risks but not tolerated (noise, body oder, etc), I see no reason they should be allowed or argued for under "free market" or "personal freedom" assertions/associations.

Ninja, that sounds a lot like prohibition. It didn't work with alcohol, and it won't work with tobacco. You sound like some self-righteous, bible-thumping evangelicals I've heard....
http://www.jesus21.com/img/news/angley_2.jpg

Please don't damn me to hell's fire:(

lofter1
January 8th, 2008, 10:48 PM
So, based on that position ^ a question (or three) ...

If you're an employer and hire folks to work in your smoke-infused bar do you make your employees sign a waiver stating that anything that occurs in the workplace is not the responsibility of the employer -- nor is the employer liable for any costs which might stem from health issues due to the activites which are allowed in the employer's place of business?

Or do you agree that if an employee gets sick and that the illness is linked to tobacco smoke then do you as the employer agree to cover the insurance / health costs for same?

And what if the insurance company says, "We're not covering that. The illness was due to the employer's negligence. And the negligence of the employee for working in such an environment. Both should have known better. They are fully and mutually responsible and must pay all costs. We're not paying a cent."

:confused:

Radiohead
January 9th, 2008, 12:41 AM
So, based on that position ^ a question (or three) ...

If you're an employer and hire folks to work in your smoke-infused bar do you make your employees sign a waiver stating that anything that occurs in the workplace is not the responsibility of the employer -- nor is the employer liable for any costs which might stem from health issues due to the activites which are allowed in the employer's place of business?

That could very well be the case. And if I was a smoker and wanted to work in a bar that allows smoking, I'd sign it. Liability waivers are a fact of life in modern day America. For owners of a cigarette bar, in the litigious society we live in, it's a no-brainer.


Or do you agree that if an employee gets sick and that the illness is linked to tobacco smoke then do you as the employer agree to cover the insurance / health costs for same?

If an employee makes the effort to apply for a job specifically in a "cigarette bar", more likely than not they already smoke. So I doubt the employer should be on the hook when they're the ones inhaling their own cigarettes. Blaming second-hand smoke would be almost laughable. And even if they didn't smoke, they would have probably signed the contract mentioned in the prior paragraph. That said, I do wish that even part-time bar workers could be covered by health insurance to some degree. Since I don't own a bar, I don't know how feasible that is.



And what if the insurance company says, "We're not covering that. The illness was due to the employer's negligence. And the negligence of the employee for working in such an environment. Both should have known better. They are fully and mutually responsible and must pay all costs. We're not paying a cent."

If that were the case, I would assume such specific language would be in the policy. The employer would want to verify that the policy didn't specify that. If such language wasn't there, the company should pay; you can't make up excuses not to pay after the fact. Not even "pre-existing conditions" would apply here.

If all insurance companies were smart, they would charge a hefty premium to cover smokers, which in the case of either a cigarette bar or an individual smoker, would be a significant cost. I don't have a problem with insurance companies charging higher rates for smoking, morbid obesity, high risk behaviors or hobbies etc. I work in health care and know the negative and costly effects of all of them.

And still I have a disdain for government setting restrictions on any of them
http://kevinrothermel.typepad.com/kevinrothermelcom/images/big_brother.jpg

MidtownGuy
January 9th, 2008, 12:55 AM
There's the idea that the health care industry shouldn't be denying anyone necessary treatment, regardless of how the need came about. Mountain climber...buzz off with your broken leg, you shouldn't be climbing rocks?

The trouble with hypotheticals like this:


And what if the insurance company says, "We're not covering that. The illness was due to the employer's negligence. And the negligence of the employee for working in such an environment. Both should have known better. They are fully and mutually responsible and must pay all costs. We're not paying a cent.


is that our environment is full of health hazards that are the result of voluntary choices and things we should avoid. Breathing pollution from sources other than cigarettes , say for instance vehicle exhaust, is also harmful, are we going to have different classifications for people who live too close to a road or have a balcony above a busy intersection? Order pizza with bacon and extra cheese? Locate themselves and their children near cancerous wires or utility stations? Redline those neighborhoods and adjust insurance rates accordingly, perhaps?

What if a person chooses to eat factory farmed beef? I wouldn't touch it any faster than I would touch a cigarette. So do I conclude that meat eaters should pay more in insurance for their unhealthy choice of being an eater of non-organic, overly-marbled meat? Of course not. Then there is the pollution from cattle feedlots. Because of an unnatural amount of beef consumption, pollution is leeking into aquifers, you know...the amount is staggering... it's polluting the groundwater. The environment is being harmfully affected by a behavior I do not choose to partake in. Should we outlaw, restrict, or categorize by risk for that too? Mandate the consumption of 100% soy substitutes? Or maybe the government should determine what's an acceptable level of pork lard before danger of atherosclerosis rises, and ration it out by family according to genetic risk.

MidtownGuy
January 9th, 2008, 12:59 AM
For-profit HMOS and insurance companies deciding about treatment is a fundamentally and FATALLY flawed system.

So is government playing nanny over every unhealthy behavior. Where does it end?

When technology allows, just give us a synthetic titanium body or genetically engineer us all to have the same behaviors and get it over with. Then we'll have zero risk.:rolleyes:

Radiohead
January 9th, 2008, 06:21 PM
There's the idea that the health care industry shouldn't be denying anyone necessary treatment, regardless of how the need came about. Mountain climber...buzz off with your broken leg, you shouldn't be climbing rocks?

The trouble with hypotheticals like this:




is that our environment is full of health hazards that are the result of voluntary choices and things we should avoid. Breathing pollution from sources other than cigarettes , say for instance vehicle exhaust, is also harmful, are we going to have different classifications for people who live too close to a road or have a balcony above a busy intersection? Order pizza with bacon and extra cheese? Locate themselves and their children near cancerous wires or utility stations? Redline those neighborhoods and adjust insurance rates accordingly, perhaps?

What if a person chooses to eat factory farmed beef? I wouldn't touch it any faster than I would touch a cigarette. So do I conclude that meat eaters should pay more in insurance for their unhealthy choice of being an eater of non-organic, overly-marbled meat? Of course not. Then there is the pollution from cattle feedlots. Because of an unnatural amount of beef consumption, pollution is leeking into aquifers, you know...the amount is staggering... it's polluting the groundwater. The environment is being harmfully affected by a behavior I do not choose to partake in. Should we outlaw, restrict, or categorize by risk for that too? Mandate the consumption of 100% soy substitutes? Or maybe the government should determine what's an acceptable level of pork lard before danger of atherosclerosis rises, and ration it out by family according to genetic risk.

Good points, Midtown.

Radiohead
January 9th, 2008, 06:30 PM
^Doesn't look real -- looks like a photoshop job or a wrinkled brown skin outfit.

Just passing by and commenting on the picture, that's all.

You might be right. The legs do look look like a rubber suit. Still, I might use it on some future "Sunbathing Ban" thread, should Bloomberg choose to ban that, too.:)

pianoman11686
January 10th, 2008, 03:38 PM
I keep hearing arguments about second hand smoke that you do not wish to be exposed to, which is irrelevent to my argument, which are for bars that cater exclusively to smokers. These would likely be new establishments that need special licenses anyway, not existing ones.

Fair enough. But why would you draw the line at bars? Don't you think that, once certain smoke-only bars opened up, people would demand licenses for smoking restaurants, smoking movie theaters, smoking-only sections in office buildings and malls?

It may not be worth the effort. That's beside the socially-limiting aspect of your plan: segregating smokers and nonsmokers in public settings. In the current way, if you want to smoke, you just go outside for 2 minutes and come right back in, where you can socialize with everyone.

Radiohead
January 10th, 2008, 06:27 PM
Fair enough. But why would you draw the line at bars? Don't you think that, once certain smoke-only bars opened up, people would demand licenses for smoking restaurants, smoking movie theaters, smoking-only sections in office buildings and malls?

My argument for specially licensed cigarette bars is a pipe-dream in itself; restaurants would be a bigger stretch, since eating and smoking are not as intertwined as are drinking and smoking for many. There could be demands for them, sure, and I don't have a problem with them as long as they're advertised as such, but I think they'd be denied. As for movie theatres, if an entrepreneur wanted to open a well-marked, smoking only cinema, I supposed they should be allowed, though I doubt it would happen either. Office buildings are another story. They're smoke free for good, since segregating smokers and non-smokers would be impractical in a work setting. Plus, employers wouldn't want to encourage smoking anyway. Malls and stores will never allow smoking, and shouldn't.


It may not be worth the effort. That's beside the socially-limiting aspect of your plan: segregating smokers and nonsmokers in public settings. In the current way, if you want to smoke, you just go outside for 2 minutes and come right back in, where you can socialize with everyone.


I remember when separate, well-ventilated smoking areas used to be a good enough compromise. But that was not enough. And soon I suspect stepping outside for a smoke won't be an option. Smokers congregating outside the door, which non-smokers will have to pass by to enter, is already outlawed in some businesses, and that will extend to bars and restaurants in time. And the time is coming when smoking anywhere on the street will be outlawed.

Unfortunately, I don't see any way other than segregation. But like I said before, I'm just promoting a pipe dream. Things are as they are.

TonyO
January 10th, 2008, 09:01 PM
There will come a time when people look back at photos of smoke-filled bars and it will be as alien to them as a photo of spitoons in bars are to us. That's a good thing.

Sheff1
January 10th, 2008, 10:44 PM
I fully agree that no one should be forced to breathe in second hand smoke or work in a smoky environment against their will. But saying that, I do think cigarette smokers are being unduly persecuted.

A bar equipped with heavy duty smoke extractors would not be at all uncomfortable for most non smokers. Today, it is possible to install machines in bars that suck up almost all smoke as soon as it appears.

There is no doubt that smoking is harmful. However, it has not been proven that second hand cigarette smoke is any more dangerous than, say, car exhaust fumes.

If smokers are not allowed to go somewhere outside the home to smoke, they are more likely to smoke in front of their partner and kids.

I have no problem with smoking being banned in most bars. But while it remains legal, I have a big problem with it being banned absolutely everywhere indoors - even if the owner of the building and all his guests want to smoke.

I also have a big problem with the signs banning smoking on sidewalks outside buildings when the sidewalk does not actually belong to the building.

lofter1
January 11th, 2008, 08:51 AM
Meanwhile, in Berlin ...

Boss fires staff for not smoking

REUTERS (http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN1063983120080110)
Thu Jan 10, 2008

BERLIN (Reuters) - The owner of a small German computer company has fired three non-smoking workers because they were threatening to disturb the peace after they requested a smoke-free environment.

The manager of the 10-person IT company in Buesum, named Thomas J., told the Hamburger Morgenpost newspaper he had fired the trio because their non-smoking was causing disruptions.

Germany introduced non-smoking rules in pubs and restaurants on January 1, but Germans working in small offices are still allowed to smoke.

"I can't be bothered with trouble-makers," Thomas was quoted saying. "We're on the phone all the time and it's just easier to work while smoking. Everyone picks on smokers these days. It's time for revenge. I'm only going to hire smokers from now on."

(Reporting by Sarah Roberts; editing by Giles Elgood)

Ninjahedge
January 11th, 2008, 10:39 AM
"We're on the phone all the time and it's just easier to work while smoking.

News to me.

lofter1
January 11th, 2008, 02:34 PM
We're on the phone all the time and it's just easier to work while smoking.

News to me.



Maybe it lost something in the translation (http://babelfish.yahoo.com/translate_txt) ...


Wir sind am Telefon alle Zeit und it's, die gerade einfacher sind beim Rauchen zu arbeiten.
But then again maybe not, especially when you look at the reverse translation ...



We are simpler at the telephone all time and it's, the straight are at smoking to be worked.

pianoman11686
January 11th, 2008, 10:30 PM
My argument for specially licensed cigarette bars is a pipe-dream in itself; restaurants would be a bigger stretch, since eating and smoking are not as intertwined as are drinking and smoking for many.

But many restaurants are intertwined with bars. I don't think you can address those separately.


I remember when separate, well-ventilated smoking areas used to be a good enough compromise. But that was not enough. And soon I suspect stepping outside for a smoke won't be an option. Smokers congregating outside the door, which non-smokers will have to pass by to enter, is already outlawed in some businesses, and that will extend to bars and restaurants in time. And the time is coming when smoking anywhere on the street will be outlawed.

Yeah, the outdoor aspect is starting to bother me as well. IMO, anything that is officially public space and is outside should be fair game for smoking.

Radiohead
January 12th, 2008, 12:42 AM
Yeah, the outdoor aspect is starting to bother me as well. IMO, anything that is officially public space and is outside should be fair game for smoking.

Not that I was promoting any outdoor bans. I was just stating what I think is going to happen eventually.

How about smoking in your own car? And on the street, will there be "cigarette police" handing out tickets? I don't know what's more ridiculous, the idea of such a thing, or the fact that some people actually think it is enforcable. You'd actually get people smoking on the street just to spite the law. And any tickets would likely end up in the gutter.

http://thejournal.parker-joseph.co.uk/smoking%20is%20healthier%20than%20fascism.gif

lofter1
January 13th, 2008, 07:17 PM
But don't forget ^ smoking can be dangerous to democracy ...

http://www.shorpy.com/files/images/3b49005u1.preview.jpg

http://www.shorpy.com/taxonomy/term/78%2C107?page=4

MinnieMe
January 16th, 2008, 12:56 PM
[How about smoking in your own car? And on the street, will there be "cigarette police" handing out tickets? I don't know what's more ridiculous, the idea of such a thing, or the fact that some people actually think it is enforcable. You'd actually get people smoking on the street just to spite the law. And any tickets would likely end up in the gutter.

http://thejournal.parker-joseph.co.uk/smoking%20is%20healthier%20than%20fascism.gif[/quote]

I totally see that happening! Not just in NYC but everywhere!

Ninjahedge
January 21st, 2008, 10:50 AM
Parking tickets also end up in the gutter along with Jaywalking and, ironically, littering. But that does not mean they are off the hook.

I think people do have a right to smoke in their cars if they want to. That should not be outlawed. But it should be frowned upon if they are doing so in the presence of their kids. That is just not right.

Not right, but NOT MY BUSINESS, so I do not have the right, in a case like that, to forbid them from smoking in their own "private" space.

Edit: Oops, mini, you need a [quote] at the beginning to separate what the previous person wrote!

I thought that was all your writing!! ;)

Sheff1
February 22nd, 2008, 10:17 AM
Is it still legal to smoke on the sidewalk?

I se an increasing number of businesses are putting "no smoking" notices on the sidewalk outside their buildings. But the sidewalk is not their property, is it?

ZippyTheChimp
February 22nd, 2008, 10:49 AM
Yes, it's legal to smoke on the sidewalk.

Those signs are only enforceable if the area outside the door is within the property lines.

There's probably a code violation against blocking a doorway, but it has nothing to do with smoking. The sign should read:

"Don't Block the Entrance"

Ninjahedge
February 25th, 2008, 09:47 AM
I don't know. I thought there was a minimum space, unless things like ashtrays were provided. (Mostly for larger buildings).

Or is that just Cali?


I think what the buisnesses are trying to do is get the people to spread out a bit, so that workers, clients and tenants do not have to walk through the smoker crowd on the way in, or have the butt-litter to deal with at their front door.

Just a matter of presentation and first impression.

lofter1
October 1st, 2008, 09:50 AM
Doubt that the US will ever go the route of European package standards with strong message and scary visuals :eek: on the pack, but this could scare a few more folks away from lighting up ...

Cigarette packs to carry graphic picture warnings

breitbart.com / AFP (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=081001084306.ipencnwu&show_article=1)
October 1, 2008

Smokers buying cigarettes will from Wednesday be confronted with a series of gruesome images printed on the packets showing how tobacco damages health.

The pictures, which show cancerous lungs and throats as well as rotting teeth, replace written warnings such as "Smoking clogs the arteries and causes heart attacks and strokes" or "Smoking can cause a slow and painful death" which currently greet going to light up.

The picture warnings will start appearing on cigarette packs from October 1 and will be compulsory from October next year. They will be printed on all tobacco products from October 2010.

The images aim to shock smokers into realising
the harm done to their bodies:

http://img.breitbart.com/images/2008/10/1/081001084306.ipencnwu/CPS.NTJ30.011008104229.photo00.photo.jpg
One of a range of images issued by the Department of Health showing how
smoking harms the body. This image, of a man with throat cancer, is just
one of a series of gruesome picture which will be printed on cigarette packets
from October 1 instead of the written health warnings.

One in six people in Britain smoke out of population of more than 60 million and the government has been stepping up measures to reduce that figure.

Written warnings on packs were adopted in 2003, and last year, the minimum age for buying tobacco was raised from 16 to 18.

Smoking in enclosed public places was banned across the country from July 2007.

"These new stark picture warnings emphasise the harsh health realities of continuing to smoke," Chief Medical Officer Liam Donaldson said.

"I hope they will make many more (people) think hard about giving up and get the help they need to stop smoking for good."

Healthy lungs and lungs of a smoker:

http://www.breitbart.com/images/common/dot.gifhttp://www.breitbart.com/images/common/dot.gifhttp://www.breitbart.com/images/common/dot.gifhttp://www.breitbart.com/images/common/dot.gifhttp://www.breitbart.com/images/common/dot.gifhttp://www.breitbart.com/images/common/dot.gifhttp://www.breitbart.com/images/common/dot.gifhttp://img.breitbart.com/images/2008/10/1/081001084306.ipencnwu/CPS.NTJ30.011008104229.photo01.photo.jpg

Copyright AFP 2008

Ninjahedge
October 1st, 2008, 11:49 AM
YUMMY!!!!

Right before lunch! ;)



A bit more direct and to the point than "May cause inconvenience, Buy me anyway."

brianac
April 17th, 2009, 05:45 AM
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01385/short-arse-Aznym-D_1385369i.jpg

Your friendly local ashtray

Location: Dublin, Ireland
Spotted by: Aznym Adam

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/picturegalleries/signlanguage/5163976/Sign-language-week-44.html?image=7

© Copyright of Telegraph Media Group Limited 2009 (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/termsandconditions)

Merry
September 15th, 2009, 06:58 AM
NYC officials want to ban smoking in city's parks

September 14, 2009

By The Associated Press SARA KUGLER

From Coney Island to Central Park, banning smoking at New York City's famous parks and beaches is the next goal of Mayor Michael Bloomberg's anti-tobacco crusade.

Bloomberg's health commissioner, Thomas Farley, said Monday that parents shouldn't have to breathe smoke while standing on the sidelines of their children's soccer games, and children shouldn't even have to look at adults smoking, he said.

"Smoking is responsible for killing over 7,000 New Yorkers a year," Farley said. "We don't think it's too far to say that people shouldn't be smoking in parks, and to try to protect our children from getting addicted to tobacco."

New York City wouldn't be the first local government to ban smoking in parks — other states, counties and cities have already done it, including in Utah, Louisiana, Maine and California.

But the nation's largest city would be among the most ambitious urban efforts — New York has hundreds of parks and 14 miles of beaches.

Bloomberg, a former smoker turned tobacco hater, has waged a war on smoking since taking office in 2002. His administration banned smoking in bars and restaurants, raised taxes on cigarettes and has tried to scare smokers with gory advertising campaigns about smoke-related health problems.

The mayor revealed Monday that his anti-smoking agenda includes scowling at smokers "with not a particularly nice look" as he passes by them when they are gathered outside of buildings.

"And social pressure really does work," he added.

The restaurant smoking ban presented a tough political battle for the mayor, and he said recently that it would be difficult to outlaw smoking in parks.

In advocating for the 2002 ban, the city pinned its arguments on the right to a safe workplace, saying waiters, bartenders and others deserved a smoke-free environment where they wouldn't have to worry about getting sick.

On his weekly radio show this summer, when a caller complained of having to walk through clouds of smoke in Union Square Park, the mayor sympathized but said it would be complicated to make parks smoke-free.

"It would be harder to do, harder to build a consensus, and generally I don't think that, you know, we could get it done," he said in July.

On Monday, Farley, who was unveiling the administration's health agenda for the next three years, said he believed it was possible.

He said officials had not worked out whether it would be a new city law or a parks department policy.

Bloomberg issued a statement late Monday that sought to soften the idea of smoke-free parks as something he would like his administration to study, rather than a policy New Yorkers can expect to see soon.

He said he wants to understand the health hazards and said it may not be logistically possible to enforce a ban across thousands of acres of parks.
"But there may be areas within parks where restricting smoking can protect health," he added. "We will continue to explore this and the other ideas presented in the plan."

Smokers in City Hall Park on Monday were not alarmed by the idea. Some said they had been expecting it.

"I understand that — it's respect for people who don't smoke," said Maria Rodriguez, a student taking a smoking break on a park bench. "I wouldn't really care."

"It wouldn't be the greatest hardship of my life," said Andrew Moreno, who smoked an American Spirit cigarette while on a lunch break. "Am I happy about it? No. But can I understand it? Yes."

http://www.newsday.com/news/new-york/nyc-officials-want-to-ban-smoking-in-city-s-parks-1.1446430

Merry
September 15th, 2009, 07:02 AM
New York Eyes ‘No Smoking’ Outdoors, Too

By SEWELL CHAN

New York City’s workplace smoking ban six years ago drove cigarette and cigar puffers outdoors. But soon some of the outdoors may be off limits, too: The city’s health commissioner, Dr. Thomas A. Farley, said Monday that he would seek to ban smoking at city parks and beaches.

Dr. Farley said the ban — which officials said may require the approval of the City Council, but could possibly be done through administrative rule-making by the city’s Department of Parks and Recreation — was part of a broader strategy to further curb smoking rates, which have fallen in recent years. The proposal, however, seemed to catch Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg off guard.

On Monday night, the mayor, who has championed antismoking programs but also is running for re-election, issued a statement that did not disavow the proposal but appeared to qualify it, saying he wanted “to see if smoking in parks has a negative impact on people’s health.”

He added, “It may not be logistically possible to enforce a ban across thousands of acres, but there may be areas within parks where restricting smoking can protect health.”

The City Council speaker, Christine C. Quinn, whose support could be crucial, said she would want the Council to hold hearings on the matter. She said that fines should be modest and not intended primarily to punish, and that any ban should make clear whether areas like boardwalks are affected.

“Conceptually, that’s an idea I’m very, very interested in and open to,” she said of Dr. Farley’s proposal.

Such bans are still rare, though growing in number. A number of municipalities — particularly in California — have banned smoking at outdoor parks, playgrounds and beaches. In 2007, Los Angeles extended its smoking ban, which already covered beaches and playgrounds, to include municipal parks. Later that year, Chicago banned smoking at its beaches and playgrounds, though smoking is still allowed in many parks. This year, California lawmakers took up a measure to prohibit smoking in all state parks and parts of state beaches.

The proposal was contained on Page 10 of a 41-page document, “Take Care New York 2012,” that put forth health policy goals for the next three years including cutting obesity, H.I.V. transmission and drug and alcohol abuse. The antismoking strategy would also include pressing for higher local, state and federal taxes on tobacco and urging organizations and businesses in the city to reject financing and sponsorship from the tobacco industry.

Mr. Bloomberg, who smoked as a young man, faced furious criticism from restaurant and bar owners in 2002 when, in his first year in office, he reached a deal with the City Council on legislation banning smoking in virtually every indoor public or commercial area, including most bars. (Smoking had been banned in most restaurants in 1995.)

But the ban, which took effect in 2003, has since gained widespread acceptance and has been credited with helping drive down the percentage of adults in the city who smoke to 15.8 in 2008, from 21.5 percent in 2002.

The New York City proposal would affect more than 1,700 parks, playgrounds and recreational facilities, as well as the city’s seven beaches, which span 14 miles of shoreline. The proposal drew praise from public health advocates and criticism from one of the nation’s biggest tobacco manufacturers.

“The issues with secondhand smoke are very real, and the majority of the population today doesn’t want to be breathing in tobacco smoke, whether indoors or outdoors,” said Dr. David A. Kessler, who was commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration from 1990 to 1997. “While undoubtedly some will think this is going too far, 10 years from now, we’ll look back and ask how could it have been otherwise.”

Cheryl G. Healton, president and chief executive of the American Legacy Foundation, the smoking prevention group that was created as part of the 1998 master settlement between the tobacco industry and 46 state governments, also applauded the proposal.

“There is no redeeming value in smoking at beaches or parks,” she said in a statement. “Anyone who has sat behind someone smoking a stogie can tell you that. The health risks are real. Secondhand smoke is deadly.”

David Sutton, a spokesman for the cigarette maker Philip Morris USA, which is part of the Altria Group, said the company supported a ban on smoking in public buildings, public transportation and many areas of the workplace, as well as areas like elevators where smoking would be a fire hazard.
“We maintain, however, that complete bans go too far,” Mr. Sutton said in a statement. “We believe that smoking should be permitted outdoors except in very particular circumstances, such as outdoor areas primarily designed for children.”

Interviews on Monday suggested that smokers were, unsurprisingly, cool to the idea, while nonsmokers seemed to favor it.

“In this world, the people who have the power always try and make rules for the other people,” said Ismael Bah, 37, a salesman at J & R Music World, who was smoking Marlboros on a park bench near City Hall. “It makes sense to ban smoking inside, but smoking outside? Come on.”

Peter Prince, 55, an account executive at J & R who lives in the Riverdale section of the Bronx, said the city could at least designate smoking areas within parks. “I try to be considerate if I’m sitting next to somebody not to bother them when I smoke,” he said. “Occasionally it does happen that I light up and somebody moves away and I feel bad.”

Adele Jeune, 47, a home health aide from East New York, Brooklyn, does not smoke and had no objection to a ban. “I love clean air,” said Ms. Jeune, who was sitting on a bench in Union Square. “And if I go somewhere like this, I want to smell clean air.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/15/nyregion/15smoking.html?_r=1&ref=nyregion

Ninjahedge
September 15th, 2009, 08:56 AM
While I favor such a measure, I do NOT think it is fair.

The only things I can see that are even passable may be a restriction on smokingin or around childrens playgrounds and a stronger stand on cigarette butts.

But no smoking on Parks?


As for the beaches, NJ has that already. Some beaches do. When you let people smoke on a beach and tell them to clean up after themselves, you will still get those that decide to use the sand as their own personal ashtray. Just GREAT to be stepping on someone's soggy butts, or have them float by when you are swimming!

I remember this when I was a kid, and it was always gross.


But again, none in any parks? Maybe that is just teh first salvo to trim it down to what I am talking about......

Merry
September 19th, 2009, 03:48 AM
I could have sworn I posted the following article yesterday, along with a response to Ninja's post above.

Did I say/do something wrong :eek:, thus deletion, or was it just operator error :rolleyes:?


Proposal of Smoking Ban Stirs a Sense of Tolerance

By ANEMONA HARTOCOLLIS

We’ve come such a long way that in New York City, even many smokers feel guilty about smoking these days — if a walk through City Hall Park on Tuesday was any indication.

But what of the city health commissioner’s proposal on Monday to ban smoking in public parks? In a city where people — tall, short, fat, thin, rich, poor, pregnant, stinky, perfumed — have turned peaceful coexistence in crowded quarters like subways and sidewalks into an art, there was a widespread feeling that public parks should also be a place of tolerance.

Banning smoking in bars, restaurants and workplaces is one thing, people said, but banning cigarettes in parks and on beaches might be going just a step too far — except near children — on the road to a nanny state.

“It’s a real quandary,” said Jared Hayley, 37, a nonsmoker who was reading the paper during a break from teaching English as an adjunct professor at nearby Pace University. “This is a public space. What if somebody is eating a food that the odor is offensive to me?”

Asked about the proposed ban, Almash M. Bux, 53, an electronics technician, who was smoking to calm his nerves before an appointment for Section 8 housing, said, “I think that’s very ridiculous.”

“Where else are people going to go where they can enjoy themselves because it’s free? Except the jail or the park, that’s it,” Mr. Bux said, sitting in the shade of sweet-smelling trees and bushes, a large fountain burbling 10 feet away. “Rich people, they go to the club.”

The city’s health commissioner, Thomas A. Farley, said Monday that he would seek to ban smoking at city parks and beaches. On Tuesday, the proposal seemed to have roused many people’s inner civil libertarian.

Not far from Mr. Bux, eight construction workers, hard hats in hand, sat in a row on several benches, talking. None of them were smoking, but they defended the right of others to do so.

“Pretty soon they’re going to start charging us to breathe the air,” said one of the workers, Emilio Cuomo.

“When I was smoking, they got rid of smoking in bars, and I thought that was great,” Mr. Cuomo said.

“But parks?” a coworker, Sam Mele, said incredulously.

“What — are they talking about having a body-odor ticket?” Mr. Cuomo said. “I think they should do that.”

“Excessive perfume too, it’s a killer,” said Richie Skeans, another of the construction workers. “On a man or a woman.”

Patrick Langworthy, 26, who was sitting on a bench reading an espionage novel during a work break, said he sympathized with the goal of reducing smoking. But he added: “How do you regulate the air around you? Everyone has the freedom to be outside. I don’t understand how you can enforce that.”

Edward Dixon, 61, a marketing manager who does not smoke, said the proposal sounded awfully close to Prohibition, and, he added, look how well that worked. He imagined a future city in which people might be arrested for having nicotine-stained fingers. “Get out of the car!” he barked, enacting the scene.

Still, Mr. Dixon said he thought smoking should be prohibited near children, and some parkgoers suggested that a designated smoking area or benches in parks might be more reasonable than a ban.

In fact, smoking has been prohibited in playgrounds and at a small number of other enclosed outdoor areas, like pools and ice-skating rinks, since 1995, Jessica Scaperotti, a spokeswoman for the city’s Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, said Tuesday. A city law passed in 2002 has banned smoking in virtually all workplaces, including most bars.

Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg acknowledged on Tuesday that enforcement of a ban in parks might be hard, and suggested a nuanced approach.

“Look, nobody is more of a believer in saving lives and stopping smoking,” the mayor said during an event at Columbia University to promote tourism.

“The real issue is, if you’re sitting in the middle of Sheep Meadow and you’re the only one there, are you doing any damage to anybody other than killing yourself? Probably not.”

But Mr. Bloomberg said that in a crowded park, “yes, you are hurting other people.”

He also cited the “practical aspect” of enforcing such a law, saying that the police and park rangers already “have a lot of things to do.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/16/nyregion/16smoking.html

Merry
September 19th, 2009, 11:33 PM
NYC versus tobacco: Three new smoking deterrents spark controversy

Tom Johansmeyer

New York has long been unfriendly to smokers, particularly with the ban instituted in 2003. This year, however, a renewed effort to curb tobacco sales could translate to a negative financial impact on a city that has already felt the effects of downturns in media, finance and travel industries. Several proposed new measures could increase the restrictions on smokers in New York -- but they may have a cost to taxpayers.
For anti-smoking advocates, the ban has been cause for celebration. The number of smokers in New York City fell from 21.5 percent of the population in 2002 to 16.9 percent in 2007.

The unintended consequence, however, is that those who continue to puff have had to find places where they can do so. Sidewalks, building entrances, parks and other public places have become preferred spots, irritating outdoor diners, sunbathers and many passers by.

To remedy this secondary effect, the Bloomberg administration has proposed a ban on smoking in parks and beaches.

If recent history is any guide, taking another location away from smokers will simply push them into the few remaining spaces. Sidewalks, benches and building entrances will become even more concentrated with smokers, until further legislative action is pursued.

At the same time, New York has pursued the fight on another front. This month, the city began to prohibit the sale (or free offer) of coffee and other nonalcoholic beverages by tobacconists, stating that they would need a food and beverage license to do so. Barclay Rex, a premium tobacconist with a store near the New York Stock Exchange, was fined for allowing customers to use a free coffee maker. Since then, tobacconists up and down Manhattan reacted by shuttering their espresso and coffee machines.

The third measure is broader in reach than the crackdown on coffee and push from the parks. The board of health is considering a regulation that would require any retailer with tobacco products to post photos of diseased organs and other effects of smoking.

The reaction at a hearing in late July was mixed, according to Ron Melendi, general manager of De La Concha, a tobacco retailer in midtown Manhattan. He recalls that there were many citizens supporting the measure, including a doctor who dramatically unfurled a long document listing the chemicals contained in cigarettes. Yet, an elderly woman, a nonsmoker, explained that she didn't want to see those images in her local grocery store.

"I feel like the city is trying to shut us down," Melendi said later of the smoking ban, coffee compliance and photograph efforts currently in progress.

He separates stores like his, which is owned by Davidoff USA, Barclay Rex and the other premium tobacconists in the city from convenience stores and other retailers that include cigarettes in a diversified product offering.

"We specialize in cigars," he explained, "you come in here [referring to his store] understanding the product and the environment." Melendi is concerned that the warning photographs that may be required will detract from the ambiance and result in a revenue decrease.

Melendi is not the only person concerned. De La Concha's parent company, Davidoff USA, notes that a negative impact on sales in Davidoff's three Manhattan stores (there are Davidoff retailers on Madison Avenue and at Columbus Circle, along with De La Concha) would affect the city as a whole.

According to Davidoff USA's most recent tax filing, submitted on September 15, 2009 for the previous quarter, the three retailers paid $280,000 in sales taxes. This may be a mere rounding error for a city the size of New York, but it's money that would have to be replaced if the city's tobacconists' worst fears come true. Additionally, she says, Davidoff USA employs 21 people at its mid-town stores.

Of course, the premium tobacco industry is but a small part of the tobacco retail trade in New York, with cigarettes far more common and sold in many more locations. So, the triad of restrictions in progress reaches far beyond the employees and sales taxes of Davidoff and the cigar community.

On the anti-smoking side, health care costs are cited as more than counterbalancing the lost tobacco tax revenue, and there is a vocal majority that simply does not appreciate the smell.

The doomsday scenario that keeps tobacconists up at night -- being unable to remain in business -- does not seem like a near-term reality. But the measures currently being explored could very well squeeze demand and, consequently, sales.

For now, New Yorkers have to decide between smoking deterrents and tax revenues.

http://www.dailyfinance.com/2009/09/19/nyc-versus-tobacco-three-new-smoking-deterrents-spark-controver/

Merry
September 25th, 2009, 03:09 AM
Although drugs have health consequences and dangers, making them illegal -- and keeping them illegal -- will only bring additional death and suffering.I hate smoking, but I agree.


Criminalizing Smoking Is Not the Answer: Bans on Cloves and Outdoor Smoking Will Backfire!

Tony Newman
Drug Policy Alliance, Director of Media Relations

September 24, 2009 02:30 PM

The war on cigarettes is heating up. This week a new federal ban (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/23/health/policy/23fda.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=FDA%20Smoking%20Ban&st=cse) went into effect making flavored cigarettes and cloves illegal. The new regulation halted the sale of vanilla and chocolate cigarettes that anti-smoking advocates claim lure young people into smoking. This ban is the first major crackdown since Congress passed a law in June giving the Food and Drug Administration the authority to regulate tobacco. There is already talk of banning Menthol cigarettes next.

Meanwhile, another major initiative to limit smoking wafted out of New York City last week. A report to Mayor Michael Bloomberg from the city's Health Commissioner called for a smoking ban at city parks and beaches (http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/14/city-seeks-ban-on-smoking-in-parks-and-beaches/?scp=2&sq=New%20York%20Smoking%20Ban&st=cse) to help protect citizens from the harms of second hand smoke. To his credit, Bloomberg rejected this measure citing concern over stretched city and police resources.

While I support many restrictions on public smoking, such as at restaurants and workplaces, and I appreciate public education campaigns and efforts aimed at discouraging young people from smoking, I believe the outdoor smoking ban and prohibition of cloves and possibly Menthols will lead to harmful and unintended consequences. All we have to do is look at the criminalization of other drugs, such as marijuana, to see some of the potential pitfalls and tragedies.

Cities across the country - from New York to Santa Cruz, California - are considering or have already banned smoking at parks and beaches. I am afraid that issuing tickets to people for smoking outdoors could easily be abused by overzealous law enforcement.

Let's look at how New York handles another "decriminalized" drug in our state, marijuana. Despite decriminalizing marijuana more than 30 years ago, New York is the marijuana arrest capital of the world. If possession of marijuana is supposed to be decriminalized in New York, how does this happen? Often it's because, in the course of interacting with the police, individuals are asked to empty their pockets, which results in the pot being "open to public view" - which is, technically, a crime.

More than 40,000 people were arrested in New York City last year for marijuana possession, and 87 percent of those arrested were black or Latino, despite equal rates of marijuana use among whites. The fact is that blacks and Latinos are arrested for pot at much higher rates in part because officers make stop-and-frisk searches disproportionately in black, Latino and low-income neighborhoods.

Unfortunately, when we make laws and place restrictions on both legal and illegal drugs, people of color are usually the ones busted. Drug use may not discriminate, but our drug policies and enforcement do.

Now let's look at the prohibition of cloves and other flavored cigarettes. When we prohibit certain drugs, it doesn't mean that the drugs go away and people don't use them; it just means that people get their drugs from the black market instead of a store or deli. We've been waging a war on marijuana and other drugs for decades, but you can still find marijuana and your drug of choice in most neighborhoods and cities in this country.

For many people, cloves or Menthols are their smoke of choice. I have no doubt that someone is going to step in to meet this demand. What do we propose doing to the people who are caught selling illegal cigarettes on the street? Are cops going to have to expend limited resources to enforce this ban? Are we going to arrest and lock up people who are selling the illegal cigarettes? Prisons are already bursting at the seams (thanks to the drug laws) in states across the country. Are we going to waste more taxpayer money on incarceration?

The prohibition of flavored cigarettes also moves us another step closer to total cigarette prohibition. But with all the good intentions in the world, outlawing cigarettes would be just as disastrous as the prohibition of other drugs. After all, people would still smoke, just as they still use other drugs that are prohibited, from marijuana to cocaine. But now, in addition to the harm of smoking, we would find a whole range of "collateral consequences," such as black market-related violence, that crop up with prohibition.

Although we should celebrate our success curbing cigarette smoking and continue to encourage people to cut back or give up cigarettes, let's not get carried away and think that criminalizing smoking is the answer.
We need to realize that drugs, from cigarettes to marijuana to alcohol, will always be consumed, whether they are legal or illegal. Although drugs have health consequences and dangers, making them illegal -- and keeping them illegal -- will only bring additional death and suffering.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tony-newman/criminalizing-smoking-is_b_298581.html
I

ZippyTheChimp
September 25th, 2009, 08:01 AM
First of all, I think that banning smoking at parks and beaches is ridiculous.

But the attempt to draw conclusions from comparisons with marijuana criminalization is a big stretch.

Marijuana is an illegal drug. Its production and distribution is completely underground. Banning menthol cigarettes isn't going to result in an underground market to produce and sell menthol cigarettes while you can still legally buy "regular" cigarettes.

As for criminalizing cigarette smoking, specifically a ban at parks and beaches, that criminalization has been going on for decades with bans at workplaces, then restaurants, then bars. During the time these restrictions have increased, cigarette smoking has steadily dropped.

The author is talking about two different things. The comparison might be more valid if tobacco was banned as an illegal drug, and all legitimate production and distribution were shut down.

ablarc
September 25th, 2009, 08:21 AM
^ While you were at it, you could legalize pot, which has fewer health hazards (and actually some benefits).

Ninjahedge
September 25th, 2009, 09:25 AM
If only you could make it smell like Vanilla or Clove, I would not mind it as much on the streets in the Village (Man, "skunkweed" is right!).

ZippyTheChimp
September 25th, 2009, 09:43 AM
^ While you were at it, you could legalize pot, which has fewer health hazards (and actually some benefits).Yeah.

A better comparison is pot and alcohol. And we have a handy, well documented case study (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_in_the_United_States).

Ninjahedge
September 25th, 2009, 01:40 PM
The surest way to kill a substance is over-regulation, not prohibition.

Hell, steep taxes make it less potable than taking it out of stores! Poeple are still smoking even though single packs are going for $10 each in some places!

I am tempted to bum cigarettes just so I can pocket them! ;)

ZippyTheChimp
October 15th, 2009, 08:10 AM
Council Bans Flavored Tobacco


by Courtney Gross
15 Oct 2009


http://www.gothamgazette.com/graphics/2009/10/flavoredcigs.jpg
Photo by SheHartley

Snuffing out cherry-flavored cigarillos and cookie dough laced cigars, the City Council banned the sale of flavored tobacco products Wednesday just weeks after the federal government took flavored cigarettes off of shelves nationwide.

Often found behind the counter in glitzy, fluorescent colored wrappers and sometimes near candy, these cigars, chewing tobaccos and cigarettes have been laced with child-friendly flavors to get kids addicted early, said City Council Speaker Christine Quinn. City officials hope getting this type of tobacco product off shelves will keep kids from starting smoking.

The council also approved legislation, which allows developers to extend permits at stalled construction sites in exchange for keeping sites secure and safe.
Putting Out Flavor

Just weeks after the Food and Drug Administration banned the sale of flavored cigarettes, officials already feared tobacco companies were ready to take a different tack. Instead of cigarettes, under the new law these companies could start marketing their flavored products as cigars, effectively circumventing the country's new anti-flavored agenda.

The City Council said yesterday it wouldn't happen here.

Going a step beyond the federal government, the council included not only flavored cigarettes in its ban, but also chewing tobacco, flavored cigars and cigarillos -- a small version of a cigar. These products are big tobacco's latest attempt to garner new customers, specifically young adults who are attracted to the wide variety of taste and aroma, said council officials.

Though overall tobacco use has declined in the last five years, the percentage of students who smoke only cigars and cigarillos has tripled since 2001 from 5 to 14 percent Quinn said. She added a study from the American Cancer Society showed 90 percent of smokers begin at or before age 19.

Given the look, taste and smell of these flavored products, Quinn added, the tobacco industry couldn't be aiming for any customer other than kids and young adults.

Holding a small pink cigarillo in her hand, Quinn said, "That looks like a lip gloss. Don't tell me that's not targeted for a young girl."

The bill's sponsor, Councilmember Joel Rivera, said these brands are the latest rendition of Joe Camel -- the R. J. Reynolds character allegedly aimed at kids who was banned in the 1990s.

The bill (Intro 433-A)was approved by a vote of 46 to 1 with Councilmember Lewis Fidler dissenting.

While admitting he smoked a flavored cigar from time to time, Fidler said the law was written too broadly and there was no evidence that people start smoking by opting for flavored cigars. It is illegal already, he added, to sell these products to kids.

"If we wanted to truly affect the market for young people, we would tax it, and we would make the tax significant enough to make an economic disincentive for it to be used for blunts or any other purpose," said Fidler.

The city's health advocates applauded the legislation, saying these flavored products attempt to make smoking appear sexy to children.

Anyone who violates the law will be subject to a fine of between $250 and $2,000.


Gotham Gazette is brought to you by Citizens Union Foundation.

Gotham Gazette - http://www.gothamgazette.com/article//20091015/203/3053

Ninjahedge
October 15th, 2009, 04:00 PM
While admitting he smoked a flavored cigar from time to time, Fidler said the law was written too broadly and there was no evidence that people start smoking by opting for flavored cigars. It is illegal already, he added, to sell these products to kids.

I assume "peach" flavor was for the more discerning palate?

I also assume that making alcohol products more fruity and bubbly has NOTHING to do with trying to get people to drink them earlier, and more often.

I mean, I know kids LOVE the taste of a genuine old-time stogie and a glass of screw-top bourbon, but you have to make sure that toddlers don't get their hands on this stuff!....



"If we wanted to truly affect the market for young people, we would tax it, and we would make the tax significant enough to make an economic disincentive for it to be used for blunts or any other purpose," said Fidler.


BS. If it is forbidden, a kid will pay more for it. The earlier you get them started, even if it is a lesser amount, the more likely they will smoke their entire life.

Tax it more? What are YOU smoking?

MidtownGuy
October 15th, 2009, 04:25 PM
Removing products with certain flavors is ridiculous.
This town is turning into romper room if we keep limiting the choices of adults just to tailor everything for the safety of children, especially when we're talking about things that are already regulated. It's already illegal to sell any tobacco product to children.
Removing flavors does nothing...the ones who want to smoke will do it anyway. How long have kids been smoking behind parents' backs? Since there was anything to smoke.

MidtownGuy
October 15th, 2009, 05:49 PM
I wonder if this affects shisha, the fruit flavored tobacco used in hookahs.

MidtownGuy
October 15th, 2009, 05:58 PM
Got me remembering this classic piece of Carlin

George Carlin- F*uck The Children (http://www.ebaumsworld.com/audio/play/704824/)

Ninjahedge
October 16th, 2009, 09:16 AM
MTG, the problem is simple. They are making cherry flavored heroin.


There are VERY few people I see, as adults, sucking on a "berry" flavored cigar. AAMOF, I don't think I see ANYONE smoking them really (but they are selling!!).

I have smelled quite a few vanilla cigarillos with the manly plastic tip, but they are mostly picked up by "kids" just over the legal age. (is that 21 now, or is it still 18?).

The problem is, flavored pipe tobacco has been around for 20 years, but i never saw kids smoking it, not really. People in college used to smoke that, but it was never a huge thing.

But a product that is targeted and marketed at the youngest age possible is just an unhealthy extension of capitalism. they are ALLOWED to do this, but it ends up costing ALL of us more in the long run from THEIR medical bills (either through Medicare/Medicaid, or through increased private insurance payouts being reflected in even higher average premiums for all).

Maybe this needs to be re-written to make it so that it is less in-your-face as what Zippy's clip shows. You don't start sticking a peach cigar right under the nose of a kid, they will never really express a desire for one then, or in the future....

MidtownGuy
October 16th, 2009, 09:40 AM
MTG, the problem is simple. They are making cherry flavored heroin.

You wouldn't smoke heroin just because it's flavored.

MidtownGuy
October 16th, 2009, 01:08 PM
There are VERY few people I see, as adults, sucking on a "berry" flavored cigar. AAMOF, I don't think I see ANYONE smoking them really (but they are selling!!).

Ninjahedge, you don't see anyone smoking them because you hardly see people smoking ANY type of cigar nowadays...it happens only about once a week that I see anybody walking down the street with a cigar. One generally doesn't grab a quick cigar and smoke it away in front of a building, the way you do with a cigarette...they are a slow burn. Enjoyed while relaxing somewhere, most likely out of sight of ninjahedge's commuting route.

Then you have the fact that berry flavors are often used to roll some weed by dumping out the tobacco and using the wrapping. Another topic.

Ninjahedge
October 16th, 2009, 01:50 PM
You wouldn't smoke heroin just because it's flavored.

Nope, it would have to be COOL first!!!! ;)

Ninjahedge
October 16th, 2009, 01:54 PM
Ninjahedge, you don't see anyone smoking them because you hardly see people smoking ANY type of cigar nowadays...it happens only about once a week that I see anybody walking down the street with a cigar. One generally doesn't grab a quick cigar and smoke it away in front of a building, the way you do with a cigarette...they are a slow burn. Enjoyed while relaxing somewhere, most likely out of sight of ninjahedge's commuting route.

Then you have the fact that berry flavors are often used to roll some weed by dumping out the tobacco and using the wrapping. Another topic.
Meh on the Weed issue. Butt the other? I have not seen them in here, I have not seen them there. I have not seen them anywhere.
I have not seen them on a boat, I have not seen them on a goat!
I do not see them in the rain, and have not seen them on a train!.
They may be in a box, but I have never seen them with a fox!!!!


:D

MidtownGuy
October 16th, 2009, 04:17 PM
I guess people smoke cigars in the privacy of their homes (or on their yacht:)) more often than not?

Ninjahedge
October 16th, 2009, 04:51 PM
Back to serious for a moment MTG, I see a LOT of juvies sucking vanillas in Hoboken. They do not smoke them on THEIR stoop because their parents would probably give them a hard time. So we get some on ours, some at bus stops, etc.

I have yet to see a grown man puffing one of these. Maybe they only suck those in the closet?

MidtownGuy
October 16th, 2009, 05:07 PM
^No, on a barcalounger.
http://cn1.kaboodle.com/hi/img/c/0/0/4c/0/AAAADJWG9CwAAAAAAEwLog.jpg
Grown men have different habits. Grown men aren't afraid of/don't live with parents and therefore aren't looking for stoops and bus stops to smoke at...grown men have a living room and a lounge chair.
SO, therefore you see a smaller proportion outside smoking things on stoops....cherry flavor or NOT.

lofter1
October 18th, 2009, 04:46 PM
The age old answer to sneaking a puff (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FqdTBDkUEEQ) :cool:

Ninjahedge
October 19th, 2009, 09:38 AM
MTG, people, in general, smoke outside more now regardless of what they are smoking. Wether it be because their partner does not want the smoke in the house, or if the place they are living has a no-smoking policy (my old apartment had that).

Still, I see very few, if ANY, grown men over the age of 30 smoking anything designed for the sweet tooth....


I was just looking around for thnigs on this and found a few things that might be interesting, but no hard sells:

http://www.case.edu/med/adolescenthealth/publications/M_Cigar_Use_Joshua%20Terchek.ppt#260,1,Slide 1

http://oig.hhs.gov/oei/reports/oei-06-98-00030.pdf

Merry
November 17th, 2009, 05:06 AM
For Some Smokers, Even Home Is Off Limits

By C. J. HUGHES

The movement to ban smoking in New York City has grown so quickly that no place seems immune — certainly not restaurants or bars, and public beaches and parks may not be far behind. Now the efforts are rapidly expanding into the living room.

More landlords are moving to prohibit smoking in their apartment buildings, telling prospective tenants they can be evicted if they light up in them.
This month, the Related Companies will ban smoking at some of its downtown apartment buildings because of health concerns about secondhand smoke, according to company officials.

Smokers who already live in any of these buildings will not be affected, according to Jeff Brodsky, a president of Related, which is a national developer with 17 buildings in Manhattan.

But any new renters must promise not to smoke at home, even if they continue to elsewhere.

Kenbar Management, a local developer, is going a step further. When its new project, 1510 Lexington Avenue, opens in December, smoking will be banned in all 298 units, in addition to private and shared terraces.

And the typical smoker’s refuge — directly outside the building — is also off limits; tenants must agree not to smoke on any of the sidewalks that wrap around the building, which takes up most of a block in East Harlem, according to Kinne Yon, a Kenbar principal.

The trend has predictably divided smokers and nonsmokers in New York.

“I think it’s absolutely absurd,” said Bryan Marx, 53, a cabinetmaker who has lived at Tribeca Park, a Related building on Chambers Street, since 1999. He smokes hand-rolled cigarettes in his apartment, but said that he cut back on a cigar habit a few years ago to appease a neighbor.

“How about a little tolerance?” Mr. Marx added. “Smokers have become the whipping boys for everything that’s unhealthy about living in New York City.”

Across the country, the movement to ban smoking in residential buildings is gaining traction. The Department of Housing and Urban Development (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/h/housing_and_urban_development_department/index.html?inline=nyt-org) has strongly encouraged (http://www.hud.gov/offices/pih/publications/notices/09/pih2009-21.pdf) public housing agencies to ban smoking in some or all of their units.

So far, about 50 public housing agencies have now forbidden smoking, according to Betsy Feigin Befus, a lawyer with the National Multi Housing Council (http://www.nmhc.org/), a landlord trade group that has tracked the efforts.

Other cities, through legislation or by initiatives of developers, have taken similar steps. In California, for example, all apartments and condos in Richmond, near San Francisco, must outlaw cigarette smoking, according to an ordinance passed in July. Across the bay in Belmont, a ban on smoking in apartments took effect in January (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/27/us/27belmont.html) after a 14-month grace period, with $100 fines possible for offenders.

While there is no question about the dangers of secondhand smoke, there is debate about whether the amount of smoke that may be transmitted from one apartment to another is harmful. A recent study by New York City’s health department (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/09/health/policy/09smoke.html) found that about 57 percent of nonsmokers had been exposed to substantial levels of cigarette smoke, raising suspicions among experts that apartment dwellers might be susceptible to secondhand smoke from their neighbors.

New York City has been at the forefront of efforts to ban smoking in bars and restaurants, and the city’s health commissioner, Dr. Thomas A. Farley, said in September that he supported a ban on smoking at city beaches and parks. But the city, he said, has no plan to push for a smoking ban in public housing developments.

The city did help Related research the health effects of smoke in apartment buildings, Dr. Farley said, adding, “Our focus would be on individuals having their homes smoke-free.”

Pan Am Equities, a real estate management company, may have been one of the first in New York to introduce a smoking ban to an apartment building. About 18 months ago, the company asked new renters to promise not to smoke; the ban did not affect existing tenants, according to David Iwanier, a company vice president.

All of Pan Am’s rentals — which include 270 Park Avenue South, 145 West 67th Street and 60 West 23rd Street — are affected, though Mr. Iwanier would not discuss the reasons for the ban.

“It was just something we decided to do,” he said. And in terms of lease renewals, he added, “we’ve not had any negative feedback.”

Mr. Brodsky, of Related, said that existing tenants would be reassured that they would not be evicted or pressured to leave. He would not specify which of the developer’s buildings are in line for the ban, saying only that they are among the six in or near Battery Park City and Chelsea. Those include Tribeca Park; the Caledonia, which abuts the High Line (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/h/high_line_nyc/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier) park; and Tribeca Green in Battery Park City, which bills itself as “New York’s most environmental rental.”

“I think it’s a bloody good thing,” said Dale Smith, 41, a Broadway producer who formerly worked in the health care industry. A resident of Tribeca Green for nearly three years, Mr. Smith, who does not smoke, said he had complained to his landlord about secondhand smoke in his apartment.

“A policy that is in place because something has proven to be hazardous in eating establishments should be effective in the home,” he said.

Experts say there is no known law in the United States that prohibits landlords from banning smoking in their buildings, and many trial judges have sided with the nonsmoker. In New York, for example, a 2006 decision (http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2006/2006_26343.htm) found that tenants had the right to break a lease because the landlord failed to safeguard an apartment from secondhand smoke.

Co-ops and condominiums have been somewhat slower to embrace such bans, according to real estate lawyers.

In interviews with several lawyers who represent real estate concerns, only one, Stuart Saft, knew of any buildings that had instituted a smoking ban. He said that of the 100 or so co-op buildings he represents on the Upper East and West Sides of Manhattan, only two have banned smoking outright in the last few years.

A poll commissioned by the NYC Coalition for a Smoke Free City (http://www.nycsmokefree.org/) suggested that a residential smoking ban might not hurt rentals or sales. The survey of 1,000 New Yorkers, which was administered by Zogby International in July, found that 58 percent would pay more to live in smoke-free housing; 68 percent might not live in a smoking building in the first place.

Yet some real estate brokers question the wisdom of instituting a smoking ban during a housing downturn, with vacancy rates climbing.

That 950,000 New Yorkers — or 16 percent of the population — call themselves smokers, according to the city’s health department, is not insignificant, said Daniel Baum, chief executive at the Developers Group/The Real Estate Group of New York, a brokerage that focuses on rentals.
“I think in general it’s probably not an ideal time to try to limit potential tenants,” Mr. Baum said. “Every occupied apartment counts.”

And Audrey Silk, the founder of Citizens Lobbying Against Smoker Harassment (http://www.nycclash.com/), a nine-year-old advocacy group, said the trend was troubling from a civil liberties perspective.

“If we’re talking about annoying odors, where do you draw the line?” she said. “What about cooking odors, from fish or curry?”

Yet some smokers seemed resigned to their fate. Brian Mossotti, 28, a day trader, moved into the Pan Am-run building on 23rd Street 14 months ago, after the developer’s ban had taken effect. After receiving three warnings from management about fumes in the hallway, including a stern letter in September, Mr. Mossotti finally agreed to take his two-a-day cigarette habit to the sidewalk, he said.

“You can’t smoke in bars because of the whole secondhand smoke thing, so it doesn’t surprise me,” he said. “But it is irritating.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/16/nyregion/16smoke.html

MidtownGuy
November 17th, 2009, 09:37 AM
Along this line of thinking, I want cars banned. When I walk down the street, I'm breathing hazardous fumes. Cars aren't necessary in Manhattan and the proximity to my lungs and mouth are a danger to my health. Car drivers may want the pleasure of that automobile, but it is too likely that I may breath a stray fume. Even in my apartment, tiny bits of invisible smoke may penetrate my bedroom and go into my mouth while I sleep.

I want frisbees banned at the park. My neighbor was struck by a frisbee while trying to safely recline in the park. Frisbees are frivolous and can be dangerous when they strike someone in the face.

I want french fries banned. They are causing my health insurance payments to go up because people just can't stop themselves from eating artery clogging, unhealthy french fries. Filthy.

How dare people get wifi. There is evidence coming in that wifi and other such radiation causes cancer. It's going right through my apartment! Ban it all. Cell phones...nothing but producers of cancer. I have a nifty trick with dixie cups and string that will be much safer for us.

I definitely want the eating of meat BANNED. Consuming red meat produced by today's factory farm methods has been proven carcinogenic. The meats are filled with chemicals, contribute to millions of gallons of chemical runoff, cattle grazing leads to the destruction of the rainforest, and raising meat for human consumption is just generally bad for the planet with 6 billion mouths to feed.

Meat is endangering me even when I am personally not eating it, and others choose to eat it out of selfishness. It is a burden on the medical system. When I smell the meat cooking in my neighbors apartment, it makes me retch and reminds me of dying monkeys in the Amazon. It is so unpleasant for me. I'm very delicate...did I mention that?

Ice cream, hamburgers, transmission lines, rocks that stick out of the ground ...I want it all banned.
:rolleyes:

Ninjahedge
November 19th, 2009, 11:23 PM
Uh huh.

Merry
November 20th, 2009, 04:19 AM
Six Years After Ban, Smoking Returns to NYC's Bars and Clubs

The worst kept secret in New York nightlife is that smoking is now allowed in numerous nightspots. Mayor Bloomberg's 2003 law was meant to effectively eliminate all smoking inside bars, and for a while it seemed to work. It was possible for non-smokers to spend a night at their favorite bar or club and not come home reeking of Parliaments, as smokers were forced to step outside to light up. Memories. By 2006, indoor smoking seemed to slowly reappear, starting with a handful of tiny little joints (http://ny.eater.com/tags/beatrice-inn) popular with A-list crowds and quickly spreading to just about any and every lounge and club with a doorman and a rope. Now, as soon as one person lights up, the rest of the smoking sheep follow along, and before can say Joe Camel, the whole room is filled with sweet Carolina smoke. Neighbors love it because it keeps noisy smokers off the streets, and smokers love not having to go outdoors for their fix. It seems the only places that are still enforcing the ban are the dingier and more low key bars that probably were the home of many a smoker before the ban.

One solution. >> (http://ny.eater.com/archives/2009/11/the_return_of_smoking.php#more)

From what operatives here have witnessed, It's obvious that the smoking ban is failing on a number of levels. Numerous lounge and club owners are turning a blind eye to their smoking customers breaking the law as they realize that the likelihood of the City catching them in the act is almost zilch. Meanwhile, non-smoking employees and customers, for whom the law was passed, are forced to inhale the second hand smoke. So what can be done?

Beyond increasing enforcement, what if the City created an opt-in clause that would allow bar owners to pay for the right to allow smoking? Their employees would know that they were working in a smoking-friendly environment, patrons would feel free to light up, and the City would see a bit of revenue. The annual charge (based upon capacity) would have to steep enough to make owners think twice about allowing smoking, but not so steep that no one would sign up. The fines for allowing smoking without a license would be steep, say four times the annual fee, so that owners will live up to their responsibilities.

Is it perfect? No. Workers stuck in the smoking venues may not find it so easy to relocate. But it would represent a huge step up from the free-for-all that exists today, allowing customers to know where they could have smoke free fun, reduce the number of venues that the City's enforcers have to inspect, and possibly bring in some money for our beloved and cash strapped City. Win, win win.

http://ny.eater.com/archives/2009/11/the_return_of_smoking.php

Ninjahedge
November 23rd, 2009, 07:58 PM
Great.

I can now smell like shit after coming home from a bar, but the City will earn more money because of it!!! :p

MidtownGuy
November 23rd, 2009, 09:09 PM
Compromise. A return to reason.

Ninjahedge
November 23rd, 2009, 10:42 PM
No, it isn't.

It is a return to the old ways. It is never a compromise when you offer to pay more to let people take an addictive legal substance like that. They tried voluntary no-smoke bars and they never worked for that very reason.

You do not keep it universal NOBODY will follow it and we are back to square one.

All this will do is get some people to cough up more dough, one way or another.

MidtownGuy
November 23rd, 2009, 10:52 PM
Choice. The American Way.

lofter1
November 23rd, 2009, 11:55 PM
To truly make it the American way, shouldn't that be ...

Choice at a Price?

MidtownGuy
November 24th, 2009, 11:16 AM
Very high taxes on tobacco products in NYC.

Ninjahedge
November 24th, 2009, 09:51 PM
MTG, it is no choice for me.

I either got to spend the night in a smoke filled room or I drank alone at home.

Great choice, eh? :rolleyes:

MidtownGuy
November 24th, 2009, 11:27 PM
^:rolleyes:
Choose a non-smoking bar. That's the choice. Bar owners should have a choice, and bar patrons should have a choice.
Marijuana should be legalized and allowed in specified clubs as well.

We went through a lot of this a couple years ago and I have no interest in rehashing everything. I AM glad that people are starting to approach it more realistically. Let's hope the trend continues.

Ninjahedge
November 25th, 2009, 09:05 PM
^:rolleyes:
Choose a non-smoking bar. That's the choice. Bar owners should have a choice, and bar patrons should have a choice.

No they don't.

Tobacco is highly addictive. If ONE member of a group wants to smoke, there is more of a chance that they will all go to a smoking bar than if one does not. That makes a fiscal impetus to pay the extra $$ to get the licensing.

They TRIED non smoking bars in the past and they failed.

That leaves me with no choice. Go to a bar and come home smelling of smoke, or staying home. I object to that and doubly object to the premise that this is somehow a choice.


Marijuana should be legalized and allowed in specified clubs as well.

Different subject, contributes NOTHING to the conversation.


We went through a lot of this a couple years ago and I have no interest in rehashing everything. I AM glad that people are starting to approach it more realistically. Let's hope the trend continues.

I am hoping, and will protest VEHEMENTLY that it does not. You want to smoke, stay home.

MidtownGuy
November 25th, 2009, 10:36 PM
No they don't.

Tobacco is highly addictive. If ONE member of a group wants to smoke, there is more of a chance that they will all go to a smoking bar than if one does not. That makes a fiscal impetus to pay the extra $$ to get the licensing.

They TRIED non smoking bars in the past and they failed.

That leaves me with no choice. Go to a bar and come home smelling of smoke, or staying home. I object to that and doubly object to the premise that this is somehow a choice.None of this refutes what I said. None of it. None of this is new...you made the same points before and THAT's why I said I didn't want to rehash. I thought I would register my comment and you would just respect it, but you want to go through this ALL OVER AGAIN because it is an issue you are totally ballistic about.


Different subject, contributes NOTHING to the conversation. I'll post what I want, thanks. I think it IS part of the issue of smoking and choice. Drop the attitude. Too much fussing over how and what others post here at WNY. YOU and several other forum members need to chill out a little bit in this regard. It forces the rest of us to become mired in BS like the "foreigners" thing you couldn't just drop either.


I am hoping, and will protest VEHEMENTLY that it does not. You want to smoke, stay home. Your protesting+1.50, will get you a cup of coffee.

I don't smoke cigarettes, but I respect that owners and patrons should have a say in this. I respect freedom of choice and the choices of others. You do not. You can choose which kind of bar or business to enter. Smoking or non-smoking. If so many people feel as intolerant as you, you should have no problem locating a business ready to accommodate your preferences and bursting with people like yourself. Otherwise, open your own establishment or stay home if you can't play nice.

Ninjahedge
November 25th, 2009, 10:50 PM
/me no reads.

Yeah whatever.

Kris
January 2nd, 2010, 07:24 PM
January 3, 2010
Blowing Smoke at a Ban
By DOUGLAS QUENQUA

GIVE credit to the first guy to light up a cigarette inside GoldBar on a recent Saturday night: at least he was pretending to be discreet.

Between puffs, the smoker, a 30-something man with a tight T-shirt, a gold watch and a gym membership, slyly obscured his cigarette behind the knee-high table that held his $400 bottle of Belvedere, assorted mixers and a pack of Parliaments. In turn, the cocktail waitresses flanking the room — who, at 12:30 a.m., still outnumbered the patrons — pretended not to notice.

An hour later, there was no longer any need, or attempt, to be discreet. The tiny Lower East Side lounge, where the privilege to spend hundreds on a bottle of liquor is extended only to those fabulous enough to make it past the doormen, was packed and smelled unmistakably of cigarette smoke. One skinny woman in a miniskirt and black leggings perched on the back of a couch and lazily blew smoke at the ceiling; another held a cigarette overhead while dancing.

Clearly, Mayor Bloomberg didn’t make the guest list.

Six years after New York City passed a ban on smoking in bars and restaurants, it is easier than ever to find smokers partying indoors like it’s 1999, or at least 2002. In November, Eater.com called it “the worst kept secret in New York nightlife” that “smoking is now allowed in numerous nightspots, specifically just about any and every lounge and club with a doorman and a rope.” A few weeks later, GuestofaGuest.com, a blog about New York clubs and bars, posted a “smoker’s guide to N.Y.C. nightlife.”

“Everyone looks the other way,” said Billy Gray, 25, a reporter for Guest of a Guest, who says that he knows precisely which high-end bars and lounges, most of them in the meatpacking district or Lower East Side, will let him smoke inside. Far from deterring smoking indoors, the ban simply adds an allure to it, said Mr. Gray, a half-pack-a-day smoker.

“It’s more of an illicit thrill now,” he said. “Like when you were a teenager and snuck a beer in your parents’ basement.”

Plenty of New York City bars have thumbed their noses at the smoking ban for as long as it has been the law. As early as 2004, The New York Times wrote about neighborhood bars that allowed friends and regulars to light up after closing time. In 2008, at the opening of the Libertine, a Todd English restaurant in the financial district, cigarette girls handed out free smokes that guests consumed liberally.

But corner bars that tolerate smoking have traditionally relied on flying too far below the radar to be noticed. By contrast, at expensive paparazzi-flanked nightclubs that appear in gossip columns, there seems to be a new brazenness.

Until the Beatrice Inn — once referred to as “a low-ceiling’d smokehut” by Gawker.com — was padlocked in April amid a flurry of building violations and mounting debt, Kirsten Dunst could be found almost nightly “perched on the counter behind the D.J. booth, smoking cigarettes and bopping her head around to her boyfriend’s tunes,” according to Observer.com, the Web site of The New York Observer. That report appeared in January, just days after the Beatrice received its third smoking citation from the department of health in six weeks.

Not that you have to be a celebrity. Pat Shea, a 22-year-old student, was smoking inside Avenue — which has hosted the likes of Justin Timberlake and Lindsay Lohan — at 9:30 p.m. on a Tuesday in November. Mr. Shea said he was on his way outside to smoke when a staff member told him not to bother.

“I asked the busboy where to smoke and he said, ‘Oh, people just light up in here,’ ” Mr. Shea said. “I saw other people do it and then I decided, Why not?”

On Yelp.com, comments posted by Kimberly K. summed up the thoughts of nonsmokers in an October review of Griffin, another high-end club in the meatpacking district: “I thought you weren’t allowed to smoke in nightclubs anymore,” she wrote. “It seemed anywhere I stood, or sat, the person next to me was lighting up and blowing it in my face.”

All that smoke hasn’t escaped the attention of the New York City health department. Citations for smoking in bars and restaurants went up 35 percent this summer, to 306 citations compared with 227 for the summer of 2008. In all of 2008 there were 632 violations, compared with 592 in 2007. (Neither Avenue nor Griffin has been cited by the health department for violating the smoking ban, but this reporter, on several visits to Avenue since it opened in June, found people smoking each time. One visit to Griffin in November revealed widespread smoking.)

Elliott Marcus, an associate commissioner of the health department, said that he knew where the trouble spots were. “It’s these high-end places for people who think that the rules don’t apply to them,” he said.

The department has increased late-night smoking patrols. Undercover investigators roam the meatpacking district, the Lower East Side and Astoria, Queens, in what Mr. Marcus called a “cat-and-mouse game.”

There is evidence that smoking bans outside New York City may also be losing their bite. USA Today reported last month that bars in Chicago and Honolulu as well as in Ohio and Virginia were openly defying bans.

Twenty-seven states and the District of Columbia have passed smoking bans that affect bars and restaurants. Smoking bans were popular a century ago but were all repealed by the late 1920s, according to Christopher Snowdon, the author of “Velvet Glove, Iron Fist: A History of Anti-Smoking.” Most bans meet the same fate, Mr. Snowdon said: “They usually end with the same kind of passive resistance you see here.”

“It's just the fact that you have a habit that won’t go away,” he added.

That is a view shared by many New York City club owners. Eugene Remm, the owner of Tenjune, a club in the meatpacking district that has gained a reputation as smoker-friendly, said his staff always tells patrons to take the smoking outside. The problem, he said, is that they don’t always listen.

“You tell them to put it out and then 10 minutes later they light up again,” he said.

Tenjune received a citation for patrons’ smoking in December 2008, but has not been cited in 10 subsequent visits, the health department said. GoldBar has been cited for smoking violations three times in the same period. Jamie Mulholland, the owner, did not respond to requests for comment.

Many observers, including Mr. Marcus of the health department, blame the club owners for lax enforcement. Bar and restaurant owners were among the most vocal opponents of the ban before it was implemented, arguing that it would drive patrons outside and cut into their drink receipts.

It stands to reason that owners might be tempted to look the other way when well-paying customers begin lighting up.

But Noah Tepperberg, who is an owner of Avenue and Marquee, say that is far from the truth.

“I think you make more money if someone has to go out to smoke,” he said. “They’re going to finish their drink to go outside, then come inside and order another drink.”

Mr. Tepperberg scoffed at the idea that a busboy at Avenue had given Mr. Shea and his cigarette a green light. “There’s no way a busboy told him he could smoke inside the club,” he said. “Our staff gets fired if we don’t see them doing their job.”

Mike Satsky, an owner of a new meatpacking-district club called the Provocateur, in the Hotel Gansevoort, acknowledged that some owners did turn a blind eye. He described himself as vehemently antismoking and said he has clashed with business partners on the issue, specifically at Stereo, which closed in 2008.

“There was a ton of smoking over there,” he said. “Back then I had different partners, and let’s just say not everyone saw eye to eye on the issue.”

The same can be said of patrons. Amit Nizan, a 28-year-old marketing consultant, complained about friends who had been smoking inside Butter on a Monday night.

“My throat is scratchy today, and it’s not from anything I did,” she said the next morning.

Those who have become used to being able to go out without coming home smelling of smoke can take comfort in the words of Mr. Marcus. “Shame on these owners,” he said. “We’re going to pursue them and demonstrate that the rules do apply to everyone.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/03/fashion/03smoking.html

Merry
February 25th, 2010, 04:53 AM
NYU Bans Smoking on Public Sidewalks Outside School Buildings

By Nicole Breskin

GREENWICH VILLAGE — NYU is stepping up its war on cigarettes by banning smoking on public sidewalks outside school buildings.

NYU will post notices on campus in the coming weeks about the plan to ban smoking within 15 feet of entrances, exits and air vents of all university buildings, NYU spokesperson John Beckman told DNAinfo.

The ban will be fully implemented by fall 2010 with campus Public Safety officers and school administrators enforcing the rule.

“Students have gotten into the habit of smoking right outside the entryways of buildings, especially Bobst Library,” Beckman said. “Based on recent studies and events, we believe it can be dangerous and led us to think we should implement the 15-foot smoking ban across NYU.”

NYU has already banned smoking in its residence halls in the fall of 2006, and in residence hall courtyards last year.

The extension of the smoking ban was introduced to students and faculty via a campus-wide email in October with a university-run study attached to gauge reactions. According to NYU, more than 80 percent of students, faculty and staff initially supported the ban.

But, as the implemenation looms, strong opposition has emerged from the NYU community and Greenwich Village residents, who both believe — albeit for different reasons — that the policy is unjust.

“I think it’s a terrible idea,” said David Lee, a junior at the university. “Unless the school gives us a room for smoking, which they don’t, I think this is totally unfair.”

Kelly Callahan, a 19-year-old sophomore at the school, was most concerned about the social aspect to smoking that she’d now be missing out on.
“It’s a social thing here. People would hang out during cigarette breaks. I’m going to miss that,” she said.

Meanwhile, Sullivan Street resident Dawn Breen fears the ban could force NYU's smokers to venture around the block and into the neighborhood to light up.

“I want to open my windows in the spring as it gets warmer,” said Breen, who has a young toddler. “This could become an issue.”

Her mother-in-law, Sally Breen, who lives on the block chimed in: “I just hope they stay in Washington Square Park.”

Mayor Michael Bloomberg introduced a policy last summer that prohibits smoking within 15 feet of diagnostic and treatment centers' entrances and exits that first led NYU’s College of Dentistry to adopt the ban in Nov. 2009.

http://www.dnainfo.com/20100224//nyu-bans-smoking-on-public-sidewalks-outside-school-buildings#ixzz0gXWuDRVH

lofter1
February 25th, 2010, 09:57 AM
What authority do any of those NYU control freaks have over persons who are on publicly owned sidewalks?

Ninjahedge
February 28th, 2010, 07:46 PM
As much as I hate the blow-in from the outdoor "smoking lounges"


ban smoking within 15 feet of entrances, exits and air vents of all university buildings

This is just too prohibitive. What are you going to do, start painting no-smoking lines on the sidewalks?

Maybe they should think twice before putting Air intakes that close to the ground? They don't put them near the dumpsters, why put them somewhere where this would even BE a problem?

lofter1
February 28th, 2010, 11:06 PM
Those air intakes would suck in more crud from car exhaust than from cigarette smoke. On the other hand, if the intakes have a filtering system to purify the air coming in then wouldn't that also take care of cig fumes?

Ninjahedge
March 1st, 2010, 07:51 AM
Possibly, it also depends on what intake we are talking about. Some, like kitchen vents, may just have a vapor barrier....


I wonder if they are just doing this so they have a rule on the books they can use to clear out people from the front entrance if it gets to be a problem, not that they want to enforce it everywhere at all times.

I have seen instances where there are just too many smokers at the door to get by easily, and with no real rule against it, you can't ask them to go somewhere else. I am not saying whether this in itself is right or wrong, but maybe that is what they are after, not campus health as a whole...

Merry
March 15th, 2010, 05:38 AM
City Tries to Shut Club It Says Flouts Smoking Ban

By DIANE CARDWELL

The Bloomberg administration is moving closer to shutting one of the largest and busiest nightclubs in the city, as part of an aggressive new strategy to revoke the operating licenses of clubs that health officials believe promote smoking.

The nightclub, the M2 UltraLounge on West 28th Street in Manhattan, went on trial last week at a special administrative court that the city uses when it seeks to take away property. If the case against the club succeeds, it would be the first time the city had closed a business solely for flouting a ban on smoking.

City officials have also moved to take several other clubs before the court, seeking to revoke their food and beverage licenses. It has been an open secret for years among the late-night set that there is a network of so-called smoke-easies throughout the city, from little neighborhood dives to glossy, exclusive boîtes, that let patrons smoke illegally.

Health department officials say that the vast majority of businesses comply with the 2002 law forbidding smoking in clubs and bars, but that inspectors have struggled to enforce it at a handful of high-end places that seem to market themselves as smoker-friendly, some even offering loose cigarettes for sale.

Generally, health officials have looked for signs of active tobacco use as part of their inspections concerning other rules, like those for food safety, and have cited clubs for violations that often result in fines of $200 to $2,000.

But they have had difficulty gaining access to the clubs when patrons are actually smoking.

“Some of the clubs where smoking is going on tend to be very, very cool clubs, and a bunch of guys showing up in jackets tend to be very, very uncool,” said Thomas Merrill, general counsel for the health department.

So in recent months, the department has deputized a team of inspectors — many of them younger and hipper-looking than the stereotypical bureaucrat — to work into the wee hours, posing as patrons and hunting for tolerance of smoking by clubs’ employees.

Because the inspectors found many instances of patrons smoking without being asked to stop, the department petitioned the administrative court, the Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings, known as OATH, to recommend revoking the food and beverage licenses of 16 bars and clubs.

“We found places with repeated nights of smoking, with sort of flagrant violations — selling cigarettes, clearly creating an atmosphere in which smoking appeared to be tolerated or even welcomed,” said Daniel Kass, the acting deputy commissioner for environmental health. “Those places are clearly not responding to the idea that we’re going to fine them periodically for violations.”

Five of the clubs have settled with the city, typically agreeing to devise a plan for correction and to pay for any violations, health officials said.

In all but one of the cases, if inspectors find indications of continued smoking during the next year, they can immediately shut the club down and bring it to trial.

Two clubs closed for other reasons, and most of the rest, including the downtown spots Lit Lounge, the Box, Tenjune and Southside, are weighing possible settlements against a looming trial date, city officials said.

The M2 case has gone the furthest. The administrative law judge hearing the case, Alessandra F. Zorgniotti, will make a ruling that will serve as a recommendation to the health commissioner, Dr. Thomas A. Farley.
In the trial, which could end as early as Thursday, the city has introduced photos of people with cigarette packs on their tables or with burning cigarettes held aloft on the dance floor.

One inspector testified that a bouncer told her she could smoke in a back area near an exit door; another said he was able to buy a loose cigarette for $2 from a collection of items for sale in the men’s bathroom.

But lawyers for the club say the city’s case is flawed, arguing that the undercover inspectors could not know whether the staff had tried to get patrons to stop smoking. The club, which has been under new management since July, submitted reports showing that bouncers had ejected at least two patrons for smoking, and Robert Bookman, a lawyer representing M2, said it had fired the two employees who had been selling loose cigarettes in the bathroom.

“The law is being misconstrued by the health department purposely to make it sound like it’s an automatic violation for a club having a patron smoking on their premises,” Mr. Bookman said. “All the law says (http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/downloads/pdf/smoke/tc5.pdf) is that we have to make a good-faith effort to inform patrons that they were breaking the law, and not with a nod and a wink.”

He added that investigators had found only a few smokers on each of their visits to the club, which can hold thousands of people. “Not only do the numbers bear out that this is not a smoking lair,” he said, “but it shows that they are in fact doing what they’re supposed to do.”

Mr. Bookman also criticized the city for not going after the smokers themselves, saying that officials were accusing employees of doing what the inspectors do when they see smoking, “which is not doing anything.”
Health officials contend that their obligation is to ensure that the clubs they license follow the law, and that cracking down on the clubs is a more effective deterrent. “The entity is the repeat offender,” Mr. Kass said. “On any given night there might be one person, or 2 people or 10 people or even way more than that, who on their own are welcomed to smoke or allowed to smoke, but they’re not necessarily back the next night.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/15/nyregion/15smoke.html?ref=nyregion
(http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/15/nyregion/15smoke.html?ref=nyregion&pagewanted=print)

Ninjahedge
March 15th, 2010, 08:44 AM
Although I do not like ANY smoking in clubs, I think that the ones that flout it are in a different league than the small timers that turn a blind eye (especially "after hours", if there are any in NYC).

It is like BYOB, which I do not think is technically legal.

Maybe a stipulation could be put on the books allowing a special licence allowing late night smoking? After 2am? Allow the non-smoking majority impunity to go anywhere they want for most of the night w/o smelling like crap, but also allow some establishments (smoking lounges) to have a late night policy that would keep the patrons off the street after a certain hour?

:confused:

Merry
May 26th, 2010, 07:09 AM
A Call to Recycle Cigarette Butts

By EMILY B. HAGER

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2010/05/25/nyregion/25cig1-cityroom/25cig1-cityroom-blogSpan.jpg
Street value: $1.57.

When a constituent came into Assemblyman Michael DenDekker’s office recently and suggested he propose a cigarette butt recycling program, Mr. DenDekker admits he “had a little chuckle.” Then a staffer, half joking, suggested a cigarette butt deposit, just as is done with bottles. But before completely dismissing the idea, Mr. DenDekker agreed “to see if there is a market on it.”

A little Googling and Mr. DenDekker discovered that in China, scientists had found that soaking cigarette butts in water creates a solution that can protect steel pipes used by the oil industry from corroding. In Brazil, a fashion designer, Alexandra Guerrero, cleans cigarette butts, dyes them and spins them with sheep wool into clothing. And in Ohio, an inventor has a patent pending to turn cigarette butts into adhesives and sealants.

Now two weeks later, Mr. DenDekker, a Democrat from Queens, has proposed a bill that would create a statewide cigarette butt recycling program. “There are two reasons to do it,” he said. “One is to create jobs, the other is to clean our environment a little.”

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2010/05/25/nyregion/25cig2-cityroom/25cig2-cityroom-articleInline.jpg
A profitable reuse of cigarette butts: “The Abyss” by Damien Hirst,
sold for 1.8 million pounds in 2008.

The bill (http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?default_fld=&bn=A11121&Summary=Y&Text=Y) would task the departments of environmental conservation and health to develop the recycling program, and require a minimum one-cent deposit per cigarette.

“I don’t want this to be an unfunded mandate,” said Mr. DenDekker, 48, who smoked for 30 years and now says he doesn’t care if smokers have to pay more. “I’m sorry, but look at the amount of waste that cigarette butts cause in our cities.”

Cigarette butts have immediate dangers and long side effects: small children sometimes pick up them up and eat them; additionally toxins remaining in the butts can leach into the environment and poison fish.

According to Mr. DenDekker’s office, more than 176 million pounds of cigarette butts are discarded each year in this country.

Thomas E. Novotny, a former assistant surgeon general and the head of California’s Cigarette Butt Pollution Project (http://www.cigwaste.org/), said he agreed with the goals of the bill but added, “Before New York commits itself to finding new purposes for these butts, we need to remember that they are toxic hazardous waste, not simple litter, and that needs to be the focus of efforts on keeping them out of the environment.”

While cigarette butts may prove to be an untapped resource for future products, establishing a recycling program is very difficult. Mr. Novotny and several others said they did not know of a cigarette recycling program anywhere in the country. Last year, San Francisco levied a 20-cents-a-pack fee on cigarettes to pay for the cost of picking up after smokers, but Philip Morris USA has sued to block it (http://articles.sfgate.com/2010-01-10/bay-area/17823375_1_philip-morris-usa-mayor-gavin-newsom-cigarette).

Mr. DenDekker’s bill is its infancy. How it would be financed remains unclear; he has not yet secured the support of the chair members of the economic and health committee, but he said, “I don’t think I’ll have a problem getting a senate sponsor.”

He added: “This is something that is going to be a long process. But imagine if we had started cleaning them up 20 years ago.”

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/05/25/a-call-to-recycle-cigarette-butts/#more-177355

Ninjahedge
May 26th, 2010, 03:50 PM
Last year, San Francisco levied a 20-cents-a-pack fee on cigarettes to pay for the cost of picking up after smokers, but Philip Morris USA has sued to block it.

Amazing. Phillip is nowhere to be seen when people are talking about the hazards of smoking or more evidence is found about their research into increasing nicotine, advertising for kids or a number of shady things directly related to ciggs, but god forbid someone imposes a deposit fee on Butts!!!!! SUE THEM!!!

They might have a right to protest the law, but suing over it is just another waste of our (or Cali's) limited resources and they know it.

lofter1
May 26th, 2010, 04:12 PM
Is this going to be like bottles, where a consumer can get a refund for the deposit paid by turning in the goods?

ZippyTheChimp
May 26th, 2010, 04:29 PM
So we'll see people pushing shopping carts around, stacked with garbage bags filled with millions of butts.

We'll need a machine to count them.

rmpbklyn
June 1st, 2010, 11:18 AM
whoot whoot, love the law, don't pollute my lungs!!!!!! you want to smoke, don't smoke in my face when drinking , and eating .

Merry
June 27th, 2010, 01:00 AM
Smoke Less. No, More. Do It Here. No, There.

By ARIEL KAMINER

Dear New Yorkers: Smoke ’em if you’ve got ’em. And then go get more of ’em. Sincerely, Albany.

But don’t smoke ’em in a bar, restaurant or workplace. Just a reminder. Love, New York City.

What about parks and beaches? Not there either. Thanks, NYC Coalition for a Smoke-Free City.

Hey, these cigarette butts could really come in handy! Your friend, Assemblyman Michael G. DenDekker.

Last week New York State lawmakers voted to raise the tax on a pack of cigarettes by $1.60, for a total tax of $4.35, the highest in the nation. Taxing is a way to discourage an activity, of course. But it’s also a way to raise money, and at the moment New York really needs some. That seeming conflict — profiting from an activity you’re trying to discourage — is just the latest of New York’s mixed messages about tobacco.

Mr. DenDekker, a Queens Democrat, recently proposed another way to profit from New Yorkers’ smoking habits: start recycling the butts, and thereby create new jobs. New York needs them, too.

Meanwhile the Smoke-Free City group, which is financed by the state and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, wants to ban smoking in parks, on beaches and on boardwalks. A Zogby poll last year found that 65 percent of New Yorkers like the idea.

Ordinarily, a statistic like that would be the last thing you hear before a herd of politicians came thundering over to co-opt the issue. But no elected officials have joined the coalition on this one. “If you want to do something that’s injurious to your health,” said Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, perhaps the nation’s most famous antismoking activist, “you have a right to do it.”

The idea here is not to save people from their own bad habits, but to keep them from hurting the rest of us. Secondhand smoke contains more than 250 poisonous substances, of which 11 are Class A carcinogens.

In adults, it has been linked to cardiovascular disease, lung and breast cancer, stroke, asthma and psychiatric illness, among other ailments. In children, it’s even worse. Over all, the Centers for Disease Control estimates that secondhand smoke kills about 50,000 nonsmokers a year.

Laws limiting where people smoke do seem to affect whether they smoke. The health department estimates that 15.8 percent of New Yorkers smoke now, 27 percent fewer than in 2002, when the city stubbed out cigarettes in restaurants, bars and workplaces.

Jonathan Samet, the director of the Institute for Global Health and an expert on the hazards of smoke, made an intriguingpoint: the less cigarette smoke people are exposed to, the more sensitized they become to it. Once upon a time, it was perfectly routine to find yourself enveloped in a gray cloud. Now try lighting up on the subway and see how quickly you get jumped by a gang of angry mothers.

Given all that we know about its dangers, I think smoking is insane, but I can’t say I find it disgusting. I’ve dated smokers, and when I watch old movies, the sight of an artfully dangled cigarette still works on me the way it’s intended to: as a mark of sophistication and decadence, one of the few public acts with no purpose other than pleasure.

Smoking at the beach, though, isn’t decadent: It doesn’t seem to enhance the experience the way I can imagine it enhancing a glass of wine in a candle-lit restaurant.

Smokers smoke at the beach for the same reason they smoke anywhere: because they need the nicotine, and a patch can make a mess of a tan line.

No one seems to have any reliable numbers about how many people light up on the city’s sand or in its parks, nor does there appear to be any data about the concentration of nasty airborne particles that results. Presumably it’s lower than what you’d find in a submarine full of nicotine addicts, and the Navy’s new ban on smoking there doesn’t go into effect until the end of the year. The surgeon general says that zero is the only safe level of exposure, but a stiff breeze coming off the water helps dissipate the danger.

So if public health officials have to pick their battles, are beaches and parks the most effective place to crack down on secondhand smoke? The Smoke-Free City people point out that 10 other counties across the state already ban smoking on beaches, and 34 ban smoking in public parks. San Francisco, Seattle and Santa Monica are among the 97 municipalities nationwide that have enacted similar rules.

New York is a special case, however. When people can no longer smoke in their offices, they head outdoors. If they can’t smoke outdoors either, they may be left to the privacy of their own homes. That might work fine in Santa Monica, but in a city where most of us live in little boxes stacked many stories high, it would not be such a bargain.

An essay just published in the New England Journal of Medicine called on the federal government to ban smoking in public housing, where “tobacco smoke can move along air ducts, through cracks in the walls and floors, through elevator shafts, and along plumbing and electrical lines to affect units on other floors.”

So given that smoking is both legal and lethal, that it’s bad for bodies but good for the budget (at least in the short term), where should New Yorkers who do it do it?

Helen Kjellin, a tourist winding up a long visit from Sweden, offered a novel approach. One morning last week, while smoking in Union Square Park, she said she was in favor of banning cigarettes in public areas. Back in Sweden, Ms. Kjellin said, she never smokes in parks or at the beach, certainly not in her own home. She only allows herself the indulgence when she’s away on vacation — and even then, only when she’s outdoors.

“To be honest,” she said, “I don’t like the smell of smoke.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/27/nyregion/27critic.html?ref=nyregion

Merry
July 6th, 2010, 11:03 PM
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?ref=nyregion

Ninjahedge
July 7th, 2010, 09:36 AM
That's a tough one. I like the prospect of forbidding it (as it is already forbidden on some beaches in NJ and makes a big difference!).

The thing is, parks? That gets rather tough when someone can only smoke 25 feet away from any buildings doorway... :confused:


As for litter, maybe if the cops would actually give tickets for butt flickers we would not have as much of a problem, but seeing as many of them are guilty of the same, I can't see where that would be effectively enforced.

What would need to be provided to make it feasable? Garbage cans are proliferent in NY, but people still do not use them (or will not go out of their way to use an empty one a block or street away when one is full), how do you expect people to use publich ashtrays/butt disposals?

Viktor Schwartz
July 8th, 2010, 11:49 AM
What if you are smoker?

Cannot smoker Sir or Madam light cigarette in famous Central Park?

What will come of these smokers? Leave New York!!!???

May you soar with alpine eagles friends.

Ninjahedge
July 8th, 2010, 01:24 PM
You think people will leave NYC because they can't smoke?

They aren't leaving San Francisco!

VS, seriously..... :rolleyes:

lofter1
July 8th, 2010, 01:38 PM
Smoke and Run.

Ninjahedge
July 8th, 2010, 01:40 PM
Can you imagine a smoker running from a cop that smokes?



....oh the hilarity.....

lofter1
July 8th, 2010, 01:59 PM
Neil Simon could put it to good use.

Viktor Schwartz
July 8th, 2010, 04:20 PM
Yes Sounds of Silence from Mr Simon nice, but long long time friend of Mr Polanskis, I Viktor, know that he cannot smoke now because outrage arrest and much injustices and have much discomforts. So he is feel for New Yorkers!

May you soar with alpine eagles friends.

Viktor Schwartz
July 8th, 2010, 04:21 PM
You think people will leave NYC because they can't smoke?

They aren't leaving San Francisco!

VS, seriously..... :rolleyes:

Yes Im seriously.

lofter1
July 8th, 2010, 05:28 PM
... Sounds of Silence from Mr Simon ...

Uhhhh, wrong Simon.

Ninjahedge
July 9th, 2010, 07:42 AM
VS, what I am saying is that your statement has little actual factual basis.

You are saying that people will leave NY if they cannot smoke in Central Park. There is little proof or justification for that statement, and that is why I said "seriously", a slang way of saying that your argument is weak at best.

People will not be happy about it (the minority of people, according to the survey, but still a substantial number), but people are not going to give up the location, job and other amenities they have here just because they cannot light up in CP. They will just complain about it and move on.

Merry
September 12th, 2010, 03:31 AM
Why do most smokers tolerate massive state tax increases?

By James Ledbetter

State governments don't get a lot of fiscal good news these days, so it was surprising last week when the state of Connecticut announced that a recent $1-a-pack tax increase on cigarettes raised $5 million more than the state had projected. As economists would predict, the daunting total of a $3-a-pack tax in Connecticut -- the fourth-highest burden in the country -- did reduce the sale of cigarettes. Some smokers reacted to the tax by quitting, with others finding ways around the tax.

But the surprising fact is that not that many quit smoking or evaded the tax -- not enough, anyway, to cause the state to collect less in cigarette taxes than it would have without the increase. This experience is not unique to Connecticut. Over the past decade or so, several states and jurisdictions have experimented with massive cigarette tax increases, as much as 100 percent or more over the existing rate. California, for example, still has a relatively low state cigarette tax, but in January 1999, it ballooned to 87 cents a pack from 37 cents. In 2002, New York City raised the tax on a pack of cigarettes from 8 cents to $1.50, an astronomical increase of nearly 1,800 percent.

Yet according to anti-tobacco activists -- who are backed up by economic studies -- in every instance, these huge tax hikes have led to states collecting more revenue, even as many smokers swear they won't pay the taxes. Cigarettes may not quite be what economists call "perfectly price inelastic," but millions of American smokers are willing to pay much higher taxes than economic theory would suggest they should.

At the heart of nearly every tax debate in America is some version of the Laffer curve, a fancy way of describing a point of diminishing returns. An income tax of 0 percent produces no revenue; an income tax of 100 percent, it is presumed, causes people to change their behavior so as to avoid the tax, also producing nothing. Some ideal point in between will yield the maximum possible revenue.

In the late 1970s and the 1980s, this very old idea was applied to income tax and burst into prominence as part of the supply-side economics revolution. And since that time, many public officials have espoused the idea that cutting taxes will increase economic activity -- and therefore create higher revenue -- while raising taxes will have the opposite effect.

Cigarette taxes don't seem to behave this way (or at a minimum, we've yet to hit the point at which even huge tax hikes lead to lower revenue). Indeed, in many states, the very notion of tax representing a portion of the underlying cost of a pack of cigarettes -- the way that, say, a tip represents a portion of the cost of a restaurant meal -- has ceased to have much meaning. When you're paying, as New York City smokers now do, $12 for a pack of Marlboros, nearly all of that is tax; the product is, economically, an afterthought.

To hear some economists and cigarette-tax foes tell it, this situation should never have come about. They have long argued that higher taxes would encourage more people to find ways to evade or break the law. This could be as simple as driving to a place where the taxes are lower. A smoker living in eastern Washington state, where the state tax is well above the national average at $3.025 per pack, could save a lot of money by crossing the border into Idaho, where tax is well below the national average at 57 cents per pack. And thanks to mega-increases in cigarette taxes in recent years, the average tax difference between neighboring states is more than three times higher than it was in the early 1980s.

More people, then, have a theoretical incentive to hit the road for cheaper smokes. In reality, though, not many do. According to one Kennedy School study published in 2008, 40 percent of smokers live within 40 miles of another state, yet only 2 percent travel 40 miles or more to buy cigarettes. The authors conclude that the average smoker "is willing to travel 2.7 miles to save one dollar on a pack of cigarettes." For most people, the savings aren't worth more than a few minutes in the car.

Other tax evasions entail more work; bootleg cigarettes from the back of a truck, cigarettes purchased from Indian reservations, or from online outlets of varying degrees of reliability. (Evasion methods are getting more clever. The Wall Street Journal reported last week on the increasing popularity of roll-your-own machines at tobacco stores, which allow customers to create cigarettes that are taxed at the federal level as pipe tobacco -- one-tenth the rate of cigarette tobacco.)

Obviously, bootlegging is real, and every few weeks there are accounts of people being busted for it. As a percentage of overall American smoking activity, however, it seems modest. Reliable statistics on the prevalence of bootlegging are hard to come by, but in the 2003 version of the Census Bureau's Current Population Survey, just 0.8 percent of smokers reported buying cigarettes from the Internet, Indian reservations, or foreign countries (notably Canada). Even if that number has doubled or tripled since then, it's still not a huge portion of the 360 billion or so cigarettes consumed in this country every year.

Why do smokers tolerate tax hikes that are so out of whack with other price increases? Tax increases actually do cause some smokers (particularly younger ones) to quit and others to smoke less. Some of the taxes get paid by newly minted smokers. Secondly, rising gasoline costs in recent years have rendered useless many would-be road-trip bargain binges. Another factor, I suspect, is the self-image of many smokers.

Tobacco-use surveys tell us two interesting things: A majority of smokers at any given moment are thinking about quitting, and 62 percent of smokers buy only packs, not cartons. A huge number of smokers, then, are too timid about their habit to buy enough cigarettes at a time to realize any substantial savings by going outside their normal buying outlets.

A cynical argument, frequently put forward by smokers and libertarians, is that states actually don't want too many smokers to quit, because they need the cigarette-tax revenue. There is some evidence for this. Every cigarette tax passed in recent years has been accompanied by rhetoric about getting people to quit. Yet earlier this year, the Centers for Disease Control found that of the 14 states (plus the District of Columbia) that raised cigarette taxes in 2009, none was using the additional revenue for anti-smoking efforts.

One economist (looking primarily at South Africa) has suggested that the best way to use the cost of cigarettes to get smokers to quit is to focus on affordability rather than just price. And therein, probably, lies the real answer. As punishing as recent cigarettes tax increases have been, they are not yet so high that most American smokers cannot find a way to pay for them. The question remains: How high would taxes have to go to create a far-reaching economic disincentive?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/11/AR2010091104575.html

ZippyTheChimp
September 12th, 2010, 10:26 AM
Not very much in the article, except maybe the passage below, touches on the major factor that would explain the trends - smoking is highly addictive.


Tobacco-use surveys tell us two interesting things: A majority of smokers at any given moment are thinking about quitting, and 62 percent of smokers buy only packs, not cartons. A huge number of smokers, then, are too timid about their habit to buy enough cigarettes at a time to realize any substantial savings by going outside their normal buying outlets.
Anyone who has smoked and quit knows how difficult it is. It's not just a silly habit or expression of vanity. I read somewhere that unlike other well-known addictive substances, nicotine use reaches a 'comfort level' in an individual, and no increase in dosage is needed.

This effectively masks the reality that one is addicted, unlike alcohol addiction, which generally spirals out of control.

During the times I smoked, money was never an issue. I used to think it was health concerns, but I have to admit it was the inconvenience of smoking. I never smoked while driving, because my cars had a manual gearbox. When I was young, I stopped smoking for several years. During that time, smoking was not permitted in my workplace because of the delicate equipment.

I thought I had it beat, but two things changed in the 1980s. Smoking was still forbidden in equipment areas, but we spent most of our time in control rooms with computer terminals where smoking was permitted. And I got a co-worker who smoked like a chimney. Within 6 months, I was lighting up like I never stopped.

What helped me finally stop was the beginnings of what is common today - smokeless workplaces. No way I was going to go outside on a freezing day, and huddle against the building with other smokers. With all the restrictions today, I can't see myself putting up with it, but I'd shell out the $12.


and 62 percent of smokers buy only packs, not cartons.I've observed two symbolic barriers involved with smoking. One is 'a pack a day.' Smokers will rarely tell you they smoke more than a pack a day. It's more common for smokers to say 10, 12 or 14 a day, but once you reach a pack, counting stops. Then it's 'around a pack a day.'

The second is packs v. cartons. During my first period of smoking, I only bought packs. The second time, it was cartons. But again, it was convenience; the savings wasn't that much. But I remember that, although I wasn't smoking more, the fact that I was buying cartons really depressed me.

stache
September 12th, 2010, 04:34 PM
When I bought cartons I would go through them in about four days. Single packs I could keep better count on my smoking.

Ninjahedge
September 13th, 2010, 09:00 AM
Zip, I think you are spot on with the addictive nature, and interesting you point to "comfort level", that is another odd truism.

But the article is also correct in pointing out that no matter how high the cig taxes go, no more is spent on prevention or medical research to help fight Lung cancer or any other major medical "byproduct" of smoking. Just like traffic tickets, the stated reason for them (compliance with driving laws) and the ACTUAL reason (income) are two different animals.

The difficult thing with stuff like this is seperation. They need to make it so that a good portion of the cig tax goes DIRECTLY into paying for all the cancer patients that result and relieve the drain on Medicare/Medicaid. Taxes on undesirable elements and fees imposed by violations should never be hard written into a budget, but we have done so for many years.

Two final thoughts:

1. With so much money being made from Alcohol and Tobacco, I am surprised that we are still dealing with purists that forbid (theoretically) less addictive elements such as pot. If we are in need of cash, som e substances that have been artficially inflated because of their illegal status could not only earn us some money, but also reduce the cash supply to organizations that cost us so much money in our own law inforcement agencies.

2. No matter how you phrase it, 8¢ is NOTHING for a tax. Pointing out that it want up a bajillion percent when it went up a buck and a half is nothing. While I think the individual municipalities all jumping on and adding their own 42¢ to the tax is a bit irritating, raising a tax from almost nothing to something is nothing to complain about.


Last thing (I know, this is #3). Why don't they end Tobacco Farm Subsidies already? The money saved could go back into tax relief (theoretically) and the price of ciggs and ALL tobacco products would go up rather than just ciggs. It seems unfair that we have only targeted one item in the Tobacco entourage for all these taxes, fees, and contradictory government assistance.....

lofter1
September 15th, 2010, 10:14 AM
No surprise, whatsoever ...

City Smoking Ban May Extend to Parks and Beaches

The mayor and Council Speaker Christine Quinn are expected
to propose a new ban at City Hall today.

DNAinfo (http://dnainfo.com/20100915/manhattan/city-smoking-ban-extend-parks-beaches)
By Jill Colvin and Nicole Bode
DNAinfo Staff
September 15, 2010

MANHATTAN — Cigarette breaks in the park will be a thing of the past under a new smoking ban expansion set to be unveiled Wednesday.

Mayor Michael Bloomberg is expected to announce the new regulations, which would extend the ban on butts now in place at city bars and restaurants to outdoor locales including public beaches and parks.

The mayor has warmed slowly to the idea, after minimizing the risk of second-hand smoke in parks when the plan was unveiled last September.

"The real issue is, if you're sitting in the middle of Sheep Meadow and you're the only one there, are you doing any damage to anybody other than killing yourself? Probably not," Bloomberg told the Times last September.

He had also cited the "practical aspect" of enforcing such a law, reportedly saying that police and park rangers already "have a lot of things to do."

But Bloomberg has changed his tune over time, and was quoted in June as telling the Times., "When you ask people in our parks and beaches, they say they just don’t want smokers there.”

Bloomberg also praised the ban this summer for the way it could help eliminate litter, the Times reported.

City health commisisoner Thomas Farley has consistently pushed for the cause ...

Ninjahedge
September 15th, 2010, 11:03 AM
It is difficult.

You have to look where people are the most concentrated. At a beach, it is really hard these days when you have camped out a spot by gettingthere at the break of day only to have a guy lite up a real fatty (LEGAL!!) two spots over and proceed to make your day miserable.

Practically speaking, however, there is one other issue I can see being a problem. Disposal. This is everywhere, but it is especially bad when someone usese the sand as their own personal ashtray. A day or two later your kid comes up to play and make castles, only to have someones butts there in their bucket.

Trying to say "hey, don't do that" is one thing, but it is easier just to not allow it. I think there are many beaches in NJ that already do that.


Now, parks? That is really difficult. As much as I hate smoking, so long as they are courteous about it (not pulling out the stogie upwind of the kiddie playground), and CLEAN (butts), my displeasure at the smell is not something that should prevent them from smoking.

Yes, you read it. I do not think that the ruling about parks is fair to smokers. They have been rightfully restricted from closed environments, workplaces, and even doorways, but parks?

I just can't see that as being fair.

ZippyTheChimp
September 15th, 2010, 12:04 PM
Cigarette butts in the sand are hardly a problem. Biodegradable.

Plastics, batteries are.

BBMW
September 15th, 2010, 01:05 PM
Wonder when they'll ban smoking on the sidewalks?

Merry
September 16th, 2010, 06:25 AM
Excellent.


Park Smoking Ban Outlaws Butts On Pedestrian Plazas, Too!

Now it all makes sense: First the city bans cars from some of the busiest blocks in NYC, turning them over to bums and tourists. And once New Yorkers come to accept these spaces as lazy plazas, not bustling thoroughfares, the Nanny State moves to tighten its grip. Today Mayor Bloomberg declared that his new law banning smoking from city parks and beaches will also cover pedestrian plazas. Oh, and boardwalks, too. Say goodbye to your postprandial cigar on the Coney Island boardwalk, Boris! What's next for the city's health Nazis, no fatties?

Enforcement will fall to the Parks Department, but the mayor's press release states that "the city anticipates its residents and visitors will follow the new smoking policy on their own.

Research shows that 65 percent of New Yorkers favor banning smoking at outdoor recreational places such as parks, ball fields and playgrounds.

As with any quality-of-life issue in City parks, however, a violation summons may be issued by the Parks Department when appropriate." But like the open container law, we assume this will just reduce smokers to wrapping a paper bag aground their cigarettes.

The proposed law is subject to approval by the City Council, but it seems likely to pass, since Speaker Christine Quinn and Councilmember Gale Brewer joined the mayor at today's press conference. Moving quickly, Brewer will introduce the legislation tomorrow! If passed, New York will join LA and San Diego in the push for smoke-free public spaces; both cities recently banned butts from parks and beaches. (The law is pretty much blown off in San Diego, apparently.) And smokers, if you think this is oppressive, check out Hawaii, where smoking's banned pretty much everywhere with the exception of your car and house!

But did you know that secondhand smoke is estimated to account for at least 35,000 deaths from heart disease and 3,000 deaths from lung cancer in nonsmokers nationwide each year? Donald Distasio, CEO of the American Cancer Society of New York and New Jersey, also appeared at the press conference, and said in a statement, "Secondhand smoke is a Class A carcinogen and unsafe at any level. The American Cancer Society believes that no one should be subjected to secondhand smoke- period. Smoke free parks and beaches will limit exposure to these cancer causing chemicals and help to keep kids from picking up this deadly habit."

http://gothamist.com/2010/09/15/parks_smoking_ban_to_outlaw_butts_f.php

Ninjahedge
September 16th, 2010, 08:26 AM
Zip, they take longer than one summer to biodegrade.

If you have ever tried to build a sand castle with someone elses used butts in the sand you might see where I am coming from. (Blech!)

Wiould you approve putting cigs out in a kids sandbox? After all, they are biodegradable!

Ninjahedge
September 16th, 2010, 08:29 AM
^Merry (article)

I think the only real difference between second hand smoke and exhaust fumes (car, industrial) is that with the latter, you are producing something else. The desired result being the smoke itself compared to getting somewhere or making something.

But I can't see where banning it outdoors like that will save anybody. Of those deaths from SHS, how many were from contact in smaller enclosed areas as opposed to park-walkers?

ZippyTheChimp
September 16th, 2010, 08:45 AM
Zip, they take longer than one summer to biodegrade.So do sea shells. Gulls crack them open, leaving shards.


Would you approve putting cigs out in a kids sandbox? After all, they are biodegradable!How about seaweed and assorted shore wildlife (alive and dead) in a kids' sandbox.

The world isn't neat, safe, and antiseptic. Some people in my neighborhood are finally beginning to realize this (http://wirednewyork.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4214&p=338202&viewfull=1#post338202).

Merry
September 16th, 2010, 09:07 AM
But I can't see where banning it outdoors like that will save anybody.

It's more a case that I just hate getting a face full of smoke when I walk down the street, wait at a bus stop, take a break from shopping on a bench in the mall, inevitably also occupied by smokers, etc., etc., etc. outdoors. Despite restrictions in outdoor cafe areas etc. here, there still seems to be no escape sometimes.

Ninjahedge
September 16th, 2010, 09:54 AM
Zip, you are comparing things you find at the sea shore to littering.

What about newspapers? They are BDable. What about food scraps? Pizza boxes? Hell, if the only restriction is BD, then a lot of things could be "left" there.

Also, once you get above (or below) the tide line, there are little to no sea shells, seaweed or other items in the sand. Also, shells have not been in someone elses mouth for 20 minutes and they also do not stink like a dirty ashtray (how many smokers have said they love the smell of old butts?)

You know you are splitting hairs there. And, like I said, Jersey Shore has forbidden smokes for a while with no real complaints. You can only smoke on the Boardwalk as far as I know.

Merry: I agree. I am not saying that I like it either. Just go back to my "discussions" with Schade a few years back with the original ban proposals. I dislike it on many levels, but I still do not think it is far that we restrict so much w/o providing additional areas for them (and not just cramped "smoking rooms").

Japan might be the area to model this after, although cultural differences and personal responsibility (honor code) differences may make doing the same here difficult.

ZippyTheChimp
September 16th, 2010, 10:09 AM
Zip, you are comparing things you find at the sea shore to littering.Nah.

Just saying that cig butts aren't a major problem. I know some of the Parkies at Riis Park. I think they cut back the frequency this year because of budget cuts, but they would rake the entire beach daily. The machine doesn't pick up stuff as small as cigarettes, but it's amazing what they do pick up. A couple of truckloads just for that stretch of beach. You quickly find out that the worst weekday to go is early on Monday, when they clean up the weekend trash.

And then there's Coney Island Whitefish. :D

lofter1
September 16th, 2010, 11:06 AM
From the NY TIMES (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/16/nyregion/16smoking.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss):



Melissa Sullivan, 32, of Greenpoint, Brooklyn, said her 1-year-old daughter’s playmate had picked a cigarette butt off the ground and almost put it in her mouth. “There is a baby boom in the neighborhood,” Ms. Sullivan said. “As a mom, I don’t want my baby to see smoking and think it’s acceptable.”

Parents these days. Wonder what mom does about overpriced toys from China.

And then there's the politiicans ...



... the proposal would also cover dozens of other locations, city officials said, including plazas in Dumbo, Chelsea and Lower Manhattan, as well as so-called pedestrian malls in the middle of many large avenues.

At the news conference, the City Council speaker, Christine C. Quinn, who supports the ban, was asked whether the police would give tickets to people who smoked while walking across pedestrian malls in crosswalks. She insisted the law was not meant to be a “gotcha.”

“A question I know people are going to ask, ‘Does this include me walking up and down the street?’ ” Ms. Quinn said. “The sidewalks are not part of this proposal.” But, she added, “We do not want the person who’s sitting at the little table — they can’t smoke.”

If it's not a "gotcha" where you get a ticket then the ban is toothless. Basically it'll be a Big Mom thing, where the government is wagging it's finger at citizens.

Methinks the pols should be policing some of the folks who fill their campaign coffers -- the gangs with checks who ultimately do much more damage to our city than folks taking a puff while sitting on a bench in the middle of Broadway.

Ninjahedge
September 16th, 2010, 11:12 AM
Maybe only smoking after 9 when the kids should be in bed? ;)

Merry
September 17th, 2010, 05:54 AM
Merry: I agree. I am not saying that I like it either. Just go back to my "discussions" with Schade a few years back with the original ban proposals. I dislike it on many levels, but I still do not think it is far that we restrict so much w/o providing additional areas for them (and not just cramped "smoking rooms").

Poor babies. Sorry, no sympathy. It's not fair that they inflict their disgusting habit on others, not to mention the whopping burden on health costs.

Merry
September 17th, 2010, 05:58 AM
When Citizens (Gasp) Are the Smoking Police

By ANEMONA HARTOCOLLIS

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2010/09/17/nyregion/SMOKING/SMOKING-articleLarge.jpg
Nick Whalen was polite when asked to stop smoking in Bryant Park. Others approached in a reporter’s experiment objected strongly.

Would you mind putting your cigarette out?

It was said politely, timidly, even plaintively. But to New Yorkers who were smoking in parks and were asked that simple question this week, it sounded darkly Orwellian, even threatening.

“Yes,” said Mikey Quackenboss, 25, slowly, with gravity, as he puffed away in Brooklyn in McCarren Park. “I would mind. Very much.”

In Bryant Park in Midtown Manhattan, a sleekly dressed woman, teeth clenched in barely suppressed rage, asked, “Is it illegal?”

Informed that soon it might be, she grudgingly snuffed out her cigarette in the grass: “The last time a government endeavored to keep people from smoking, it was actually Hitler. You should look into it.”

A smoker nearby who was approached with the same request marveled, “You came all the way over here to tell me that,” gesturing to the sea of empty lawn chairs around him on a cloudy day.

Amid a tide of resentment, only one young woman, eyes crinkling in a friendly smile, immediately complied. “I can go farther away if you want,” said the woman, Claire Delmas, 29, a financial consultant. But maybe she did not really count. She was from Luxembourg.

It was a sort of “Candid Camera” experiment, inspired by the suggestion of city officials that Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg’s proposal to ban smoking at city parks, beaches and outdoor plazas would be enforced not just by the police and parks agents, but by ordinary citizens asking other citizens to do their civic duty to just stop smoking.

“I’m looking for Gale Brewer, citizen, to be able to say to the other citizen: ‘Excuse me, sir, but that’s illegal. You really can’t smoke here,’ ” said Ms. Brewer, the councilwoman who introduced the bill at the City Council meeting on Thursday.

This may mark a pivotal moment in the history and culture of smoking etiquette, as Mr. Bloomberg and his supporters appeal to the school-marmish side of New Yorkers to begin thinking of outdoor smoking as socially unacceptable, deserving of a civic warning or a $50 rap on the wrist.

New York is a city where people learn the most exquisite dances of accommodation to their eight million neighbors. Newcomers quickly learn when to make eye contact and when not to (mostly not). They learn to avoid violating anyone’s private space while navigating crowded sidewalks and standing in packed subway cars. It is a place where peacefully transgressive behavior — jaywalking, wearing funny clothes — separates the Iowans from the natives, even if they have been transplanted from Iowa.

Yet it is also a place where neglecting to say “excuse me” can prompt a full-throated lecture on manners, and where road rage on the Cross Bronx Expressway can all too easily lead to violence. All of which raises the question, how reasonable is it to deputize New Yorkers and give them one more reason to confront one another?

Not very, judging by the reactions of smokers in city parks who were asked if they would mind extinguishing their cigarettes.

“Seriously?” said C. J. Gruber, 22, a bike messenger, looking stunned. Then he proceeded to pull out another cigarette, as if to make a point. “I don’t think anyone is going to enforce this.”

The idea, according to Councilwoman Brewer, who represents the confrontation-loving Upper West Side, is a sort of shaming process. If enough people spoke up, she said, social norms would change and smoking in parks could become as taboo as cellphones in theaters.

Still, said Norman Siegel, the civil liberties lawyer, the most likely reaction will be “go to hell, or stronger language.”

However, Mr. Siegel hastened to say, it is a common misconception that civil libertarians should be on the side of smokers.

“There is no constitutional right to smoke,” he said. “People have asked me whether we can bring litigation to challenge some of these prohibitions. It does not work, because government has general welfare powers to enact legislation affecting people’s health.”

So the bottom line, he said, is that making the ban work would indeed be a matter of civility.

O.K., then, back to the exercise.

Would you put out the cigarette?

“No, no, no, no,” said Gary McKnight, 24, another bike messenger smoking in McCarren Park after a friend was asked the question. Told that he was part of an experiment, Mr. McKnight said he did not mean to be rude and that if the proposal was enacted, he would obey it.

“If it bothers you, go over there,” said Roger Burrows, pointing to an empty chair in Bryant Park. Told that this was just a test, and his tormenter was a reporter, Mr. Burrows said, “I wouldn’t like to have your job.”

“What’s next?” he asked. “They will try to stop it on the sidewalks.”

Already, Mr. Burrows said, the sidewalks were getting more and more crowded with smokers forced out of buildings, and even he, a fellow smoker, sometimes found it noxious.

Even the police, whose job requires getting into people’s faces, were diplomatic about the idea of writing summonses for lighting up in a park. “We don’t have any feeling about it one way or the other,” said Al O’Leary, spokesman for the Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association. “There are loads of things to write for. This is just another one.”

A few smokers approached in parks were courteous, or cowed, enough to put out their cigarettes, or at least to move. “I’m not that militant,” said Nick Whalen, a 22-year-old photojournalist.

But several reacted legalistically.

“I don’t see any sign saying I can’t smoke,” said Ken Dorazio, who described himself as “in the twilight of a mediocre career on Wall Street,” as he sat in Bryant Park smoking a cigar and consulting his BlackBerry.

“I’m going to leave in two minutes, all right?” Mr. Dorazio insisted. “That fair? It’s still a free country last I checked, isn’t it?”

Told he could relax, Mr. Dorazio grumbled, “The best place to smoke now is in your car. You’re master of your own domain there.”

In Union Square Park, Jimmy Sutherland, a 27-year-old tap dancer, stood on the south side of the square, talking to two nonsmoking friends about how horrible smoking was, while smoking a Newport.

“When I woke up this morning, I was disgusted by it, literally,” he said of his habit.

“Could you put it out please?”

“I’ll put it out,” he conceded. A minute went by. And another.

“When I’m done with it,” he said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/17/nyregion/17smoking.html?_r=1&ref=nyregion

lofter1
September 17th, 2010, 11:50 AM
Oh, yeah .. just try it, my fellow citizens. GTF away.

When our Marmy Mayor and his cohorts deputize us so we can bust crooks, liars and reprobates inside the halls of NYC only then should they even think about enlisting folks to do his bidding on the streets.

ZippyTheChimp
September 17th, 2010, 12:28 PM
That picture looks weird.

Like smoke is coming out of a little door on his shirt; or a genie-out-of-the-bottle thing; or invasion by a parasitic off-world lifeform.

Ninjahedge
September 17th, 2010, 12:40 PM
Or like he is holding an invisible box where he is blowing smoke into through a hole in the top?

Merry
September 27th, 2010, 03:49 AM
New Yorkers' Cigarette Breaks May Go Up In Smoke

by Robert Smith

They have already been chased out of bars, offices and restaurants. Now, the city wants to ban smokers from outdoor public spaces like parks and beaches. The ban would affect some of the most crowded pedestrian spaces in the world, like Times Square. First they came for the smokers in bars, and Jason Riley simply moved outside.

"I didn't stop drinking," Riley said. "If that was the object, to get me to stop drinking, it didn't work."

Then the New York City Health Department banned trans fat in foods.

"I'm fine with it," Riley said.

The city then went after excess salt, required calorie counts in the menus.
Riley said: "I don't think it makes a difference."

But now New York City is coming for Riley. He is standing in the middle of Times Square, taking a smoke break. Under the proposed law to ban outdoor smoking, he would be a criminal.

"How do you enforce it?" he asks. "You going to give a ticket? Should we hire 500 more police officers with a good sense of smelll? Maybe the K-9 units would take care of it."

Cigarettes Worse Than Car Exhaust Fumes

It's easy to mock the proposed law in a place like Times Square where not too long ago a billboard for Camel cigarettes blew giant smoke rings into the air. The square is filled with car exhaust, food cart vapors and other strange smells. What harm could a few extra cigarettes do?

"Well, there's increasing evidence that you can be exposed to smoke outdoors in a way that's really harmful to your health," says New York City Health Commissioner Thomas Farley.

He says studies show that if you are within 3 feet of someone smoking outdoors, your exposure to secondhand smoke can be the same as when you are indoors. And though places like Times Square are choked with exhaust-spewing traffic, cigarettes are still worse.

"You know, we've done measurements and the levels of particulates, those are the particles that get in your lungs, are much higher from secondhand smoke than they are from car exhaust," Farley says. "So you can get much higher levels from sitting next to a smoker than being at the entrance to the Holland Tunnel."

Goal: To Stop Smoking

And so the New York Health Department has been pushing the city for the past year to take action. The proposed ban on smoking would affect about 1,700 parks, plazas and beaches. It still needs to pass the City Council, but the number of angry smokers ready to fight is dwindling in New York. The goal, at least among some in city government, is to keep this up until everyone in New York has quit.

"I would like people to stop smoking," says Gail Brewer, a New York City Council member and sponsor of the anti-smoking bill. "I'm not going to say otherwise."

While heading down to City Hall Park to talk with smokers about the proposed regulations, Brewer shared a secret: The police will not be actively hunting down smoking scofflaws.
"I'm not interested in fines or getting anyone arrested," she said.

She just wants the law on the books for sort of moral support.

"When you are sitting on the beach with your family and somebody is smoking, you can't grab the kids and all the stuff and move," she says. "You can say very nicely it's against the law to smoke on the beach and hopefully they will understand and I'm sure they will."

Meanwhile, Edmund Kasubinski is spotted smoking. The college student says he isn't allowed to smoke in his apartment.

"I love to sit in the park and chain smoke," he says. "Maybe I'll quit. I guess I'm going to smoke in the park while I can."

If the law passes, the last public haven for smokers in New York will be the city sidewalks. And at least if they have to circle the block, they'll be getting some exercise.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130111848&ps=cprs

Ninjahedge
September 27th, 2010, 08:15 AM
"I didn't stop drinking," Riley said. "If that was the object, to get me to stop drinking, it didn't work."


Um, no. It was to get you to stop smoking in front of other people.... Where did he get this from? I can understand him saying "If it was to get me to stop SMOKING...", but this is just shifting the blame around.....

Whatever.

KenNYC
October 3rd, 2010, 03:27 AM
Just saying that cig butts aren't a major problem. I know some of the Parkies at Riis Park. I think they cut back the frequency this year because of budget cuts, but they would rake the entire beach daily. The machine doesn't pick up stuff as small as cigarettes, but it's amazing what they do pick up. A couple of truckloads just for that stretch of beach. You quickly find out that the worst weekday to go is early on Monday, when they clean up the weekend trash.

And then there's Coney Island Whitefish. :D

I haven't followed this discussion much, but I'll just say this; over the summer I've visited a number of beaches in the NY area, including Coney Island, and the amount of cigarette butts (and other trash) mixed in the sand was absolutely ridiculous, and absolutely disgusting.

Merry
October 15th, 2010, 07:09 AM
Heated Debate at Hearing on Smoking Ban in Parks

By NOAH ROSENBERG

A New York City Council public hearing on a proposed smoking ban in city parks evolved into an hours-long, occasionally raucous showdown Thursday afternoon, touching on issues such as civil liberties, public health, big government and litter.

The hearing focused largely on a bill, introduced by Councilwoman Gale Brewer, a Manhattan Democrat, with the support of the Bloomberg administration, that would ban smoking in the public parks, playgrounds, beaches and pedestrian plazas, but also included testimony on a compromise bill, which would lead to designated smoking sections in many parks.

Testimony ranged from people like David Goerlitz, the former “Winston Man” who, in a press conference before the hearing, said smokers are treated like “lepers and second-class citizens,” to Joe Applebaum, a Brooklynite who equated second-hand smoke with rat poison and said smokers have “no consideration for their fellow man.”

Councilmember Peter F. Vallone, Jr., a Queens Democrat, who described himself as an “anti-smoking advocate,” has introduced a bill requiring that land under the jurisdiction of the City Department of Parks and Recreation that is larger than two acres must have a designated smoking area equal to at least a fifth the size of the property footprint.

“Indoor smoking sections never worked well,” Mr. Vallone said. “It’s like having a urinating section in a pool,” he added to laughter. But outside, he went on, health concerns are not the same.

Mr. Vallone’s plan was shot down as “impractical” by the city’s health commissioner, Dr. Thomas Farley, and parks commissioner, Adrian Benepe, both of whom are staunch supporters of the all-out smoking ban in city parks.

“It’s simply not true” that smoke dissipates in the air, Dr. Farley said, underscoring the harmful chemicals in cigarette smoke but also noting that litter eradication would be a “side benefit” of the ban.

Dr. Farley and other proponents, including the Coalition for a Smoke-Free City, an advocacy group, and organizations like the American Cancer Society of New York and New Jersey, also said smoking in parks sets a poor example for youth.

Which is why Mr. Vallone’s compromise, while acceptable to some opponents of the full ban like Mr. Goerlitz, the one-time Winston Man, appeared to gain little traction at the hearing.

“I think it would be impractical and undesirable to try to cordon off separate locations for people to smoke in parks,” Mr. Benepe said, noting that permitting smoking on the edges of parks – as in Ms. Brewer’s legislation – is likely the most effective.

Opponents had a champion in City Councilmember Robert Jackson, a Manhattan Democrat who, in a series of heated exchanges, accused the city of being “too restrictive.”

Similarly, Councilmember Daniel Halloran, a Queens Republican, voiced his concerns that any outdoor smoking ban would lead down a “slippery slope” toward an overbearing government.

“Are we going to be back here in five years talking about a ban on smoking in households that have children in them?” he asked. “What’s the line in the sand?”

And with that, Dr. Farley’s most direct answer, along with chuckles from the crowd, came when he congratulated the councilman for “not being a smoker.”

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/14/air-cleared-at-parks-smoking-ban-hearing/#more-232353

Ninjahedge
October 15th, 2010, 07:57 AM
Maybe they should just start with Beaches and areas around Playgrounds (say 5' or something?) and go from there.

Trying to lump all of this together is kind of brutal....

spatulashack
October 19th, 2010, 11:28 AM
Am I the only one that sees the glaring problem with banning smoking in parks and public plazas? It will create a WALL of smokers on the sidewalk. Why exactly is it better to push smokers to the edge of the street than to simply allow them to spread out? Wouldn't the occasional wafting of cigarette smoke from one smoker be better than a cloud of smoke covering the sidewalks? Do children not walk on sidewalks? If anything, we should be encouraging smoking in parks as there is more room for people to spread out and not bother one another. A smoker outside of a store on 9th avenue will effect far more people than a guy enjoying a cigarette while leaning against a tree in Central Park. What a completely moronic and counter intuitive bill.

lofter1
October 19th, 2010, 03:39 PM
A wall of stinky smoke at the edge of the city parks will enrage non-smokers and lead to the government's next [inevitable] step: No smoking on the public sidewalks.

Just outlaw the darned things once and for all -- what good do they do anyone, anyway?

( maybe then I'd quit for good :rolleyes: )

Ninjahedge
October 20th, 2010, 07:47 AM
Nah, making them illegal will just make people push it on the street and give organized crime yet another crop to profit from.

Just, ironically, make it perscription. Where pot can help you with Glaucoma, tobacco can help you with getting rid of those nasty lungs..... ;)

Merry
December 29th, 2010, 11:53 PM
Judge Rejects City Law on Antismoking Posters

By ANAHAD O’CONNOR

A federal judge on Wednesday struck down a New York City law that would have forced all bodegas and convenience stores to post gruesome images of diseased lungs, brains and teeth in the shops to discourage people from buying cigarettes.

In a 13-page ruling, Judge Jed S. Rakoff of United States District Court in Manhattan wrote that while the law was well intentioned, it violated federal law since only the federal government had the authority to regulate cigarette warnings and advertisements.

“Even merchants of morbidity are entitled to the full protection of the law,” Judge Rakoff wrote, “for our sake as well as theirs.”

The decision puts an end — at least for now— to the city’s plan to have the placards displayed beside cash registers in more than 11,000 establishments across the city. While awaiting Judge Rakoff’s ruling, the city had agreed that it would postpone enforcement of its rule until this weekend.

Lawyers with the city’s Law Department said they planned to appeal the decision.

The city’s health department created the rule in late 2009. In June, the nation’s three biggest tobacco companies — Philip Morris, Lorillard and R. J. Reynolds — joined forces with the New York State Association of Convenience Stores in filing a lawsuit challenging the rule. In their suit, the tobacco companies and convenience stores said the rule violated the First Amendment rights of retailers who disagreed with the message, and breached a law stating that only the federal government can regulate cigarette warnings and advertising.

In his ruling, Judge Rakoff said that health officials had good reason to view smoking as a “public health threat,” citing smoking as the leading cause of preventable death in New York City and the rest of the country. “Within New York City, roughly 7,500 people die from smoking annually — more than from AIDS, homicide and suicide combined,” he wrote.

But Judge Rakoff also cited a federal law enacted in 1965, the Labeling Act, which gave the federal government exclusive authority over cigarette warnings. That law, he wrote, seeks to balance public and commercial interests: the federal government protects the public, but also sets clear and uniform cigarette regulations that protect “commerce and the national economy.”

In his ruling, Judge Rakoff pointed out that the Labeling Act also contained a provision forbidding any state laws from conflicting with the federal government’s policies on cigarette warnings and advertisements. That, he concluded, makes the city’s placard policy illegal.

Floyd Abrams, a lawyer who represented the convenience store association, said that even though the city had agreed not to enforce the rule until this weekend, many retail shops had put up the graphic placards anyway. He said he was “very pleased” with Judge Rakoff’s decision.

“It will allow the retail stores in New York to be freed of the obligation to put signs up urging customers not to buy their lawful products,” he said.

In a statement, the health department said that the city “strongly disagrees” with the ruling and that tobacco companies “trying to prevent these messages from being seen should be ashamed of themselves.”

“The city’s warning signs portray completely factual messages about the dangers of smoking,” the statement added. “They do so at the exact moment when smokers are making decisions about purchasing tobacco. We believe it is the city’s responsibility to help smokers quit and to protect children from the harmful effects of tobacco smoke.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/30/nyregion/30smoking.html?ref=nyregion

Ninjahedge
January 3rd, 2011, 09:35 AM
As sad as this is, I am kind of in agreement with it in that we do no need the government to be our protector AND our mother.

I do not know if something like this should be within the jurisdiction of the Feds either (despite the acnowledgement of such from the Judges ruling).

Should we show pictures of dead people all over gun stores? Pictures of kids with the back of their heads blown off at a local WalMart?

As bad as something can be (and don't start with the "but guns have other uses, etc etc... that was not the point of my example), whewe do we draw the line. We have forbidden advertisement in just about any major way. Warnings have to be on everything and we tax the hell out of it.

Anything more will not reduce the numbers of people who do this in their early teens because they feel it is cool and they need to rebel.

fiona1990
January 6th, 2011, 04:51 AM
I'm a non-smoker and we have a ban on smoking in all public places. I agree with it in terms of smoking in restaurants but not in clubs and pubs, you end up left on your own when friends who do smoke go outside to smoke. I'm not the biggest fan of smoking but theres an extent as to how strong you can make a ban on it.

Ninjahedge
January 6th, 2011, 08:01 AM
fiona,

I can understand your thoughts on your pals going outside to smoke at a bar/club, but nothing is stopping you from joining them.

The problem with the smoking in clubs was that you only needed a few people to make the entire club smoke filled. Not many clubs had (or could afford) ventillation that was fast/strong enough to keep the air clear.

So it ended up driving out a whole sect of non-smokers who did not like having their clothes smell like crap at the end of the night through no fault of their own (I used to leave my jacket at home in the winter....). We seem to be a society that resents intrusion of our own space by others in terms of sound or other ambient items, but since smoke was something that was very common not too long ago it is somehow still seen by many as not being an intrusion....


But, despite my own feelings on that, and my own support for keeping the smokers away from the front door of the workplaces (pretty much just getting blasted in on the way into work, and having the smoke sucked into the building....) I do not see any reason for them to be forbidden in the parks.

Cigars I can see. Even cigar smokers will admit to their pleasures absolute stench, but cigarettes? So long as people are not butt-flickers I see no reason for forbidding them in NYC parks......

Smoking in itself is not against the law, so where will smokers go if they can't smoke at their office, in front of their office or in a park?

On a boat in the river?

fiona1990
January 6th, 2011, 06:31 PM
I have no problem at all going outside clubs in summer time when its "warmer" but this is the coldest winter we have seen in decades and I'm just not keen at all to freeze outside a club in a dress in minus weather.

To be honest smokers or being around them doesn't bother me in the slightest, its just in restaurants I agree with the ban. It just seems to be one extreme to another. The increase in vat is another thing, here now its around £6 nearing £7 for a pack of 20, for a heavy smoker that's going to be a noticeable increase.

The increase in petrol here is killing me now, seeing as the vat went up on the 4th.

Just out of curiosity how its the economy in the US just now? Since the UK went into recession it has been easily visible that the cost of living has taken its tole on society in many different factors. They say that this year is going to be the worst....its hard to see how things could get worse.

Merry
January 7th, 2011, 12:25 AM
Outdoor smoking banned in parts of Long Island village

Great Neck, New York (CNN) -- If you want to smoke on the sidewalk in Great Neck, New York, it might cost you $1,000.

The local board of the Long Island village voted this week to ban smoking on sidewalks outside of businesses along the main street, as well as in some other public places.
The village is part of a wealthy New York City suburb and claims to be the first municipality in New York state to enact such a measure.

"Merchants complained to me that smoke was coming into their buildings and their customers were complaining," said Great Neck Mayor Ralph Kreitzman, himself a former smoker. "What we want to do is, for the benefit of our residents, avoid the inconvenience and detrimental effect of secondhand smoke."

Violators could face a fine up to $1,000. Smoking also is prohibited in the Village Green Park, the Village's Housing Authority and on benches in municipal parking lots.
The move is generating strong opinions.

"We walk on the street, taking in second- and thirdhand smoke that we're inhaling and our children are inhaling," said resident Joan Litt. "It's just horrible."

A smoker who identified herself only as Sophia had this take on the ban: "If my smoke bothers people, how about the cars?" she said. "Shut off the engines of the cars. We breathe carbon monoxide. ... That's unhealthy, isn't it?"

Bruce Zipes, who opened Bruce's Bakery in 1983 and remembers when people could smoke in his restaurant, said he has mixed feelings about the ban.

"I think it's a pretty good idea, Zipes said. "Their intentions are good, but it's another right and another privilege that the government is taking away from us."

In nearby New York City, there is a move to ban public smoking in parks, beaches and pedestrian plazas.

Kreitzman said he's been getting calls from local leaders commending him, and he hopes other jurisdictions follow Great Neck's example.

"We're trying to educate people, we're not looking to penalize people," Kreitzman said. I'm not looking to make money from this. But, we can give out summonses and under our code, there's a maximum fine of $1,000, but that's up to a judge."

Smoker rights advocate Gary Nolan, who is with a group called the Smoker's Club, blasted the village's move as "political correctness run amok."

"It's junk science that's being used to take away personal and private property rights," Nolan said. "It's been extended now out into the streets, one wonders how far the government can go."

http://edition.cnn.com/2011/US/01/06/new.york.outdoor.smoking.ban/

Ninjahedge
January 7th, 2011, 08:39 AM
The problems are the arguements.

Comparing cigs to cars is not right. If you banned cars it would have a profound effect on society and our overall system. But cars have emmission standards, and are not allowed to idle in some areas, so there ARE emmission standards for them already.

Second, we are looking for ways to make them even MORE ecologically sound, including Hybrids and possibly Hydrogen or Electric cars that are more practical. I have not seen the same (in a form that actually works) for ciggs.

Third. Light a cig and see if it gets you to the Supermarket and back. When a pack of ciggs can get your weekly groceries home (and no, not as payment for migrant workers, so lets not even think of something that has only a small chance of ever happening in selected areas of the country), when they can do that, or take your kids to school, then we can start comparing them to cars.

Now, as for "junk science".... >sigh<

When medical studies do not support someones desires, it is either "junk" or "controversial" or "debatable". ONE STUDY said that the Thermasol, with trace ammounts of mercury in it, triggers an onset/development of Autism. Now, even after nobody has agreed with it, it has been removed from its original publication, AND has had some of its "records" found to be falsified/altered people are STILL willing to give it "the benefit of a doubt".

But something like Second Hand Smoke? Even though it has been shown to cause problems in EVERY RELIABLE UNAFFILIATED STUDY, is still considered "junk".


In all fairness, however, I do not think that someone smoking on a sidewalk will do jack to someone inside a boutique nearby. It will not give their baby cancer or cause Jr to have an asthma attack. That is not junk science, that is just B&M. The only thing it WILL do is stink.

So, aside from people smoking outside of restaurants with outdoor seating (Go to Hoboken), or the person who really does not understand why so many are pissed at them smoking cigars, I really see very little reason for a general ban of smoking on the sidewalk.

All we are seeing now is a battle to see who makes it to the whiners circle.

fiona1990
January 8th, 2011, 11:10 AM
Im not at all comparing a fag to a car. I would find it very hard to find a realistic argument for that, I was only stating the vat rises in things that the government have control over such as fag/drink taxes and the vat rises in petrol ect.... I wasn't making a comparison between the 2.

lofter1
January 8th, 2011, 11:57 AM
... comparing a fag to a car.

Conjures up all sorts of images ;)




... fag/drink taxes ...

Orwellian.

ZippyTheChimp
January 8th, 2011, 12:33 PM
Im not at all comparing a fag to a car.NH responded to the article, not your post.

fiona1990
January 8th, 2011, 01:50 PM
Sorry I forget that fag means something else in the US, I mean cigarettes

Ninjahedge
January 10th, 2011, 08:44 AM
NH responded to the article, not your post.

Thanks


Sorry I forget that fag means something else in the US, I mean cigarettes

I think we all knew that. "petrol" was the thing that clued most of us into that! It is still funny to get the unintended double meaning....


You were talking about bundles of wood, right?

Or maybe meatballs? ;)

fiona1990
January 10th, 2011, 11:51 AM
Yeah something like that!

Merry
January 25th, 2011, 06:29 AM
City University’s 23 Campuses Are the Latest to Ban Smoking

By LISA W. FODERARO

Last summer, the University at Buffalo banned smoking on its three campuses. Last month, Columbia University approved a measure that prohibits smoking within 20 feet of buildings.

And on Monday, the trustees of the City University of New York, the largest urban higher-education system in the country, voted to forbid smoking on all 23 of its campuses, from the College of Staten Island to Lehman College in the Bronx.

CUNY’s move is the latest in a wave of comprehensive smoking bans on college campuses nationwide, a trend that began about five years ago and has gathered momentum in recent months. The American Nonsmokers’ Rights Foundation, a nonprofit advocacy group, reported this month that at least 466 campuses had completely banned smoking or passed resolutions to do so.

Unhealthy habits, from keg parties to all-nighters, have long been associated with the college experience. All the more reason for the prohibitions, say proponents of the bans and public health experts, who feel that the campus antismoking rules send an important early message to young people about healthy lifestyles.

“It makes a lot of sense,” said Cynthia Hallett, executive director of the nonsmokers’ foundation, which is based in Berkeley, Calif. “My daughter is going off to college this year, and the campus is a student’s new home and work and play environment.”

CUNY officials, who estimate that 13 percent of their students, faculty members and staff members smoke tobacco, noted that the ban was prompted in part by the recent creation of the university’s School of Public Health. Campuses will have until September 2012 to impose the rules, allowing them time to mount educational campaigns, post no-smoking signs and provide counselors trained in helping smokers quit.

But campuses are free to forbid smoking before that deadline, said Alexandra W. Logue, CUNY’s executive vice chancellor and university provost. Dr. Logue, who has a background in experimental psychology, said the new restrictions could impel smokers to give up the habit. “The more you can remove cues in the environment that are associated with that addiction, the less craving the smoker will feel,” she said.

John Jay College of Criminal Justice, a CUNY school that will expand its complex on the West Side of Manhattan in the fall, will prohibit smoking on a planned rooftop commons. The landscaped space, with grassy areas and benches, will stretch over most of a block.

Karen Kaplowitz, a professor of literature at John Jay, is a former smoker who served on the advisory task force that recommended the CUNY smoking restriction. “Before this ban, we would have had to permit smoking,” she said. “But now we’re going to have a beautiful, tobacco-free campus in the middle of Manhattan that is unthreatened by cigarette smoke and butts.”

Some of CUNY’s most urban colleges, like Hunter and Baruch in Manhattan, may not notice much of a difference, since the university cannot prohibit smoking on public sidewalks. The ban will be felt more on campuses with ample green space between buildings, like City College, Queens College, College of Staten Island and Lehman College.

Reaction to the restrictions did not fall along predictable lines on Monday. At City College, where students hurried between buildings in the bitter cold, Dan Cardillo, a sophomore from Greenwich, Conn., criticized the new rule, even though he does not smoke himself.
“I think it’s a stupid thing to do,” he said. “It’s a college campus. We should be treated like adults. If it’s not illegal, they should not ban it here.”

His classmate Jennifer Santiago, a senior from the Bronx who smokes half a pack of cigarettes a day, supported the ban. “I kind of agree with it even though I’m a smoker — for the sake of other people not breathing secondhand smoke,” she said. “People got used to the idea by not smoking in bars.”

If city officials have their way, large swaths of the five boroughs will soon join the CUNY campuses. City Councilwoman Gale A. Brewer sponsored a bill in September that would ban smoking in 1,700 parks and along 14 miles of beaches. On Monday, she said that the mayoral and Council staffs were still working on the final details, but that the measure could go before the Council for a vote next month.

At the University at Buffalo, the largest institution in the State University of New York system, the decision to ban smoking on the three campuses, covering more than 1,350 acres, followed a restriction on smoking within 100 feet of buildings. Joseph A. Brennan, a spokesman for the university, said that professors at the School of Public Health and Health Professions and alumni in the medical profession were “a driving force” behind the complete ban.

“As an educator of future physicians, we teach our students to encourage their patients not to use tobacco,” he said. “So we should walk our talk and ban ourselves.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/25/nyregion/25smoke.html?ref=nyregion

Ninjahedge
January 25th, 2011, 08:26 AM
That's kind of tough....


And it only paves the way for the next prohibition-like use (although not sale) of tobacco products.

You think many will start going to chaw?

lofter1
January 25th, 2011, 10:58 AM
Tobacco built this country. Karma enters in at some point.

ZippyTheChimp
January 25th, 2011, 12:30 PM
The squeeze is on.

Ninjahedge
January 25th, 2011, 01:10 PM
Now I have that damn song stuck in my head.

brianac
February 1st, 2011, 08:11 PM
Council to Vote on Parks and Plaza Smoking Ban Updated 81 mins ago


February 1, 2011 7:28pm


The proposal to snuff out cigarettes in parks, beaches, and plazas has been slammed by city smokers


Read more: http://www.dnainfo.com/20110201/manhattan/council-vote-on-parks-plaza-smoking-ban#ixzz1Cl9o2Lc4


By Jill Colvin
DNAinfo Reporter/Producer


MANHATTAN — The City Council is set to vote Wednesday on a controversial plan to snuff out smoking (http://www.dnainfo.com/20100915/manhattan/city-smoking-ban-extend-parks-beaches) in city parks, beaches and public plazas.


The proposal, which is sponsored by a slew of high-profile council members (http://legistar.council.nyc.gov/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=773185&GUID=FD6CB044-E7FC-497B-A487-7B9457D760FC&Options=&Search=), including City Council Speaker Christine Quinn, and has the support of the mayor, would bar smoking in all city parks, beaches and pedestrian plazas, including Times Square.


Smokers and smoking rights’ advocates (http://www.dnainfo.com/20101014/manhattan/city-council-debate-smoking-ban-parks-pedestrian-plazas) have slammed the bill as an infringement on their freedom, with some even warning lawmakers to expect violent clashes if the law is passed.


But City Councilwoman Gale Brewer, a strong proponent of the bill, said that the council faced similar opposition when the city passed its landmark smoking ban in bars and restaurants, which she said had quickly passed.


The council is set to vote on the bill Wednesday afternoon following a 10 a.m. hearing.


Read more: http://www.dnainfo.com/20110201/manhattan/council-vote-on-parks-plaza-smoking-ban#ixzz1Cl9wrVvW

Ninjahedge
February 2nd, 2011, 08:58 AM
They should just look for ways to increase the fines for littering with butts.

Japan does not have this problem, and they have MANY MORE smokers than the states. The thing is, the people there seem to respect the rules more than we do.

If there is a smoking room (with vent) they go there. They do not light up in the doorway on their way outside, and they extinguish their butts on their heels and, if they can't find a can, PUT THE BUTT IN THEIR POCKET!

If we could accomplish the same, we would not need as many weird rules.

Do we need a few hundred years (more) of living this close together before we start respecting our bretheren the way the Japanese do?

MidtownGuy
February 2nd, 2011, 10:17 AM
A smoking ban in a huge outdoor place such as Times Square is stupid. As I've said before, I do not smoke (cigarettes) but they should either outlaw the damn things and be done with it, or stop harassing the people who are engaging in a legal activity. It can't be the fumes this time, because sitting in Times Square is like being immersed in a sea of vehicle exhaust anyway. It can't be the litter because I don't see them outlawing paper fast food containers or chewing gum.
Christine Quinn is such a cow. God help us if she ever gets elected mayor.

brianac
February 2nd, 2011, 07:35 PM
City Council Snuffs Out Smoking in Parks Updated 67 mins ago


February 2, 2011 6:24pm


Smoking in the city's 1,700 parks,14 miles of beaches and all public plazas will now be punishable with a $50 fine

Read more: http://www.dnainfo.com/20110202/manhattan/city-council-snuffs-out-smoking-parks#ixzz1Cqr2V4rg



By Jill Colvin
DNAinfo Reporter/Producer


CITY HALL — Lighting up while lounging in Central Park or Times Square is about to get a lot more expensive after the City Council passed a controversial bill to ban smoking in public parks, beaches and pedestrian plazas.


Under the new rules, smokers will be barred from smoking cigarettes in the city's 1,700 parks as well as on beaches, near pools, and in city squares. Smoking will still be allowed on sidewalks as well as on pedestrian routes running through parks. Violators will be met with $50 fines.


The controversial bill, which was met by tough opposition from city smokers (http://www.dnainfo.com/20100916/midtown/new-york-smokers-fume-over-plan-ban-cigarettes-from-parks-plazas#ixzz12LFOSost), passed by a margin of 36-12 at a Council meeting Wednesday (http://www.dnainfo.com/20110201/manhattan/council-vote-on-parks-plaza-smoking-ban).


Proponents argued that the ban would protect New Yorkers from harmful second-hand smoke (http://www.dnainfo.com/20100915/manhattan/city-smoking-ban-extend-parks-beaches) as well as limit unsightly cigarette butts in parks and on beaches.


"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 in a statement. "By voting to prohibit smoking in all 1,700 City parks and 14 miles of beaches, the City Council will help us protect more New Yorkers from the harmful effects of second-hand smoke."


City Council Speaker Christine Quinn, who co-sponsored the bill, agreed.


"The statistics don’t lie: second hand smoke kills. With this bill, all New Yorkers can now breathe easier and breathe cleaner air," she said.


But smokers and smoking rights’ advocates slammed the bill as an infringement of their freedom.


"There is absolutely no supportable evidence that anybody is being hurt by smoke outdoors. It’s not a public health campaign. It’s a public hate campaign,"


Audrey Silk, the founder of Citizens Lobbying Against Smoker Harassment said following the vote.


She also warned lawmakers to expect clashes (http://www.dnainfo.com/20101014/manhattan/city-council-debate-smoking-ban-parks-pedestrian-plazas).


"There’s only one response to this and it is only civil disobedience," Silk said.


Upper Manhattan City Councilman Robert Jackson, one of two Manhattan Council members who voted against the ban, said he thought the bill went too far.


"He understands the health aspects and he also understands the civil liberties issue," spokeswoman Sarah Morgridge said. "In the end he just thought it was just a little too paternalistic a step for the city to be taking."



Read more: http://www.dnainfo.com/20110202/manhattan/city-council-snuffs-out-smoking-parks#ixzz1CqrEntNn

lofter1
February 2nd, 2011, 08:14 PM
Under the new rules, smokers will be barred from smoking cigarettes in the city's 1,700 parks as well as on beaches, near pools, and in city squares. Smoking will still be allowed on sidewalks as well as on pedestrian routes running through parks. Violators will be met with $50 fines.

So they can fine me if I'm in the old street bed in Times Square, but if I'm on the sidewalk there then it's not illegal?

Doesn't that undercut their entire point that the second hand smoke is so deadly that it must be outlawed?

Ninjahedge
February 3rd, 2011, 08:05 AM
Healthy jaywalkers lofter.


The only part in this I agree with is on the beach. Having that large an ashtray is too tempting for some not to grind out or toss it into the sand.


NJ has had smokeless beaches for years. They all just go to the boardwalk.....

ZippyTheChimp
February 3rd, 2011, 10:16 AM
Smoking will still be allowed...on pedestrian routes running through parks.So what does this mean; you can smoke on any park pathway?

Where is it forbidden - on the grass; in the trees; in the shrubs?

lofter1
February 3rd, 2011, 10:28 AM
The regulations seem unclear. Can you smoke on the overlook at Bethesda Terrace but not on the Terrace itself? How about Bow Bridge? And what about the esplanade in Hudson River Park?

If smoking is the civil evil that the politicians claim it is then they should outlaw it. But what would the government do without the massive taxes that cigarette sales bring in?

BBMW
February 3rd, 2011, 12:05 PM
I don't know why they just don't get it over with, and just ban all smoking in public. That's where this is going anyway.

I'm of two minds about this. I don't smoke, and do appreciate not getting gassed walking behind someone who is, and I don't smell like smoke when I've been to a bar any more. On the other hand, I think a lot of this is the government just getting to intrusive, especially as far as banning smoking on private property.

Radiohead
February 3rd, 2011, 04:10 PM
I don't smoke anymore, but I'd like to light up a giant stogie, inhale deep and blow it right in King Bloomberg's face. I wish the city would ban fascist, nanny-state politicians instead.

Pass the salt, please.

lofter1
February 3rd, 2011, 06:14 PM
I don't drive or take buses and I don't appreciate the fumes and stuff those vehicles leave in their wake. But I'm not calling for banning them from along the sidewalks.

Bloomberg as he sees himself these days ...

12083

Ninjahedge
February 7th, 2011, 12:25 PM
Loft, while I agree with your statement, and disagree with the current law coming through, I still have to discredit your analogy a bit....


A car or a bus has some other purpose. You do not start them just to get them to produce fumes. A similar analogy was made between cars and guns, saying cars are just as deadly, if not moreso than guns.

The basic incongruity in both is that the primary purpose of teh vehicle is an enabler for many otehr things and cannot be directly compared.

In all fairness, though, there ARE laws on exhaust content and idle time on the books. So even the things that serve mankind more directly have limitations imposed on them for interest in the health of the city and the people in it.

lofter1
February 7th, 2011, 12:40 PM
You saying that cigarettes have no purpose? What about the Pursuit of Happiness and all that???


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5AfCVH4qgjY

A more colorful view:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNN0L2UoPvQ

And for extra measure: Guns, A Girl and A Good Smoke ...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3WVEeDWuWE

Ninjahedge
February 8th, 2011, 07:53 AM
Uh huh.


Riiiiiiiiiight.

Merry
February 8th, 2011, 07:34 PM
Smoke gets up landlord's nose in court

In far-reaching decision, court rules that landlords must address tenant's second-hand smoke concerns or face consequences such as broken leases and rent reductions.

By Amanda Fung

A bedbug invasion isn't the only thing that New York City landlords have to worry about; smoking tenants may also become a major problem.

Last week, a District Court judge in Nassau County ruled that an Upper East Side tenant could break her lease and pay reduced rent because she had complainted about a neighbor's cigarette smoking and the landlord failed to take appropriate action to alleviate the second-hand smoke. The ruling was the first of its kind because most smoking-related matters between landlords and tenants do not go to trial, experts said.

In this particular case, landlord Upper East Lease Associates sued a tenant for roughly $12,000 in unpaid rent. The tenant claimed that she had complained about second-hand smoke in her apartment and was fed up so she vacated her unit at 215 E. 96th St. with four months left on her lease. She had stopped paying rent two months before she moved out.

“When a tenant's smoking results in an intrusion of second-hand smoke into another tenant's apartment, and that tenant complains repeatedly, the landlord runs a financial risk if it fails to take appropriate action. This case involves such a situation,” said the court ruling. “The landlord's failure to take appropriate action, over a period of several months, to rectify a second-hand smoke nuisance, justifies rent abatement, and excuses the tenant from any obligation to pay rent after her constructive eviction.”

While the landlord can appeal the decision, it is unlikely because the cost of litigation is more than the actual money sought in the suit, according to observers.

“I'm not happy with the decision,” said Jeffrey Maidenbaum of the law firm of Maidenbaum & Associates, who represented the landlord. “… I do feel like we won the battle but lost the war,” he said, adding that while the judge ruled in favor of the landlord by requiring the tenant to pay at least some abated rent for the two months she skipped, the rent lost from the remaining time on the lease cancelled that out.

While there won't likely be an avalanche of similar cases, tenants will begin to use second-hand smoke as an offensive measure against landlords, said Stuart Berg, a partner at Kurzman Eisenberg Corbin & Lever. “Landlords should take notice and start modifying leases to become stricter in terms of who to lease apartments to.”

For co-ops, it may become a trickier situation. Mr. Berg is working with two co-ops in the city now, where the co-op boards are requiring smoking tenants to install ventilation or air filters in the apartment. Dealing with the issue is a little bit harder in co-ops because they have to vote and amend co-op bylaws. “It is easier for non-co-op residential landlords to deal with it by modifying leases and not permitting smoking in the apartment,” he said. “Co-ops do not have that flexibility.”

CLARIFICATION: A District Court judge in Nassau County ruled that a tenant could break her lease and pay reduced rent because her landlord failed to take action to alleviate second-hand smoke. The judge was unclear in an earlier version of this article.

http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20110208/REAL_ESTATE/110209883

MidtownGuy
February 8th, 2011, 07:59 PM
Apparently too much second hand smoke is passing through solid walls and putting a killer haze over Central Park.

Merry
February 11th, 2011, 05:23 AM
How Long Before You Can't Smoke in Your Apartment?

By Matt Chaban

First they came for the bars, then they came for the parks. Now it could even become harder for New Yorkers to smoke in their apartments.

Residents have long had to worry about their neighbors smoking, and landlords were often held to account, but never before had a case been brought in court over the matter until last month. Now, a judge in Nassau County has ruled that a renter in an Upper East Side apartment building had cause to break her lease, according to Crain's.

While this was an isolated matter, and the case was largely a matter of six months' unpaid rent, at least one expert believes it could have more far-reaching repurcussions.
While there won't likely be an avalanche of similar cases, tenants will begin to use secondhand smoke as an offensive measure against landlords, said Stuart Berg, a partner at Kurzman Eisenberg Corbin & Lever. "Landlords should take notice and start modifying leases to become stricter in terms of who to lease apartments to."

For co-ops, it may become a trickier situation. Mr. Berg is working with two co-ops in the city now, where the co-op boards are requiring smoking tenants to install ventilation or air filters in the apartment. Dealing with the issue is a little bit harder in co-ops because they have to vote and amend co-op bylaws. "It is easier for non-co-op residential landlords to deal with it by modifying leases and not permitting smoking in the apartment," he said.

"Co-ops do not have that flexibility."
Harsh!

And with talk now circulating about banning smoking out front of buildings, pretty soon the only place left for New York smokers will be inside their cars.

http://www.observer.com/2011/real-estate/how-long-you-cant-smoke-your-apartment-0

Merry
February 21st, 2011, 05:19 AM
NYC debates wisdom of planned ban on smoking at parks, beaches

By Cristian Salazar

NEW YORK, N.Y. — The smokers of New York huddle in phone booths, hurry down cold streets and hover at office-building doorways during breaks, puffs of smoke giving them away.

They are an endangered breed. Their numbers shrinking through loss of habitat, come summer they will have even fewer places to light up as a ban on smoking in parks, beaches and public plazas goes into effect — including Central Park and swaths of tourist-packed Times Square.

Smokers have yielded as places to puff have diminished over the years, but many of them and even some nonsmokers are saying the city has gone too far this time. Health experts disagree on the hazards of a whiff of smoke outdoors, and critics argue cigarette smoke is just one of many nuisances to contend with in a crowded city. They also question whether the city is trampling on civil liberties.

"I think they're getting too personal," said Monica Rodriguez, smoking at a phone booth near a pedestrian plaza south of Times Square. "I don't think it's OK. They're taking away everyone's privileges."

Even actress and TV host Whoopi Goldberg spoke out against the ban on national television, noting shortly after the City Council approved the ban that inhaling exhaust fumes from the city's fleet of taxis and buses isn't exactly healthy, either.

"There should be a designated place, and I'm tired of being treated like some damn criminal," said the co-host of ABC's "The View" during the show's Feb. 3 broadcast. "If they're really worried about the smell in the air, give us electric buses, give us electric cars, and then I'll understand."

The city health commissioner, Thomas A. Farley, said the ban is aimed at protecting the most vulnerable, such as asthma sufferers who are susceptible to respiratory attacks from exposure to secondhand smoke. He also said children who might pick up smoking after seeing adults with lit cigarettes. It's also meant to reduce litter.

But most of all, he said, it was about ensuring that the city's 14 miles (22.5 kilometres) of beach and more than 1,000 parks were free of the nuisance and open to all.

"Parks and beaches are special places that anybody should enjoy," he told The Associated Press in a recent interview.

The City Council approved the bill Feb. 2; the mayor has 20 days to sign it. A separate bill that would have set aside smoking areas in parks did not pass.

Those who break the law could face fines of $50 per violation. But instead of active enforcement, the city will rely on signs and social pressure, said Jessica Scaperotti, a spokeswoman for Bloomberg.

"We expect that this will be primarily self-enforcing," she said. "There is a lot of public support."

She pointed to a 2009 Zogby poll commissioned by the New York City Coalition for a Smoke-Free City that surveyed 1,002 residents over landline phones and showed that 65 per cent supported a smoking ban in parks and beaches.

The measure continues a nearly decade-long effort under the mayor, a smoker-turned-anti-tobacco crusader, to reduce smoking through public policy.

The cornerstone of his administration's strategy has been an indoor smoking ban in all workplaces, including bars and restaurants. In 2010, the city issued 85 violations to bars and clubs that flouted the ban, the Health Department said.

The city has also tried to snuff out smoking by raising taxes on cigarettes, helping the price of a pack soar to $11 or more; through a public education campaign that has featured grisly images of diseased lungs; and by offering free nicotine patch kits for smokers to help them quit.

The Health Department argues that its tobacco-control strategy saved an estimated 6,300 lives between 2002 and 2009, mostly from a reduction in cardiovascular and respiratory diseases, as well as cancer. The smoking rate dropped 27 per cent during the same period.

But the department says smoking continues to be the city's leading cause of preventable death. A city study published in 2009 found that residents are exposed to more secondhand smoke than the national average, he said.

The hazards of secondhand smoke are well-documented. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says there is no safe level of exposure. But how secondhand smoke contributes to environmental hazards outdoors is an emerging area of study.

Dr. Michael Siegel, an expert on the public health effects of smoking who testified in support of the city's indoor smoking ban, said science may not support the idea of smoke-free beaches and parks.

"I disagree that there is a scientific basis for banning smoking in wide open outdoor spaces where people can easily avoid exposure," said Siegel, who works in Boston, where the City Council is proposing a similar ban. "Some of the health groups have been exaggerating the evidence."

In one of the few published studies on outdoor tobacco smoke, scientists at Stanford University said in a 2007 paper that smoking outdoors might be considered a "hazard" or "nuisance," including when "eating dinner with a smoker at a sidewalk cafe, sitting next to a smoker on a park bench, or standing near a smoker outside a building."

"If one is upwind from a smoker, levels most likely will be negligible," the authors wrote.
With such strict bans, the tobacco-control movement may be in danger of losing its credibility, Siegel said.

"The public is going to just think of us as these zealots who want to ban smoking everywhere," he said. "It's going to make it even harder to pass legitimate smoking regulations in states that don't currently have them."

The American Nonsmokers' Rights Foundation counted more than 450 municipalities with policies of smoke-free parks and more than 200 with smokeless beaches, including Los Angeles.

And there are signs that anti-smoking ordinances could get tougher in the future, with some communities extending bans into private homes, especially apartment buildings where secondhand smoke can permeate into other units.

In New York City, especially during the summer, places like Times Square and Central Park get packed with humanity, making exposure to secondhand smoke a distinct possibility.

On a recent winter day in Bryant Park, in midtown Manhattan, a few hardy souls braving the cold gave the ban a mixed review.

Katie Geba, 19, said a smoke-free park would be a blessing.

"I don't like the smell of it," said the college student, reading a book at a table in a patch of sunlight. "At the same time, (the ban) infringes on your right to do what you want to do."

Monika Solich, 31, of Queens, said she could understand banning smoking in enclosed spaces like bars and restaurants. "But this is an open space," she said, incredulous, as she sat at a table, smoking a Marlboro and sipping coffee.

"I mean, what's next? Ridiculous. Where are they going to ban next?" she said. "There should at least be an area for smokers where we can smoke."

http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5iAB-lAvqiDJp9Dns9LdF3I-G_i2g?docId=6018869

Ninjahedge
February 21st, 2011, 08:45 AM
"There should be a designated place, and I'm tired of being treated like some damn criminal," said the co-host of ABC's "The View" during the show's Feb. 3 broadcast. "If they're really worried about the smell in the air, give us electric buses, give us electric cars, and then I'll understand."

When a cig can get you cross-town (and no, not as payment) then we can make this comparison.

I agree that the restrictions are getting a bit tough, but ill-fitting analogies and associations just confuse the issue. Don't point to another and say "Well, people are being killed in XXX and all you are worrying about is second hand smoke?".

Restrict some areas in the park, like amphitheaters and the like, where people gather. Leave the rest alone. As for beaches? NJ and others have done this for years with no real problem. It helps keep the butts off the beach. Also, it isn't like most people work right on the beach and have nowhere else to go.....

Are these proposals just the first round (looking for compromise) or are they 100% serious with this?

lofter1
February 22nd, 2011, 04:37 PM
Butts Out: Mayor Bloomberg Signs Outdoor Smoking Ban Into Law

DNA Info (http://www.dnainfo.com/20110222/manhattan/mayor-expected-sign-outdoor-smoking-ban-tuesday)
February 22, 2011

CITY HALL — No ifs, ands or butts — Manhattan smokers will soon be barred from lighting up in the city's public outdoor spaces.

Mayor Michael Bloomberg signed the city's controversial extension of the current smoking ban to include 1,700 parks, 14 miles of beaches and public plazas like Times Square Tuesday afternoon. The law is set to go into effect in the spring and violators will be subject to $50 fines.

"Creating smoke-free parks and beaches makes sense for many reasons," Bloomberg said during the bill signing ceremony at City Hall, arguing that the ban will not only save residents from the harm of second-hand smoke, but also keep city parks and beaches clean of cigarette butt litter.

"If we can protect our children from the dangers of smoking, we can raise an entire generation of New Yorkers who are free from the dangers of nicotine addiction," he said.
Health Commissioner Dr. Thomas Farley described the new law as "a groundbreaking and courageous step."

"Soon, parents will be able to take their children to the park without having to give them a lesson in how to smoke," he said.

The mayor, who strongly endorsed the bill, had sent confusing signals in recent weeks when he said that authorities would not actually enforce the ban.

"The police will not be enforcing this. That's not going to be their job," Bloomberg said on his WOR-AM radio show Feb. 11, according to the Daily News. "This is going to be enforced by public pressure."

In fact, the onus for enforcing the legislation lies in the hands of the city's parks department and transportation department workers, according to the bill.

But for many city smokers, the measure goes too far.

"It's a little too extreme," said Sheldon Rand, 73, of the Upper West Side, who prefers Monte Cristo cigars to cigarettes. "I'm in favor of bars and buildings, not the parks and beaches."

Upper Manhattan City Councilman Robert Jackson, one of two Manhattan council members who voted against the ban, agreed with Rand's assessment, according to a spokeswoman.

"He understands the health aspects and he also understands the civil liberties issue," the spokeswoman Sarah Morgridge told DNAinfo after the bill passed the city council. "In the end he just thought it was just a little too paternalistic a step for the city to be taking."

Councilwoman Rosie Mendez, who also voted against the ban, said she felt the bill would infringe on the civil liberties of those who choose to smoke.

She also told Midtown's Community Board 5 earlier this month that she feared enforcement would selectively target minorities and youth.

In addition to the smoking ban, the mayor also signed bills that will require the NYPD to publish bicycle and car crash data online, including deaths, injuries and moving violations.

Copyright © 2009 - 2011 Digital Network Associates dba DNAinfo.com

lofter1
February 22nd, 2011, 04:44 PM
NYC's Anti-Smoking Brigade:

Parks Enforcement Patrol (http://www.nycgovparks.org/sub_about/parks_divisions/urban_park_service/pep.html)

The same gang in green who screwed things up by arresting artists at the High Line (http://www.sohojournal.com/content/artists-highline-arrested-illegally-vending-though-it-legal) and tackling (http://www.downtownexpress.com/de_406/batteryparkcity.html) one unfortunate dog owner (http://www.dnainfo.com/20110131/downtown/fight-with-parks-officer-leaves-battery-park-city-resident-psych-ward) in BPC.

Merry
February 25th, 2011, 04:31 AM
Citizens Lobbying Against Smoker Harassment

:rolleyes: They just don't and won't get it.


Now in Brooklyn, Homegrown Tobacco: Local, Rebellious and Tax Free

By MANNY FERNANDEZ

The cigarettes Audrey Silk used to smoke — Parliament Lights — are made at a factory in Richmond, Va. The cigarettes she smokes these days are made and grown in Brooklyn, at her house.

Ms. Silk’s backyard is home to raspberry and rose bushes, geraniums, impatiens and 100 tobacco plants in gardening buckets near her wooden deck. Inside her house, around the corner from Flatbush Avenue, in Marine Park, she has to be careful stepping into her basement — one wrong move could ruin her cigarettes. Dozens of tobacco leaves hang there, drying on wires she has strung across the room, where they turn a crisp light brown as they age above a stack of her old Springsteen records.

She talks about cartons and packs in relation to crops and seeds. Planted in 2009, her first crop— 25 plants of Golden Seal Special Burley tobacco — produced nine cartons of cigarettes. Ms. Silk would have spent more than $1,000 had she bought nine cartons in parts of New York City. Instead, she spent $240, mostly for the trays, the buckets and plant food.

But for Ms. Silk, 46, a retired police officer and the founder of New York City Clash (Citizens Lobbying Against Smoker Harassment (http://www.nycclash.com/)), a smokers’ rights group, it is not just about the money. It is about the message. In the state with the highest cigarette taxes in the country, in a city that has become one of the hardest places in America to find a place to smoke, Ms. Silk has gone off the grid, growing, processing and smoking her own tax-free cigarettes from packets of seeds she buys online for about $2. She expects to produce a total of 45 cartons after planting two crops — the first in the summer of 2009, the second last summer — and estimates that she will have saved more than $5,000.

“It’ll make the antismokers apoplectic,” said Ms. Silk. “They’re using the power of taxation to coerce behavior. That’s not what taxation is supposed to be for.”

There are no federal, state or city laws prohibiting New Yorkers from growing tobacco at home for personal consumption. Still, Ms. Silk has kept her homegrown tobacco a secret for the most part since she planted the first crop, though she has offered cigarettes to her boyfriend and a few neighbors. This month, however, she changed her position on keeping quiet, after the City Council approved a bill banning smoking at parks, beaches and pedestrian plazas.

“The only way we’re going to win now, since you can’t reason with the irrational, which is the City Council or any lawmakers,” Ms. Silk said, “is you have to take the position of giving them the finger.”

Though she has become more vocal about her tobacco, she remains apprehensive. She said that she worried that antismoking advocates and the Bloomberg administration, which pushed to ban smoking in restaurants and bars, would make homegrown tobacco their next target. “We fear that the antismokers are so hysterical that if they start finding that people are doing this, they would craft a law to make it illegal,” Ms. Silk said.

“I’m waiting for the black helicopters to start flying over my yard.”

Jim Johnson, the president of Seedman.com, the company based in Mississippi that supplied Ms. Silk with her seeds, was not surprised to learn that the Golden Seal tobacco had done well in the Brooklyn sunshine. He said that tobacco would grow anywhere there were about 100 frost-free nights, and that he even had customers in Alaska. Mr. Johnson said tobacco was “a very tough, resilient plant.”

If there are other New York City smokers growing tobacco at home, they appear to be keeping it to themselves. Ms. Silk does not know anyone else in the city who does so. But they are out there: Mr. Johnson estimated that last year, he had more than 1,000 tobacco-seed customers in the New York City region.

Ms. Silk sat in the house she shared with Bingo, her dog, and Albert, her parrot, and pulled a cigarette from a Parliament Lights pack. “Don’t let this fool you,” she said. “I put my roll-your-owns in here. I just saved all my old Parliament boxes.”

Ms. Silk was smoking loose tobacco she had bought. She is in a lull in production: she finished smoking her first crop and has been too busy to prepare her second. The delay works to her advantage. “If I want a better flavor,” she said, “the longer I can leave it, the better it is.”

Growing tobacco saves Ms. Silk money, but costs her time.

She has to plant the virtually microscopic seeds in trays indoors and then, weeks later, transplant them to buckets outside. She waters the plants daily until they grow to be about five feet tall, with big leaves that droop from the stem. “Like elephant ears,” Ms. Silk said of the leaves. “That’s why, when people joke around and say, ‘They’re going to think you’re growing pot,’ I’m like: ‘I’m sorry. There’s no one mistaking this for pot.’ ”

Then there is the processing: washing leaves in her kitchen sink, drying them over the downstairs tub, hanging them in the basement, storing some in boxes she keeps in a walk-in closet, removing the middle vein from each leaf, forming bricks out of about 25 leaves and feeding those bricks into a hand-crank machine for shredding. After planting her 2009 crop, Ms. Silk had to wait several months before smoking her first cigarette from it. The authorities, she added, should not be concerned that she might be illegally selling her cigarettes.

“I make meatballs,” Ms. Silk said, by way of explanation. “My recipe is a four-hour ordeal. My biggest loved ones do not get any. When I have to put a lot of work into something, I don’t share.”

The 100 plants from her second crop are not much to look at now: mostly bare stems standing upright in the cold. Still, her Brooklyn tobacco is a source of pride, as both a green-thumb accomplishment and a political statement. She has even named her garden in honor, or dishonor, of someone important in her life: not her boyfriend, her dog or her parrot, but her mayor.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/25/nyregion/25tobacco.html?_r=1&ref=nyregion

Ninjahedge
February 25th, 2011, 02:00 PM
Completely unrelated.

I have no problem with her growing her own, the tax is just a way to try to discourage an unhealthy habit and help pay for the medical care many cannot afford later (or, rather, it SHOULD be for that). The only problem comes in if she actually sells her crop. Then the taxes should apply.

But what this has to do with smoking in public places and why she is now "revealing her secret" is beyond me. The only connection being smoking and rules involving it.

People will associate the strangest things sometimes because they "feel" they relate when they really don't....

Merry
February 25th, 2011, 06:53 PM
^ Futile protest. She's right, it IS about the "message", the message being that smoking is bad for us all, and second-hand smoke is bloody annoying for non-smokers, and we've put up with it for far too long. Smokers relinquish their "rights" when they inflict their disgusting habit on others and violate others' rights. She's delusional if she thinks politicians tax cigarettes with a view to protecting people's health and/or reducing smoking.


... founder of New York City Clash (Citizens Lobbying Against Smoker Harassment (http://www.nycclash.com/)), a smokers’ rights group, it is not just about the money. It is about the message.

“It’ll make the antismokers apoplectic,” said Ms. Silk. “They’re using the power of taxation to coerce behavior. That’s not what taxation is supposed to be for.”

Merry
February 25th, 2011, 09:07 PM
Bus Line Butts Out

By MICHAEL HOWARD SAUL

Three days after signing into law a major expansion of New York City's smoking ban to parks, beaches and pedestrian plazas, Mayor Michael Bloomberg found another place he'd support barring smokes: bus stops.

On his weekly radio show, Mr. Bloomberg responded affirmatively when a caller asked whether he would consider expanding the ban to include bus stops.

"Well, personally, I couldn't agree with you more," the mayor, a former smoker, told the caller. "I don't want to stand downwind of somebody smoking because the smoke kills you."

Mr. Bloomberg said if the public demands a ban on smoking at bus stops, city government may take up the cause, as he said it did when New Yorkers urged the newly passed ban on beaches and parks. That law will take effect May 23.

"If there's a big outcry for bus stops, that's the ways to get it done," Mr. Bloomberg said.

"I think that if you're smoking near somebody, you should have some common sense and make sure you're not upwind of them."

While the mayor appeared open to the idea, City Council Speaker Christine Quinn is not.

"The speaker is not open at this time to this particular idea of limiting smoking at bus stops," said Maria Alvarado, Ms. Quinn's spokeswoman. "People should, however, be mindful and sensitive to others around them when smoking in areas like bus stops."

Audrey Silk, a retired NYPD officer and founder of Citizens Lobbying Against Smoker Harassment, a smokers' rights group, said she isn't surprised by the mayor's remarks. "They're incrementalists—when you let them have one space, they're coming for the next space."

"Our homes being next," she said, pointing out that when a bus rolls up its tailpipe is at stroller height. "It's a public persecution policy."

Another caller on the mayor's radio show, who appeared opposed to the ban on smoking in parks, asked the mayor what he thought John Lennon of the Beatles would think of the smoking ban in Central Park.

"Well, I don't know," the mayor said. "We could probably ask Paul McCartney."

The mayor noted that many more people smoked years ago than they do now. "The world has changed," he said. "So, what John Lennon might have thought then maybe different than what he thinks today."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704150604576166630744421782.html?m od=googlenews_wsj

Ninjahedge
February 28th, 2011, 12:35 PM
Again comparing Busses to smoking.

When a pack of ciggs can get 40 people across town by jumping in, then we can talk about the bad effects of its emmissions.

Until then, protest for electric or more hybrid busses and don't try to use them to let you smoke where you want.


BTW, 90% of the people do not think of health when someone smokes upwind of them. They think they are going to smell like crap. 30 seconds downwind of a co-worker smoking outside when I was talking with him and my hair and coat smelled like an ashtray the rest of the day (6 hours later!).

If someone invents a truly smokeless smoke (not like inhaling pharmeceutical vapors or something) then maybe we can all get along. But until that happens, with this many people in this small a place, someone is going to step on someone elses toes.

lofter1
February 28th, 2011, 12:48 PM
How would anyone actually smoke "downwind" of everyone else in NYC? In the middle of Manhattan there's always going to be someone nearby & upwind. And it's not like the air in Manhattan only moves in one direction.

Ninjahedge
February 28th, 2011, 02:12 PM
I was thinking that too.

But what does it matter if the whole position seems to be base on something that people really do not stand to have too much risk because of.


"I don't want to stand downwind of somebody smoking because the smoke kills you."


This is not like a bar or workplace where you will be breathing it 8-12 hours a day (YMMV).

Merry
March 8th, 2011, 06:25 AM
The Long-Lost Smoke Ban

By MICHAEL HOWARD SAUL

When a caller to Mayor Michael Bloomberg's radio show urged City Hall last month to prohibit smoking at bus stops, the mayor signaled he would support such a ban while the City Council speaker voiced opposition.

Now, the Bloomberg administration is asserting that the New York City Smoke-Free Air Act—a bill Speaker Christine Quinn sponsored and Mr. Bloomberg signed into law on Dec. 30, 2002—already bans smoking at bus stops in the five boroughs.

"You can smoke on the sidewalk, but if you're in a line waiting for transportation, you do have the right as a citizen to say it's against the law to smoke here," said Susan Craig, a spokeswoman for the city's Department of Health & Mental Hygiene.

A spokeswoman for the council, Maria Alvarado, said council lawyers disagree with the administration's interpretation of the law. The council contends that it never intended to ban smoking at bus stops, she said, and the law does not actually do so.

In city government, it is the administration that is responsible for enforcing the law, and Ms. Craig said the administration stands by its interpretation.

The legislation, which banned smoking in restaurants and bars as of March 30, 2003, said smoking is prohibited in any waiting area or service line, both indoors and outdoors, during times in which the public is invited.

According to Ms. Craig, that means it would be illegal to smoke, for example, while in line for a movie ticket or while in line for a hot dog from a street vendor.

The law also specifically bars smoking in public transportation facilities, including ticketing, boarding and waiting areas of public transit depots.

Last month, Jessica Scaperotti, a spokeswoman for the mayor, said city law permitted smoking at bus stops, but after she was shown specific sections of the legislation she confirmed that bus stops were, indeed, among the prohibited areas for smoking.

Ms. Scaperotti refused to comment further, forwarding inquiries to Ms. Craig, who declined to comment when asked why the mayor did not know he signed a law barring smoking at bus stops.

Audrey Silk, who leads a smoking rights' group, said Mr. Bloomberg's and Ms. Quinn's failure to remember what their legislation covers demonstrates the out-of-control nature of their anti-smoking crusade.

"They have bans they don't even remember they have," she said via email. "It makes their bans an act of maliciousness at the moment it was proposed and enacted because it's obviously not important enough to remember. Nothing more than another pot-shot at the hated."

Last month, the mayor signed into a law an expansion of the smoking ban, prohibiting smoking at parks, beaches, marinas and pedestrian plazas. The law takes effect May 23.
Ms. Craig said the law covering bus stops is "largely self-enforced." But the city does have the right to issue citations, she said.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704623404576187051014215960.html

Ninjahedge
March 8th, 2011, 07:55 AM
Amazing that we need laws for things that should be common courtesy.

Is there a law to prevent you from kicking your neighbors dog, or do we need that to be next on the docket?

Fabrizio
March 8th, 2011, 08:56 AM
Try kicking your neighbor's dog and let's see if there are any laws against it.

Dogs are allowed to smoke however, but only if they're playing poker.

Ninjahedge
March 8th, 2011, 09:56 AM
Possibly animal cruelty or property damage, but not something that is easily prosecuted w/o proof (a badly bruised dog, for instance).

Point being, the law itself seems to be a nanny clause. It is getting pickier and pickier.....

lofter1
March 8th, 2011, 11:17 AM
... Dogs are allowed to smoke however, but only if they're playing poker.

:)

Merry
March 17th, 2011, 08:18 AM
Smoking Bans Hitting Home

By CRAIG KARMIN

New York has been taking an increasingly tough stance toward smoking, but virtually all residential buildings have drawn the line at telling people they can't smoke in their own apartments.

That may be changing. At least half a dozen Manhattan co-ops are expected to ask shareholders during annual meetings this spring to vote on an all-out smoking ban that would prohibit residents from lighting up in their own homes, real estate attorneys say.

Another dozen co-op or condo buildings are considering such a vote.

New York City already prohibits smoking in public areas at any building with at least 10 apartments. Attorneys say a number of recent developments have encouraged some buildings to pursue a total prohibition. These include growing concerns over secondhand smoke, the city's recent decision to slap smoking restrictions on parks and other public areas, and fears that residents will sue each other—or the building—over smoking disputes.

"At every single board meeting we get complaints about smoke and people asking us when will the board do something," says Steven Michaelson, president of an Upper East Side condominium that is holding a vote soon on banning all smoking.

Some boards, like Mr. Michaelson's, are putting it to a vote again after a previous effort to ban all smoking failed. Others, like shareholders at a Sutton Place co-op, are considering a vote for the first time.

The issue can pit neighbors against each other, and not always along the lines of their taste for nicotine.

Younger residents who grew up in smoke-free public environments tend to be more anti-smoking than older residents. Condo buyers who bought as an investment often oppose a ban, reluctant to limit their pool of renters and fearful they could get stuck with fines if their tenants get caught puffing.

"It's the one topic, aside from bedbugs, that all co-op boards are talking about," says Aaron Shmulewitz, a Manhattan real-estate attorney.

The city's health department says only about 16% of New Yorkers characterize themselves as smokers.

But there are still plenty of reasons why these bans might be tough to enact.

Most co-ops require at least two-thirds of all shares to vote in favor of a ban for it to pass, while condos may require three-quarters of all unit owners to approve a ban.

Some people think that enforcing an apartment ban would be difficult, while other homeowners are concerned that a smoking ban might reduce the property's value, says Jeff Reich, a real-estate attorney.

Many smokers—and some non-smokers—worry that it would go too far in infringing on privacy rights. "They feel that banning smoking from their homes impedes on their freedom," says Mr. Michaelson, the condo president.

A co-op at 200 E. 74th St. voted down a full smoking ban a couple of years ago, despite what one lawyer said was strong antismoker sentiment among many residents. Representatives of the building couldn't be reached for comment.

Some recent court decisions are helping to fuel the drive to ban smoking in apartment buildings.

In 2006, a civil court judge in Manhattan ruled that second-hand smoke could be a breach of "warranty of habitability" under state law. That led some attorneys to suggest that shareholders might be excused from paying maintenance fees if second-hand smoke permeates their apartment and they could sue their co-op for damages.

A couple who live at 200 Chambers St. are suing a neighbor for up to $25,000, plus fees and damages, saying their neighbor's smoke enters their apartment. Christian and Britt Ewen allege that the smoke caused health problems for them and their 3-year-old daughter, according to the complaint.

Ms. Ewen says they have to open the windows to dilute the smoke, which was a problem in the winter.

"We had to decide between getting sick from the cold or from the cigarette smoke," Ms. Ewen says.

A civil court denied the neighbor's motion to dismiss the case. He is appealing that decision.

Steven Sladkus was an attorney for the co-op board at Lincoln Towers in 2002 when the board voted to ban smoking in all units. The board quickly rescinded that ban after its insurance company balked at paying defense costs if the board was sued over the action, Mr. Sladkus says.

Some developers, meanwhile, have already instituted partial bans. Related Cos. owns two downtown and one Upper West Side residential rental properties where existing tenants can smoke in their apartments but new tenants cannot.

"We expect those buildings will be at least 97% smoke-free within three years," says Jeff Brodsky, president of Related Management. "And we could add new buildings that will be entirely smoke-free."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704662604576202811992479094.html?m od=rss_newyork_real_estate

Fabrizio
March 17th, 2011, 10:38 AM
Does lighting up a joint now and then count?

------------




A couple who live at 200 Chambers St. are suing a neighbor for up to $25,000, plus fees and damages, saying their neighbor's smoke enters their apartment. Christian and Britt Ewen allege that the smoke caused health problems for them and their 3-year-old daughter, according to the complaint.

Ms. Ewen says they have to open the windows to dilute the smoke, which was a problem in the winter.

"We had to decide between getting sick from the cold or from the cigarette smoke," Ms. Ewen says.

^ you just know these people are nuts.... if it's not the cigarette smoke it's going to be something else.

GordonGecko
March 17th, 2011, 10:54 AM
They should just look for ways to increase the fines for littering with butts.

Japan does not have this problem, and they have MANY MORE smokers than the states. The thing is, the people there seem to respect the rules more than we do.

If there is a smoking room (with vent) they go there. They do not light up in the doorway on their way outside, and they extinguish their butts on their heels and, if they can't find a can, PUT THE BUTT IN THEIR POCKET!

If we could accomplish the same, we would not need as many weird rules.

Do we need a few hundred years (more) of living this close together before we start respecting our bretheren the way the Japanese do?
I'm surprised, no shocked, that Bloomberg has not gone after littering in his decade in office. He's tackled quality of life issues like trans fats, smoking, street noise (sirens, dogs, 311 response teams etc..), calorie labels, salt content, traffic patterns, bike lanes, etc etc but absolutely nothing on one of the biggest problems - littering.

There are so many slobs on the streets and subways, cops should be issuing warnings and tickets to people who COMMONLY are seen dumping cups of liquids, bubble gum or emptying their pockets right on the sidewalk, etc. Cigarette Butts should be targeted at the same time

lofter1
March 17th, 2011, 11:34 AM
Cops should be issuing tickets, etc.: How?

Down where I live, there are two cops who do street duty. Residents have had meetings with the NYPD to find out how illegal vending, food carts, etc. can be controlled on the streets. Cops say they start at one end of the neighborhood and move through it. By the end of the day they've done their watch, and the illegals fill in after they pass.

NYPD doesn't have the manpower to write those tickets, or to show up in court if someone contest the violation.

Garbage is under the purview of Dept. of Sanitation. There are two garbage cans on our block, hardly adequate to contain the refuse from shoppers & eaters (let alone smokers -- who under the plan described above would actually require a separate street ash tray thing for the butts, since those butts shouldn't go in the garbage can for fear of fire). Best efforts to get more cops & garbage cans have proved futile. By 5PM the block is littered with garbage and shopkeepers don't have to sweep the sidewalk until the next morning.

GordonGecko
March 17th, 2011, 12:59 PM
One approach is to dedicate officers to littering enforcement. They could be nominated or volunteer assignments with new hires to fill their old beats. The positions would easily be paid for by the fines. 2 summons per hour of $50 each would be more than enough "quota" to cover costs and then some. Time could be divided into 4 days per week of enforcement and 1 day for court challenges

A full corner garbage can is no excuse to use the city as your garbage receptacle. But there is room for discretion here, a guy that dumps his trash next to a full garbage should be given more leniency than someone who throws his big mac wrapper in the street mid-block. The no-butts in the garbage argument doesn't wash at all, if you're going to smoke it's your responsibility to clean up after yourself

It seems to me this is exactly the type of quality of life challenge Bloomberg likes to go after

Ninjahedge
March 17th, 2011, 01:14 PM
Loft, one important contesting with your statement there.

Neither of us mean, when we speak of litter, of the overflowing baskets, although that is a problem (and I will address one thing that CAN be done later).

The problem is that "Its not my job" woman walking down the street crumpling the bank receipt or the wrapper to her ciggs or a used snot-rag at their feet while she is walking down the street.

THAT is unacceptable. THAT is a disregard for the cleanliness of the city.


Now, as for cans? That goes in so many ways. Fault is everywhere.

1. There are not enough cans
2. People throw out their HOME garbage in those cans and fill them much too quickly just because they do not want to have to follow someone else's schedule.
3. Even when cans overflow, it is not quite the same as when people indiscriminately litter.

So whatever. The prolem of litter is a big one with many contributing factors, but the piss-poor attitude of so many NYers on it is unforgivable. Can Bloomie really do anything about it? I don't think so. It is too general a problem and, as you said, requires too much manpower to do so.

So we are stuck with it, for now......

lofter1
March 17th, 2011, 04:08 PM
GG: Get this done. Go to meetings. Write the Mayor a letter. Will check back with you in six months to see how it is progressing. Good luck.

Merry
July 2nd, 2011, 05:04 AM
:D :D :D

http://s3.amazonaws.com/twitpic/photos/full/335235781.jpg?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAJF3XCCKACR3QDMOA&Expires=1309598309&Signature=qdlYbAi4i0IGC4%2FnvqacbVfDvx4%3D

NYC construction site. Wide open space. Tiny smoke zone. Funny if u don't smoke. Ridiculous if u do.

http://twitpic.com/5jl9l1

lofter1
November 25th, 2011, 09:58 AM
Little Mikey continues his war on one of his pet peeves (too bad he chooses to be so lenient & forgiving with those who practice more egregious insults to the law, especially amongst those in his field of business) ...

MAYOR BLOOMBERG ANNOUNCES SUIT AGAINST
"ROLL-YOUR-OWN" CIGARETTE BUSINESSES EVADING TAXES

Stores Claim to Neither Manufacture nor Sell Cigarettes, Yet Customers Walk Out of Stores with Finished Cigarettes without Paying Full Taxes

NEWS from the BLUE ROOM (http://www.nyc.gov/portal/site/nycgov/menuitem.c0935b9a57bb4ef3daf2f1c701c789a0/index.jsp?pageID=mayor_press_release&catID=1194&doc_name=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nyc.gov%2Fhtml%2Fom%2Fht ml%2F2011b%2Fpr418-11.html&cc=unused1978&rc=1194&ndi=1)
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
PR- 418-11
November 21, 2011

Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg announced today the filing of a lawsuit against Island Smokes LLC and Island Smokes III LLC, businesses that evade cigarette taxes by providing customers with loose tobacco, tubes of cigarette paper and access to machinery that instantly produces finished cigarettes for the customer onsite. These “roll-your-own” businesses sell cigarettes in disregard of tax and other regulatory statutes applicable to cigarettes, claiming that the business owners do not sell cigarettes, but merely “facilitate” the customers’ assembly of the cigarettes themselves. The City’s suit, filed in the Federal District Court for the Southern District of New York, charges that Island Smokes’ businesses in Manhattan and Staten Island, along with their owners and employees, violate the Federal Contraband Cigarette Trafficking Act and the New York State Cigarette Marketing Standards Act by selling cigarettes on which the required taxes have not been paid. The suit also alleges that the defendants cause a public nuisance by, among other things, selling cigarettes that have not been certified as “fire-safe” as required by New York State law.

“They are trying to get around the law by claiming they’re not in the business of selling cigarettes when they clearly are,” said Mayor Bloomberg. “Most businesses abide by the law, play by the rules and pay their taxes. We are not going to allow some businesses to skirt the law and we will ensure the playing field is level. They are cheating other businesses out of customers and attempting to illegally dilute one of our strongest smoking deterrents.”

“This suit is a powerful means to halt illegal cigarette production – and an important step in letting businesses know they can’t invent loopholes to skirt New York City’s tough laws,” said Corporation Counsel Michael A. Cardozo ...

stache
November 26th, 2011, 04:41 PM
OMG these guys seriously need a hobby.

ZippyTheChimp
July 11th, 2012, 02:05 PM
I haven't smoked cigarettes for a long time, but I was once addicted to them. It took me several attempts, one lasting six years when I thought I had it beat, to finally stop. I have friends that smoke and others that don't, and the issue never comes up. About having to go outside to light up, one of them said to me, "It's cut me down to about a quarter pack a day."

For a long time, I've been annoyed at those graphic anti-smoking ads on TV. Not because of the images. They don't bother me; I've seen worse in real life. It's the relentless brow-beating nature of the message. If you watch Yankee games on YES, you'll see these ads between innings, maybe a dozen or more a game. Wouldn't two be enough?

I was extremely happy to find out today about a federal appeals court ruling. I don't think it covers TV ads, but it's good to see the small mayor, the Nanny of New York, get a smack down.



Federal appeals court says NYC can’t scare smokers by requiring grotesque images at stores

By Associated Press, Published: July 10

NEW YORK — The city cannot try to scare smokers by requiring grotesque images of diseased lungs and decaying teeth at stores that sell cigarettes because the federal government gets to decide how to warn people about the dangers of smoking tobacco, an appeals court ruled Tuesday.

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan rejected a 2009 city Board of Health resolution requiring tobacco retailers to display signs bearing graphic images showing the adverse health effects of smoking.

Upholding a ruling by Judge Jed S. Rakoff in Manhattan, the appeals court said the resolution is pre-empted by the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act, enacted by Congress in 1965. It said letting local authorities require the posting of warnings near cigarette displays that are meant to supplement those already on boxes of cigarettes risks creating diverse, non-uniform and confusing regulations.

Richmond, Va.-based cigarette manufacturer Philip Morris USA, which had sued to block the poster requirement, said it was pleased with the court’s ruling.

“This suit has always been about who has the authority to regulate the content of cigarette warnings,” said attorney Murray Garnick, who was quoted in a statement speaking on behalf of Philip Morris USA. “That is a power reserved to the federal government without interference or additional efforts by state and local authorities.”

The city’s health department said the ruling was likely to reduce the number of smokers who quit.

“The city’s warning signs depicted the grisly toll of smoking and provided helpful information about how to quit at a place where smokers were most likely to see it,” the health department said in a statement. “Despite huge strides in combating smoking in New York City, tobacco remains the city’s number one killer and we remain committed to providing smokers with life-saving information and resources to overcome their addiction.”

The health department had produced three signs for retailers. One depicted an X-ray image of a cancerous lung over the warning: “Smoking Causes Lung Cancer.” The second showed a decaying, extracted tooth over the warning: “Smoking Causes Tooth Decay.” The third showed a brain with damaged tissue resulting from a stroke and was accompanied by the words: “Smoking Causes Stroke.”

The resolution was challenged by two cigarette retailers, two trade associations and three of the nation’s largest cigarette manufacturers, including Philip Morris. The city also has banned smoking in indoor workspaces, increased cigarette taxes, initiated educational campaigns and promoted smoking cessation programs.

When Rakoff ruled in December 2010, he wrote: “Even merchants of morbidity are entitled to the full protection of the law.”

He said the posters offered by the city contained “graphic, even gruesome images,” though he noted that one-third of smokers die of tobacco-related diseases and more people in New York die from smoking annually than from AIDS, homicide and suicide combined.

The appeals court made clear in its ruling that it did not believe every state or local regulation affecting promotion of cigarettes interferes with federal law. It said only those requirements or prohibitions directly affecting the content of the manufacturers’ promotional message to consumers can be blocked.

The 2nd Circuit said the city can launch its own anti-smoking campaigns but can’t require a manufacturer or retailer to display supplemental content at the point of purchase.

Copyright 2012 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

© The Washington Post Company

LeCom
July 11th, 2012, 03:52 PM
Let's also require posters of gruesome car accidents and gory crash scenes at every car dealership because car accidents are a high source of fatalities :rolleyes: