You have commented 340 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Home Front: Culture Wars
No more cigarette smoking in Times Square
2011-02-04
[Jerusalem Post Front Page] New York City's parks, beaches and even Times Square will be off-limits to smokers under one of the nation's toughest anti-cigarette laws passed Wednesday by the City Council.

"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 Nanny Bloomberg said after the 36-12 vote.

The smoking ban will cover 1,700 parks and 14 miles (23 kilometers) of public beaches plus boardwalks, marinas and pedestrian plazas like the one in the heart of Times Square. The ban goes into effect 90 days after Bloomberg signs the bill; the mayor has 20 days to do it.

States and cities from Maine to Caliphornia have banned smoking in public parks and beaches, but New York is pursuing one of the widest-reaching urban bans. Smoking is also prohibited in Los Angeles city parks and in Chicago parks with playgrounds.

Supporters of the New York ban said exposure to secondhand smoke poses health risks.

"The statistics don't lie: Secondhand smoke kills," Council Speaker Christine Quinn said. "With this bill, all New Yorkers can now breathe easier and breathe cleaner air."

A law banning smoking in New York City bars and restaurants went into effect in 2003.

Councilwoman Karen Koslowitz voted for the latest ban despite her ambivalence about earlier anti-smoking measures that forced her outdoors in bad weather when she was a smoker.

"My grandson used to tell me, 'Grandma, you're going to die,'" Koslowitz, now a nonsmoking legislator, said in announcing her vote.
Heh...nice kid.
Outside on Wednesday, the wet, raw winter weather didn't seem to bother Cal Johnson as he strolled through the park in front of City Hall, puffing on a cigarette.

"I guess I'll have to stop smoking in this park," said the 68-year-old retired Wall Street analyst when he was told of the anti-smoking vote.


However,
The infamous However...
"in principle, I support this ban on smoking -- even though I'm a smoker," said Johnson, adding he'll smoke on a nearby street where he lives once the new law kicks in.
Until they come for him there...
The expanded smoking ban will give the city's Parks Department the power to slap violators with quality-of-life summonses, which are tickets for minor offenses like begging or public urination that typically carry fines of under $100.
Yeah, they're big on enforcing that "begging" statute down there.
Just tell them you're a junkie. They'll give you a clean needle.

However,
The infamous However...
Councilwoman Gale Brewer, the bill's prime sponsor, said the ban isn't intended to be a legally "punitive program." She said the city expects the law will be primarily self-enforced, with residents warning anyone who lights a cigarette in a park or on a beach that it's illegal.
Oooh, I see lots of "do gooders" with expensive dental bills...or worse.
Police won't be responsible for enforcing it, she said.
Heh. So I guess I'll just fire one up then.
Smokers'-rights groups held protests against the ban after city officials announced last fall that they were pursuing it. And on Wednesday, some of the dozen council members who voted against it said they believed the ban violated individual freedoms. Councilman Erik Dilan called the ban "an infringement on the rights of people."
Posted by:Fred

#7  "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 "Nanny" Bloomberg said after the 36-12 vote.

Maybe the gigantic snow piles you've done such a great job of removing might even be melted by then...
Posted by: tu3031   2011-02-04 20:07  

#6  You want me to tell some muscle-bound bruiser of a junkie-pimp in Times Square that he can't smoke?

What're you, freakin' INSANE?
Posted by: mojo   2011-02-04 15:11  

#5  It is easier to do something like smoking bans outdoors than to reign in government spending and balance the budget. Fiddling while Rome burns, so to speak.
Posted by: Alaska Paul   2011-02-04 12:25  

#4  sit on a beach not littered with cigarette butts,"

How about sitting on a beach not strewn with morbidly obese butts in speedos? Cigarettes are still a legal product as is the "supersize" option on a fast food menu". Banning farting and fast food wrappers littered about would also enhance a trip to the beach.

"With this bill, all New Yorkers can now breathe easier and breathe cleaner air."

Oh for sure. Traffic in manhattan. Smokestacks still spewing here and there. Airports, trains, ships - none of these seem to concern the non-smoking holier than thou crowd. Heads up SoHo. Eliminating smokers in the great outdoors is not going to improve the quality of the air you breathe in NYC in any measurable way.

Are we to believe that banning smokers from Times Square will instantly and significantly lower air pollution?

Should they have chosen to ban smoking in public areas on the basis of influencing children, ok. But quality of outdoor air? Rubbish.
Posted by: swanimote   2011-02-04 12:18  

#3  Bloomberg is the Meddler in Chief in NYC. He also sent people from NYC to do an uncover study in Arizona with regards to gun shows sales. This guy has dictator aspirations. Progressives want to regulate everyone's behavior but their own.
Posted by: JohnQC   2011-02-04 12:01  

#2  She said the city expects the law will be primarily self-enforced...

Once again, we see the Progressive mindset in action. The concept of a self-enforcing law is a logical fallicy. There can only be self-enforced behavior. And behavior is motivated by an individuals natural inclinations. Conversely, laws are social mechanisms of deterance and control. Therefore, in order for the Progressive conclusion to be logical (as usual) there must be a redefinition of terms. And one must admit, "primarily self-enforced" seems more pallateble then to correctly describe it as an unfunded "selectivly enforced" symbolic law.
Posted by: DepotGuy   2011-02-04 11:34  

#1  I take exception at this for one simple reason which is the municipality first have to care about my health with regards to pollution and gas emissions that degrade my life and may even become the root cause of my death.
Smoking in the great outdoors is hardly measurable against those real tangible health hazards.

Let me also say that my neighbour smoked heavily since she was 6. She is now in her 80s and almost dead. Why is she almost dead? Because some modern thinking fuckwad doctor with a liberal agenda told her to quit smoking a year ago. She quit when in good health. Her body has had a toxic shock reaction without the nicotine. Go smoke if you want to.
My grandmother also ate lard throughout her life, loved it even, she died aged 91.
Posted by: kojack   2011-02-04 06:05  

00:00