New York = Orwellian? (No Smoking in Parks and Coastlines)

Remove all ads!

how do you know? there are thousands of road deaths every day not caused by alcohol pot and numerous other drugs, thats a massively sweeping statement.

the symptoms are directly related to the amount smoked, try smoking 80 a day and see how you feel.

the smokers Ive met and know are quite the opposit, the increase in heart rate makes your body 'speed up' as it were, many smokers are convinced that smoking calms then when it infact does quite the opposit, nicotine does nothing beneficial, there is no reason it should be legal it is simply a money pig.

 

A sweeping statement? Tell me how many newspaper headlines you have ever read that said "Smoker kills 4 in auto accident"? None. None. None. Now try reading the obituaries and tell me how many were killed yesterday from a drunk driver. You'll get some hits on that search. Again, thre is no comparison. You are not comapring apples for apples here Shoshino.

I can honestly say that I know not one person who smokes anywhere near 80 cigarettes a day. Most people I know that smoke don't even smoke a pack a day. Do the math....

 

I've said it before and I'll say it again. I lost my mother to cigarettes when I was 22. She has almost been out of my life longer than she was in it. She never met my wife, or my son. If I had any say in it I would make cigarettes only legal in the comfort of peoples homes and personal automobilies. If someone wants to kill themselves (sometimes slowly and sometimes quickly) that is their decision. When it has the possibility of affecting someone else then I would make it illegal.

I do not like walking into a building or a restaurant and having to walk past the smokers who need their fix. If I was in charge of my company I would ban smoking. Anyone leaving to go outside for a fix would be fired.

For disclosure purposes, I think Mayor Bloomberg is an ass, but on this issue I'm with him.

 

I am a non-smoker, but my family smokes so I guess I've built up more tolerance than a few others. Mind you, I can definitely get sick of the clouds I've experienced in a bar or two.

I concede that there are some people more sensitive than others so exceptions for places where people gather could be made, but I think a total ban on outside smoking goes too far.

 

The ban is for parks, coastlines and the times square.
LA has a ban in city parks, chicago has a ban in city parks and playgrounds.

This is not a total ban on smoking outside. It's a ban on smoking outside where there are either tight crowds or where a place is meant to be peaceful and beautiful for everyone. A place meant to be clean and comforting.

If a smoker can't visit a park or a beach without just *having* to light one up then they can leave the area. Nobody is forcing smokers to visit these places and be mocked in their nicotine restriced state.

 

I agree with the ban. As others have pointed out, just because the smoker is outside doesn't mean that their smoke is never an issue. I've often been stuck in a location outside where I've had little choice but to inhale the fumes. My younger brother has more of a problem than I do- the smoke makes his asthma worse, which I'm sure is pretty unpleasant.

Really? Odd, it fits in well with my idea of a free society. I certainly hope that something like that happens here.

Huh? What have newspaper headlines got to do with anything? Of course they are more likely to mention drunk drivers- it is illegal and condemned by most of society. Makes for better news than aggravating a significant portion of the readers by blaming smoking. Headlines are not, and should not, be a guide here. Consider the fact that distractions are a major cause of traffic accidents. Do you really think that smoking is distraction free? I'm not trying to claim that it is the most mentally challenging activity you could be engaging in, but I assume that I don't need to spell out how it could be a problem.

I'm not particularly interested in arguing Shisino's point either way, but you have missed his point here. The point was that symptoms increase proportionally to the number smoked, not that people actually smoking 80 a day are a problem. I believe that the figure of 80 was just picked to demonstrate his basic point.

And since you mentioned doing the maths, most people you know smoke under 20 a day. Do I have awesome maths skillz or what?

 

Decados, I think it is you who misjudge what I am saying. I am not advocating smoking, just discussing a point with Sho on how smoking weighs in against other drug/alcohol use. BTW, I generally like Sho, he is a passionate poster oft times, I find it an admirable trait, irregardless if I agree with him or not.

I didn't use papers as the guidlines, just as what I believe is a comon sense example. Smoking doesn't impair you to the point you can't handle your vehicle like illegal drugs/alcohol will. Granted, it can be a distraction but so can your kids, your spouse, the other drivers, the weather, i-pods, cell phones, heat, annoying insects, etc.. that has nothing to do with my point. My opoint is it's not smoking that will cause the accident, it's not paying attention to what you are doing because you are trying to smoke that causes the accident. That is the fault of the moron driver who can't multi-task.

Again, my point is smoking 80 a day as an example is a very extreme example that I don't see taking place in a everyday society. Hence I think an argument for banning smoking would need more backup than that example.

 

you are right that it doesnt impair people in the same way as drug or alcohol abuse, what I was trying to point out earlier that all of these are directly proportionare to the amount consumed, if you smoke 80 cigs a day, you would be a jittery mess, if I drink 3 pints of lager, I am untouched - if I drink 10 pints of lager, then I become incapable, same for pot, I know light pot smokers, to meet them you wouldnt even know they'd had a joint, and then I know heavy users for whom walking requires effort.

My point is that tobacco companies serve nothing except themselves, tobacco has no use other then to addict people into parting with their hard earned cash and these companies work tirelessly to make these as addictive as possible, tobacco smoking should not be legal on any logical grounds.

I find it hard to believe that the US smokers are such light smokers, chain smoking in the UK is very common, I can think of 14 people off the top of my head who smoke atleast 1 pack of 40 a day 3 of them are in my family my mother has gone from cigarettes to pouches of tobacco and rolling her own because she cant affort to support her addiction, I know a couple who have just stopped smoking because he was diagnosed with emphysema who between them are saving £150 a week, your average pack of 40 here costs £4.50 so you do the math how many packets a week they ploughed through.

how can anyone justify it as truly legal?

 

Unless the UK does things dramatically differently than the US with cigarette packaging, there would be 20 in a normal sized pack.

Free will? Should anything that has the potential to harm you (e.g. fruit with seeds or pits to choke on, alcohol, gasoline, pesticide, staples, water) be illegal?

 

You can get packs of up to 60 from what I've seen locally, and that's just corner shops.

The simple matter is that cigarettes are too profitable to tax for being harmful, addictive and aggravating health than they are to make illegal.

The benefits of cigarettes no way unbalance the harm that they do, there are fruits and nuts that are illegal, alcohol is taxed and regulated and some forms again, are illegal, petrol currently has no viable widespread substitutes and is profitable for the governments, pesticides are controlled, regulated and banned as fit, staples help weed out the truly moronic office workers and water is needed for life.

Medications are banned with minimal evidence of harm, and those are designed to help people, shouldn't something designed to be addictive and a proven health danger face the same scrutiny?

 

The short-term economic and social consequences of banning smoking would be similar to prohibition, meaning it would create a huge black market for all sorts of criminal elements to benefit from. In the long term the elimination of smoking is beneficial however you view it and socially desirable, but currently it's way too widespread to ban completely. Statistics in Finland show a reduction in smokers among the young so hopefully smoking will be marginalized in the future enough for a complete ban.

 

Harming yourself has flow on consequences to the rest of society. That's why people are often required to wear seat belts, why food products and (more so) pharmaceutical products require testing before been released into the market, that's why vehicles have to have regular servicing to be road worthy. Unless you live in a complete vacuum, harming yourself effects others around you.

 

it is illegal to commit an act of self harm, you can be arrested under the mental health act, how is smoking any different?

you can get packs of 100, and then there are superking which are an inch longer, packing that extra dose of toxic chemicals in your cancer stick for your hard earned bucks

 

I'm going to continue to be slightly confused here. If you look again, you'll find that I never said that you were advocating smoking. I was taking issue with a specific point that you made, namely that newspaper headlines were at all relevant. I was arguing one point, no trying to tell you what your beliefs were.

As to the admiration of Shosino part, was that even directed at me? It sounds like it was, but I can't work out why you'd want to tell me that.

That misses the point, again. The figure doesn't need to be 80, it could well be less. The important part wasn't the exact figure, but the proportional relation. Anyway, Shosino himself has expanded on what he meant here, there's no real need for me to just echo it.

 

(Devil's advocating here) ... According to whom? Isn't that a determination that the individual should be entitled to make, even if it means dying for cigarettes? Any destructive behavior could be the same - drug use, alcoholism, huffing, etc. For some, dying (sometime in the future with smoking; you don't take a drag and just drop dead) might very well be an acceptable price to pay for the enjoyment they get from it. For some people, petty daily habits like smoking are one of the very few pleasures life has to offer. Make a value judgement on that as you see fit, but I don't see how it's ours to decide for others.

No, I don't think so. If we're a free society, let people drink themselves to death, die of heroin overdoses, and freebase to their heart's content. I don't have a say in what they do with their own lives. I wish they wouldn't do it, and I'm damn sure going to stop any loved ones from doing it, but it's none of my business if random person x from the other side of town decides that's how he wants to live his life.

In what way would an individual's smoking (absent the second-hand smoke considerations outlined above) and even dying from it affect anybody else, particularly in such a fashion that does not infringe upon that same person's autonomy? e.g., Johnny's mother would be sad if he died from smoking, but is her potential sadness legitimate justification for eliminating Johnny's discretion to engage in destructive behavior if he so chooses? You know, given that we're a free society and all that?

Playing along, how is drinking any different? How is eating fatty foods any different? How is engaging in reckless behavior with a high percentage chance of death, like operating an automobile, any different?

What does a hundy-pack look like, and how could you possibly carry it around with you? You can get cartons here, but they're just ten packs of 20 cigarettes.

Anyway, regardless of packaging, a heavy smoker in the states would be someone who smokes around two packs a day (40 cigarettes). Even someone who smoked one pack a day (20) would be considered a very regular and serious user of tobacco. There are of course those outside the norm who might smoke 2 - 10 packs a day, but they are a rarity. If you really know lots of people in the UK who smoke 40 a day, you should be preaching in the other direction, Sho.

 

Your right, it doesn't need to be 80, it could be twenty a day or 5 or a Hundred.. Doesn't matter. My point/stance is this. There is no need to make smoking illegal as it's not that impactual on society. Banning it in public places, I'm fine with that, as I don't smoke and I am not that found of smokers around me. But make it illegal? You can't smoke in the privacy of your own home? That I just don't get. Are we going to ban Pepsi too because of it's impact on your health. At 41 carbs and a ton of sugar per can, several cans a day is extremely bad for you and you can't exercise it off in a day. But why stop there? Let's cut out butter and fried-foods as well. Why not add extreme sports while were at it and flying in airplanes or operating any machinery.

The point is it just doesn't make sense to make it altogether illegal.

 

I don't necessarily disagree with you, but I find it odd that you see a lot of smokers in front of building entrances and exits. In all the places where I have worked, the smoking area was outside, and not directly near an entrance or exit to the building. To use my current place of employment as a example, you have to go outside, and around the corner of the building. There's no parking lot there, and there's no entrance or exit from the building on that side. Literally, the only reason to go to that particular side of the building is to have a cigarette.

I have seen people smoking in front of convenience stores, but that's about it in terms of public places. I haven't ridden on a bus since I graduated from high school, so I cannot comment on bus stops. Maybe it's different over here, but as far as I can tell, you can pretty easily avoid smoke outside. (I won't comment on inside, because as near as I can tell, smoking is pretty much banned everywhere inside these days.)

As far as how smoking affects your driving - well, of course it affects you less than drinking or smoking pot or whatever. That's why it isn't illegal to smoke in your car. I think that's the key difference. The level of impairment is more severe with drinking and smoking pot, but it's illegal to drink or be under the influence of drugs and drive. The fact that one is legal and the other is not makes it self-evident which one society views as worse when it comes to operating a vehicle.

 

Like I said - I could see a bus stop being problematic, but I haven't ridden a bus in years, so it wasn't something I could directly comment on. I have no idea whether or not you're allowed to smoke at bus stops or not in the US, as it's been nearly 20 years since I've been to a bus stop.

As for keeping a distance from smokers outside - that was kind of my point with the work area example. They DO make the smokers go away from the entrances of the building, and in a location where you'd not have to walk anywhere near them.

We have an L-shaped parking lot around the building where I work, that's on the front and left sides of the building as you face it. The smoking area is on the right side of the building, and the only exit on that side of the building is the emergency fire exit, which causes the fire alarm to sound if you use it, so other than the annual fire drill, no one comes out that exit.

Such has been my experience at most places where I work - it is the smokers who have to be inconvenienced by smoking in an area where you have no reason to walk to unless you're going there to smoke. Having never been to Slovenia, perhaps they don't have such regulations, and people just light up as soon as one foot is out the door, but solutions such as the one I listed are certainly possible. I agree that it should be the smokers and not the non-smokers who should be inconvenienced, and if it's raining there's this new invention called an umbrella.

 

Where do people get this idea that we live in a free society? It's 9:30 in the morning. Since getting up I have:
- Ate breakfast. The packaging on the breakfast cereal all has to follow careful regulations about what it can and cannot say. Not to mention standard requirements for the fridge, health requirements in the place that the milk was pasteurized.
- Brushed my teeth - the tooth paste most likely had to conform with health regulations, and the above mentioned packaging. The water I used to rinse my mouth out had to contain chemicals X, Y and Z.
- Done some readings for school (university). Think of the laws regarding compulsory education, or even at university each university has many different laws and regulations they must follow to maintain there... licence or how ever they're mandated.
- Switched on my computer. This computer was definitely not made in New Zealand. That means it had to be imported. Import laws and taxes, regulations about the quality of import goods, sales laws, consumer rights laws. All these come into play here.
- Soon, after I finish typing this out, I'm going to hop in my car. The car has to under go a warrant of fitness every six months, making sure it's road worthy. Once a year I have to register my car, paying a road tax. I have to legally wear a seat belt. I can't speak on my phone while driving, nor can I have a DVD player installed above the steering wheel. I have to drive on the left side of the road.
- I'm then going to go to the swimming pool. There's an absolute mass of regulations that govern how a swimming pool must operate on the health and safety side.

Free society idea is a load of ********. In a free soceity I could choose to purchase ceral with different packaging. I could choose to purchase toothpaste that hasn't been tested. I could drive without my seatbelt while watching Inception on a mini-DVD Player.

These laws are all (mostly) in place because the concequences will have a flow on effect. If I get sick from using some horrible tooth paste, my boss has to pay me sick leave. They also have to get someone to cover. AS a result, they probably won't be as effecient that day. Economic costs of my tooth paste choice. Then there's the health costs - the government (and therefore the tax payer) has to subsidies my doctors fee. The list goes on.