Another kick in the ash: Mayor Bloomberg to ban smoking in Times Square, city beaches

[onehandle]

Source: New York Post

Smokers will not be able to light up when hanging out along pedestrian walkways across the five boroughs, including in car-free areas of Times Square, as part of a broad expansion of the city’s smoking ban to parks, beaches and boardwalks, officials announced today.

The proposed ban means no smoking if you're sitting on the traffic-free Broadway plaza at the Crossroads of the World and Herald Square, in all parts of Central Park or along the famous Coney Island boardwalk.

“The science is clear: Prolonged exposure to secondhand smoke – whether you’re indoors or out -- hurts your health," Mayor Bloomberg said in announcing the widespread ban. "Today, we’re doing something about it."

City officials said it expects New Yorkers and tourists alike to follow the law. Those who choose to ignore the ban could be hit with a violation summons issued by the Parks Department. A fine could cost violators $50.

Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/mayor_bloomberg_bans_smoking_in_phN7IkFjbnarPEY1y9aRDK

[hlthe2b]

1. wow...

I personally hate smoking since it is my leading migraine inducer-- but that's pretty aggressive...

[eallen]

2. Bloomberg really has control issues.

This isn't about health. This is just about penalizing smokers.

Feh.

:hippie:

[Dulcinea]

69. Is he an ex-smoker?

He sounds like one of those ex-smokers who has become an obsessed fanatic.

[LTX]

3. How do you get "prolonged exposure to second hand smoke"

when you're outdoors?

[ProgressiveEconomist]

15. Parts of NYC are just that crowded. I hate it when cigar smokers

are upwind of me. Sometimes you just can't escape clouds of incredibly putrid smoke from infantile Yuppies sucking on Gran Coronas.

[LTX]

16. So?

Are you really suggesting that this presents a health hazard? Or do you feel it should be banned because it is momentarily inconvenient for you and interferes with the constant and immediate gratification of your personal preferences?

[zonkers]

18. "momentary inconveniences"? Good one. You should work for the tobacco companies.

[LTX]

29. What else is it?

Seriously, do you think there is a health hazard from the passing odor of a cigar outdoors? Maybe we should ban hot dog carts as well so vegetarians don't have to smell meat. Or old ladies so no one has to smell eau de gardenia.

[zonkers]

81. Subjecting others involuntarily to deadly 2nd hand smoke is sinful and disgusting

and selfish as is the failure of most smokers to dispose of their cigarette litter responsibly. Google both these topics and then go ahead and compare the damage cigarettes do to the health of people/planet to the smell of a grilled hot dog.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

40. 'Momentary inconvenience"? No, it's exposure to carcinogens every day, several

times a day, for no good reason.

[LTX]

61. Honestly. City life is carcinogenic. Look around you. Those are buses, cars, trucks,

jets, helicopters, freighters, tugboats, ferrys, refineries, factories, power-plants, freight trains, landfills, dust-storming street sweepers, oil-slicked puddles, sewage pipes, door-knob bacteria festivals, sneezing babies, and free-style pissoirs. And you're concerned about the stressed out guy a block away smoking a cigarette. (Of course, I think that the stressed out guy a block away smoking a cigarette is just the easiest target these days for some recreational demonization - demonization that has become politically incorrect in every other sphere, but still needs to find an outlet).

As for the "good reason," it is simply that somebody else wants to have a smoke. Outdoors. Where the effect on you is so minimal it is effectively non-existent. That's good reason enough.

Our anti-smoking zeal, with it's hysterical claims about the dire threats posed by second and even third hand smoke, and the rather appallingly corrupted science that is used to support that hysteria, now appears to have reached the stage of perfect, theatrical absurdity.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

64. 'Appallingl currupted science'--Are you doing a remake of 'Thank you for Smoking?

You sound like a lobbyist for the Tobacco Institute. I just want to breathe.

[LTX]

68. I don't smoke, and I never will. I just find scientific corruption appalling.

You should too. It undermines scientific and epidemiological credibility. Start with the original 1993 EPA report on second hand smoke, from whence all subsequent "studies" jump off. It's a paragon of scientific fraud. Then look on this very thread for a "study" that purports to prove that cigarette smoke creates "10 times more air pollution than automobile exhaust." Think about that.

And when you're through, maybe you can identify one person, just one, whose cause of death has been attributed to second hand smoke. A death certificate, or medical diagnosis, will do just fine. With the statistical machinations that purport to prove that literally more than a million people have died in the last 10 years from second hand smoke (a frankly remarkable anomaly if there ever was one, since during the last ten years second hand smoke exposure has exponentially decreased with the passage of ever stricter anti-smoking ordinances), you would think there would be at least one verifiable second hand smoke death.

Smoking kills people. Second hand smoke doesn't. And you don't have to be a lobbyist for the tobacco industry to be appalled by the political high-jacking of science in the service of the nanny-state.

[DirkGently]

4. Smoking is bad. But anti-smoking measures are becoming a sport, apparently.

[damntexdem]

5. Good for him.

Needs to be done nationwide.

[onehandle]

11. Big cities like New York will have total public bans first.

It's inevitable and was predicted decades ago.

[drmeow]

6. Excuse me but prolonged

exposure to NYC traffic is likely to be a more significant health risk to most New Yorkers than exposure to second-hand cigarette smoke outside! I am SO tired of the over the top anti-smoking control freaks. These people need to get a life.

Disclaimer - I am a former smoker and I oppose the majority of anti-smoking laws.

[Dont_Bogart_the_Pretzel]

17. Speaking of traffic... I remember as a kid I use to wait in line to get on the school bus

and being choked every time bye the exhaust fumes.

[jkappy]

28. YUP, What comes out of the tail end of NYC Buses multiplied

by hundreds of thousands of trucks, taxis, limos, and plain cars make a whiff of tobacco smoke incredibly innocent in comparison. But i guess that's the idea--focus on persons rather than politics, or individuals rather than infrastructures and corporations. It's also called liberalism.

[SidDithers]

20. Traffic serves a purpose...

smoking? Not so much.

I am SO tired of the over the top comparisons between smoking and auto exhaust.

Sid

[LTX]

31. To a smoker, cigarettes serve a purpose.

It's just not a purpose you approve of.

[drmeow]

37. As a former resident of

both Orange County and Riverside County in CA and a current resident of the Phoenix area - i.e., areas with some of the worst air pollution in the country (the American Lung Association rates Phoenix as the #1 worst air polluted place) - and Phoenix has relatively high smoking rates - I can tell you emphatically that a little bit of cigarette as I walk past someone on the sidewalk does not even come close to the discomfort I have experienced from air pollution.

I drive very little (maybe 3000 miles a year) and I no longer smoke but it is a lot harder for me to get away from air pollution than it is for me to get away from cigarette smoke.

Traffic is substantially more harmful on some many levels than a few smokers. At least tobacco is grown in the US!

Traffic serves very little purpose in NYC which has some of the best public transportation in the US - I know, I lived on Long Island and my sister lives in the City (and, believe me, the fumes from the traffic are far more noxious than those from cigarettes).

You don't live somewhere with a lot of air pollution, do you? Try walking a mile in my shoes before deciding what is an over-the-top comparison. I wasn't asthmatic as a kid but I had difficulty breathing and pain in my chest on high pollution days in CA and in now in Phoenix school kids are kept inside on high pollution days.

[taught_me_patience]

66. So true... I'm sick of this bullshit comparison n/t

[smirkymonkey]

23. +1000

[Zoeisright]

25. That's a lie.

Cigarette smoke produces 10 times more pollution than car exhaust:

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/12481.php

Smoking worse than exhaust for air pollution:

http://www.webmd.com/lung/news/20040823/smoking-worse-than-exhaust-for-air-pollution

But you keep on living in the land of denial, where you have no facts on your side, just some incoherent rage.

[LTX]

33. Two links to the same "study."

And that "study" curiously leaves out a rather important consideration. Sit inside the closed garage with the car engine running, and you die. Sit inside the closed garage while someone smokes an entire pack of cigarettes, and you're uncomfortable and need a shower.

[drmeow]

34. Excellent response!

Thanks. I was going to probably waste my time arguing about the scientific merit of the study.

[drmeow]

36. Wow - you consider that

incoherent rage. :spray:

[Gemini Cat]

78. "Incoherent rage," amazing!

I blinked once and missed it.

[HuckleB]

65. Interesting and extremely preliminary "study."

Still, smoking is not helping our health.

Secondhand smoke exposure 'striking' in the U.S.
http://www.citybeat.com/cincinnati/blog-1456-groups-plan-protest-at-reds-game.html

[Daphne08]

7. Bloomberg appears to be a control freak. n/t

[davepc]

8. Land of the restricted, home of the nanny state.

[The Northerner]

14. +1

[SammyWinstonJack]

21. +2

[krabigirl]

24. Exactly.

[proteus_lives]

43. +3

[Waiting For Everyman]

9. I hope all NY smokers take revenge by switching to e-cigs...

Everything you need to know to get it done can be found on these 2 forums:

http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/new-members-forum/96091-best-electronic-cigarette-first-time-vaper.html

http://www.vapersforum.com

Lots of suppliers (links on the forums) have starter kids for under $50, and ongoing costs can be under $50 per month too - depending on how much you want to learn and do for yourself. My cost per month is now less than $15, and that's from a 2.5 pack a day habit for 27 years (which was costing me $200/month). I haven't smoked a "real" cig in 2 months now, that's since trying my first e-cig. E-cigs are BETTER, that's why. There is nothing to "give up" because e-cigs are vastly preferable, AND so much cheaper.

Go ahead, New Yorkers, do it! And deprive these smoke-nazis of their cash cow. Yes, they're even trying to ban e-cigs too (that takes quite a nerve if you ask me) but they won't get away with it because there's no harm in e-cigs to use for reasoning in their court cases. I'm not worried at all, because I have enough extra batteries and I know how to make my own e-liquid... thanks to other vapers sharing their knowledge on the forums above. The feds will never control this, nor will they get away with banning it.

Join us, New Yorkers! And those from other states too. Cross over from the dark side, lol. It's nice over here. :)

[HuckleB]

70. e-Cigarette Safety

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=3541

The science awaits when it comes to e-cigs, so it's quite difficult to make claims for safety or for harm, at this point.

[ixion]

10. anti smoking nazis can just take a flying f**k at the moon

The are as un-American as McCarthy, in my opinion.

[Zoeisright]

26. Wow. How stupid.

Your right to smoke ends at my nose. If you can keep the shit in your own lungs, you can burst into flame for all I care. I am sick and tired of smoking nazis who think they can endanger my health with their drug addiction.

[LTX]

30. Why?

What makes your nose so precious, and why is it the arbiter of what others can and cannot do?

[Ter]

32. +1 million

That was awesome!

[Odin2005]

12. I'm for INDOOR bans, but this is fucking stupid.

When you are outside you don't have the problem of 2nd-hand smoke building up in a room.

[ClarkUSA]

13. As a born and bred New Yorker, I say it's about time. I hate smoking and don't want to smell 'em.

As a kid, I remember holding my breath around smokaholics on the street in popular public areas. It's nice to know that kids won't have to be subjected to cancerous clouds now.

New York is on the forefront of health and fitness in this regard, thanks to the good Mayor.

[Marengo]

22. No, New York appears to be on the forefront of something else

And it's not health and fitness.

[ClarkUSA]

39. Really? Tell us. I'm sure someone from Salt Lake City, UT knows more than a native New Yorker...

... about New York City.

:sarcasm:

[Marengo]

44. One doesn't need to be from any particular place

To recognize control fetish authoritarianism.

[proteus_lives]

45. +10

[ClarkUSA]

46. Yes, that's what folks like you said when smoking was first banned indoors.

The mayor is a responsible public servant who has the backing of the majority of New Yorkers. New Yorkers appreciate that Mayor Bloomberg acts on scientific evidence instead of pandering to libertarian psycho babble. He recognizes that smokers do not have the right to pollute the air and damage the health of others via their addiction.

[Marengo]

77. Actually, No, I've never said such a thing

I support indoor smoking bans, and I'm an occasional smoker But outside? That's absurd.

But you go right on ahead and worship the free-trader Bloomberg:

"A growing China creates jobs for our export producers, keeps consumer prices low, expands our choice of goods and services, and increases our access to capital and talent. It also intensifies pressure on China itself to act responsibly on international issues, including security, trade, product safety and climate change. Our serious differences with China in these and other areas must not used as excuses for short-term retaliatory measures."

Source: Bloomberg article in Financial Times, “Resist Protectionism” Dec 11, 2007

Uh huh, yeah...How's that working out?

[SidDithers]

19. Good..nt

Sid

[KamaAina]

27. The "tiny fascist" strikes again

For a second there, i thought "pedestrian walkways" meant all sidewalks, which would really have made life suck for Mom. I suppose that's coming next. :eyes:

[devilgrrl]

35. I love the smoking bans - leads to people whining about body odor and fragrances... it'll never end.

eom

[MindPilot]

38. Have smoking bans been shown to improve overall health?

Smoking bans have been in place now for many years; you almost have to go to a smoker's house to find any second-hand smoke. With that health risk virtually eliminated shouldn't we be seeing a substantial improvement in the overall health of the US population?

[ClarkUSA]

41. BBC News, 6/8/10: "Heart attack admissions fall after smoking ban"

There were 1,200 fewer hospital admissions for heart attacks in England in the year after July 2007 - when the smoking ban came in, a study suggests.... The Bath team analysed English hospital admissions between 2002 and 2009, the British Medical Journal reports.

Separate research by the London Health Observatory carried out on the basis of their figures suggested a saving to the NHS of £8.4m in the first year after the ban on smoking in public indoor spaces was introduced in England... Similar legislation had already been introduced in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

Focusing on a population of 49m, the Bath study, commissioned by the Department of Health, was the largest, most comprehensive study to date on the effects of smoke-free legislation anywhere in the world.

It took into account a variety of factors which can influence heart attacks - from the weather to influenza rates.

The theory is that non-smokers' exposure to smoke has the same effect on the heart as if they were light smokers, and can trigger acute coronary problems - meaning that at least some of the impact of a smoking ban should become apparent relatively quickly.

Studies have painted... effects of such bans - with one from the US reporting a 40% drop in the number of hospital admissions for heart attacks... Research from Scotland, where a ban was introduced in March 2006, reported a 17% decrease in heart attack admissions in the year after its ban.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10266997

[truthisfreedom]

42. That's pretty amazing!

I'm all for smoking bans. I think people should be forced to quit smoking in public places and smoking should be relegated to places where smokers want to congregate. The general population of non-smokers doesn't need to be exposed to smoke and should have the opportunity to avoid it at all times.

I am an ex-smoker.

[ClarkUSA]

57. Isn't it? HuckleB provided more good evidence.

<< I'm all for smoking bans. I think people should be forced to quit smoking in public places and smoking should be relegated to places where smokers want to congregate. The general population of non-smokers doesn't need to be exposed to smoke and should have the opportunity to avoid it at all times. >>

I agree 100%. It's amazing to me to see the vitriol directed at Mayor Bloomberg for doing something so clearly for the public good.

<< I am an ex-smoker. >>

Congratulations! Did you go cold turkey, sue a patch or chew gum? I've never smoked a thing in my life but I helped my significant other stop smoking, so I know what a hard victory it can be. My SO hates the smell of smoke now.

[MindPilot]

49. Interesting, but in reading the entire article that's not really what it says.

The results are at best inconclusive since admissions for heart attacks had been already trending down prior to the study.

[ClarkUSA]

52. That's exactly what the article says. Everything is a quote. nt

[RobinA]

80. Added To The Fact

that one year of not smoking does not lead to a sudden significant decrease in ones risk for heart disease. Totally bogus conclusion. Laughable junk.

[HuckleB]

51. Here's a similar piece on a study in MA.

Smoking ban tied to a gain in lives
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2008/11/12/smoking_ban_tied_to_a_gain_in_lives/

[ClarkUSA]

55. Thank you for supplying more corroborating evidence.

:hi:

[HuckleB]

58. You're welcome.

:toast:

[drmeow]

71. This is an indoor smoking ban

Is there any evidence that outdoor smoking bans make a difference?

[HuckleB]

72. How many outdoor smoking bans are there?

When did they go into effect?

:shrug:

[drmeow]

73. I don't know

but a study showing that an indoor smoking ban has improved health is not valid support for an outdoor smoking ban. It's comparing apples to oranges.

[HuckleB]

74. The question didn't specify outdoor vs. indoor bans. It simply asked about bans, in general.

Further, unless there are outdoor bans that have been in place for some time, it would be quite difficult to do such a study.

[drmeow]

76. And I simply asked

for clarification to connect it to the OP.

[HuckleB]

79. Uh huh.

And, as you should have noted, the discussion had long since extended to the overall question.

[HuckleB]

50. It appears so...

Smoke-Free Laws May Help Kids Breathe Easier
http://www.businessweek.com/lifestyle/content/healthday/643170.html

and

Smoking Ban Improves a City’s Health
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/13/health/research/13prev.html

[HuckleB]

54. Smoking Ban Study Shows Health Benefits For Bar Staff

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/53945.php

and

Older Non-Smokers Gain Most from Tobacco Ban, Study Suggests
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/03/100316191450.htm

[HuckleB]

56. Arizona's Smoking Ban Reduced Hospital Visits, UA Study Finds

http://uanews.org/node/32032

And...

Heart attacks drop after Italy's smoking ban: study
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL1114668320080211

[ZombieHorde]

47. Bloomberg should ban polluting cars as well. nt

[HuckleB]

53. He tried to tax 'em.

[HuckleB]

48. Smoke-Free Laws May Help Kids Breathe Easier

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9144830

[hayu_lol]

60. This will apply to pot smoking as well...

so much for legalization...lol.

Lessee, next Bloomberg can go after the odors of wine, spirits, and beer which is really sickening when you walk past most bars.

Odd that some people are affected by smoke from tobacco out in the open air kind of places. Time for some serious lawsuits against this sort of Nanny State.

Perhaps smokers could get back the taxes they pay to support these open air places they cannot go to. You non-smokers wouldn't mind picking up the tab for your restricted areas now would you.

Data on deaths/hospitalizations without age reference is invalid. How many smokers die at 95 for example. Strange that no one to date has that info compiled.

[HuckleB]

62. Nice list of red herrings.

:rofl:

[ClarkUSA]

63. "Nanny State"? Isn't that a favorite term of small-gov't. Republicans?

:wtf:

[Codeine]

75. Smokers can go anywhere they want.

They just can't smoke in some places. Can you really not go without a cigarette for a few hours?

[Kievan Rus]

59. This is stupid

Don't like cigarettes, fine...DON'T SMOKE!

"My body, my choice" applies to more than just abortion.

[mokawanis]

67. Can I still belch auto exhaust into the air?

after all, if we just ban smoking but ignore the pollution caused by autos we'll all be much healthier.

[appleannie1]

82. I quit smoking. I don't expect others to do the same. Smokers have rights too.