New York City Council VotesTo Ban Smoking In Parks

NEW YORK (Reuters) – New York City on Wednesday moved a step closer to ban smoking in parks, beaches and other outdoor public spaces, amid grumbling that the city government may have gone too far in its war on salt, fat and smoke.

The city council voted 36 to 12 in favor of the smoking restrictions, extending an existing ban on smoking in restaurants and bars.

Mayor Michael Bloomberg has said he would sign the bill, and it would come into effect 90 days later.

At the council hearing on Wednesday, opponents to the bill denounced the dangers of smoking but said this ban represented government overreaching.

Say goodbye to another freedom. It would help the air pollution as well if these people concentrated on big corp. pumping toxins into the same air. Where does all this control end?

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," Bloomberg said in a statement.

Now I do agree with the nasty cigarette butts everywhere. I just wish if they cared about clean air so much that they would crack down on the big money/corporate offenders as well. Can't bite the hand that feeds you though.

news.yahoo.com...

why don't they just ban cigarettes and stop fooling around. they want their cake and eat it too.

they want all the revenue cigarette taxes bring, but they want to ban every conceivable place they can think off where you can smoke.

a public park? cigarette's are bad for you it's been proven over and over, put smokers are tax payer too and have a right to use a legal product in a public place.

reply to post by randomname



You make a good point. They have raised the taxes sky high on cigarettes so they sould be raking it in hand over fist. But now the cities and states are going to be profiting as well from all the citations that will be issued.

Quite a profitable endeavor.

reply to post by Kangaruex4Ewe


Exactly!
They can issue more citations, thus bringing in more tax revenue, for people smoking...OUTDOORS.
Seems to me like another scheme to con people into taxing their life away.

Pathetic. Seriously...

If I was told I couldn't smoke outdoors, I'd be pretty ticked off.
The inside thing, I can understand...but not outside.

reply to post by Kangaruex4Ewe


You mean the litter laws don't work at keeping people from throwing cigarette butts on the ground?

I could have sworn they made a law against that.

I'm utterly shocked to hear that the parks may have cigarette butts on the ground there.

This should not be so.

I'm writing my congressman immediately and demanding that not only they ban smoking nation wide, but that they also throw anyone who sells cigarettes into a federal penitentiary for 20 years, seeing as smoking is even more dangerous that pot.

Every time I go into a public bathroom, restaurant bathroom and just about any place with a toilet that isn't my own home I see urine splashes on seats and unflushed messes being left behind.

Following similar logic of this smoking ban we should therefore ban going to the bathroom in bathrooms.

reply to post by eNumbra


Can we get that law passed anyway? Ugh. I know what you mean. They pick and choose to a point that it makes no sense. I always figured the polluted air we breath on a daily basis is just as unhealthy as a wisp of smoke travelling across a park.

reply to post by Kangaruex4Ewe


Where better for a person to smoke than outside I ask?

Not a smoker myself and personally find it a smelly and disgusting habit. However, to each his own and we all have our crosses to bear. I been known to dip and chew especially to stay awake when deployed; I don't dip as a matter of course in the house or indoors.

I do appreciate not having to inhale it anymore while eating but this here is crossing the line. Outside?
Friggin move away if you don't like it - hell most people will move downwind if you are pathetic enough to ask them to. Met a good many considerate smokers in my day (many not so considerate as well) usually the more hard core a smoker is the more considerate they are. Its the "social smokers" who when drinking usually lack the awareness to be considerate of others - just my observation.

This is a blatant attempt to regulate behavior rather than a harmful product.

Doesn't surpise me though this is New York after all didn't they regulate salt in food too. What can one expect from a society that voted for Anthony Wiener.

I, for one, will be ignoring that law, like I ignore the speed-limit one.
Anyone who knows NYC, know dozens of bars, restaurants, and clubs, where you can freely smoke, and other stuff you want to do, as a free being, with freedom of choice - at least after midnight.

It's starting to look like a replay of the 20's...us smokers will always find places to smoke. We don't give in to socio-fascism, to herd-mentality, or to propaganda.

reply to post by Golf66


They are becoming quite the regulators for sure.

I (unfortunately) am a smoker. It is a nasty, disgusting, smelly habit. I agree with you totallyon that. It is something I wish I had never started, and it is very hard to give it up.

I have always tried to be considerate. Even when you could smoke in restaraunts I never did if there was a child near by. If I notice I am around someone and it is going in their face, I move. I don't smoke in other people's vehicles or house. And if I am in someones yard I will put the cigarette out on the bottom of my shoe and stick it in the pack until I can throw it away.

I am aware that there are a ton of folks who don't want to smell it. I can understand that as many smokers can. But I do honestly find this law out of bounds.

reply to post by CerBeRus666


A lot of people will ignore it I am sure. What I find really ironic is that the laws here recently changed. You can not enter a tobacco store if you are under 18. If you have a child and want to go inside, you have to leave them outside on the sidewalk or in the car. You are not allowed to bring them in while you purchase cigarettes.

BUT.....

You CAN bring them withyou in the ABC liquor store. It seems like it's open season on the smokers.

reply to post by mnemeth1


I drive in Los Angeles and that is more dangerous than using pot as well but just because it is dangerous to the user doesn't give you the de facto right to take it away from me. I'll wager you drive a car too, especially if you are in the USA. That act alone spews many toxins in the atmosphere dangerous to everyone. Are you as hard on yourself as you are on smokers? When are you going to start walking and biking everywhere?

Don't worry though, you will probably get your wish someday. Therein is the problem. Today smokers, tomorrow it will be something you want, need or enjoy. It really doesn't matter what it is eventually it will be something you care about. You have helped lay the groundwork for it; demonize it, tax it to death, regulate it to death and finally abolish it.

This is a subject that intrigues me. On one hand I am known to have a cigarette and the notion that I cannot enjoy something so personal and individual to myself bother me. On the other, this is, as I believe an issue left towards the States and the People. Which in this case, is being handled at the state level.

This is where I am conflicted. I believe in state rights' and I believe if the people of New York City, via their elected members to city council want this, then so be it.

Based solely upon ones views, may it be that the city council is acting outside of their authority or even if they are 'puppets' to what some call here the powers that be, we cannot exclude the people who, for better or worse, have elected such a body that has made the ban.

reply to post by Kangaruex4Ewe


Yeah, talk about double-standards.

Anyway, I think the solution taken by some European bars, cafés, restaurants, is more rational, and gives everybody the freedom of choice:
- A red no-smoking sticker, on the doors, and walls, of non-smoking establishments.
- A blue smoking sticker, on establishments that opted to be smoker-friendly.

Is it so hard to have the owners of the establishments decide what they permit, or not, in their property?

Oh please.

Give me a &%@#ing break!!

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/f12537c54504.jpg[/atsimg]

reply to post by CerBeRus666


That would seem to be the bestway to go for sure. When the "no smoking in any building" passed here, my first thought was about those who owned their own establishments. What makes it right that a bar owner can't allow smoking in his own building.The loss of revenue for some was staggering.

It seems everything lately is an "us vs. them" no compromise thing. Definitely not a good thing.

Well, to Native Americans it is a religious issue, and it infringes on our right to pray using tobacco.

I suggest we all go down to city hall with our Camels, and-

SMOKE LIKE AN EGYPTIAN

It's about time to LIVE FREE OR DIE.

Riiiiight. Because my Salem 50' away is much more hazardous than the fumes coming off the FDR all dam day.
NYC is a disgrace and I am ashamed at the way they handle their business. I am not ashamed to be a smoker. That's my choice.

I guess we gotta stage a sit on the intersection of 42nd and Broadway in Times Square then, as I threatened to stage a sit in on Washington Ave in Hoboken, NJ and threatened to shut down city hall due to the "Banned frm within 25 feet of the entrance of a public building" aspect was added to NJ law which effective decreed use on the sidewalks, people's private homes, portions of public spaces, people's private enclosed backyards, parking lots as smoke free zones. Suffice to say it failed.

I will still stop in to The Broadway Mall or the little pavillion at Herald Square and still smoke as I do everytime I come out of TRU Times Square and let LE say something.

Battery Park, Central Park, Bryant Park, Rockerfeller Center Plaza, The Plaza at The WTC is too big to try and put a law like that into play besides, parks is where you want to allow smoking as some chems are beneficial to plant life.

The government has no authority to infringe on a persons right to smoke. Now they can put restrictions on where you can smoke, but not the actual act. im just surprised they havent deemed it illegal completely in our country....anything else to infringe on the peoples rights~