U.S. city banning all smoking

[AnthonyByakko]

The end of America? I don't think it's overstating it. Banning all smoking, everywhere? People can only smoke in their own "single family, detached residences?" So renters are screwed, and can't smoke ever? You can't even smoke in your own car? On your way to work or otherwise? C'mon, this is absolutely ludicrous.

[Hegemon]

I have been wanting that exact law for years and I am very happy to have it brought in.

[eriador]

perhaps a bit over-reaching, but still a good idea.

I also think that the poll is slightly weighted to the "kill them all" side. I want some sort of "this is by no means treason" option.

[Eaquae Legit]

Hmm. It's mostly like that here now, with the exception of parks and streets, which are always littered with butts. I'm not too upset by it.

[Hegemon]

Well, if he wants the poll to not be one-sided, it is always up to him to either edit it or get someone else to *I am not sure if regular members can edit polls or not*

In any case, I hope it is a model that gets spread throughout the rest of North America, but I doubt it will.

[AnthonyByakko]

This is exactly the opposite reaction one would expect from the civil libertarians of PWeb. But I suppose, these days, either side of the conservo-liberal fence is still just one form of collectivism or another.

trea·son (trē'zon), noun
1. Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies
2. Willful violation of allegiance to one's country
3. Willful betrayal of fidelity, confidence, or trust

(Middle English, from Anglo-Norman treson, from Latin trāditiō, trāditiōn-, a handing over. See tradition.)


The betrayal of one's country, hm? A handing over? America, the country, is a system of individual rights and quasi-democratic political processes. Committing an action such as passing legislation outlawing an otherwise lawful act, unto and surpassing even the comitting of the act in a person's own home and/or property, is in direct contrast with every fiber of the fabric of America - an unmitigated betrayal of not only 'America' as a country and an ideal, but a betrayal of the trust placed in elected officials to dutifully and conscientiously protect the rights and well-being of their constituents. By perverting the latter, they rape the former. By definition, a betrayal of their allegience to their country - nothing less than treason. I think the apathy that so many of us have been battered into makes most people brush this issue off in favor of more exciting issues like abortion and gay-rights. But if you're paying attention, you realize that these too stem from the same root; the willingness of today's governments to regulate personal behavior. The cavalier attitude this city counsel acted with is an egregious breach of their roles. They specifically went with the most stringent of regulations (again on an otherwise legal act) just to see if they could get away with it - this is the BUSH mentality, people. They did it because they could, because it gave them power, and because it made them look good. So you don't smoke - so you don't like butts in the park - so let's ban all smoking, everywhere? Let's keep people from smoking in their cars, and let the government racketeer money from them (in the form of tickets) if they do? Let's not let them smoke, even in their apartments or duplexes? I've known you people for nigh on 3 years now, and I've never been more dismayed - almost as dissapointed as I am in my government.

[jotabe]

I think that is quite excessive.
I would support banning in public places where smoke can affect others than the smoker. That would exclude open areas from this prohibition.
Private residences, and working places where only workers can access would be at the discretion of the owner. Of course, if an employer decides to allow smoking in the working place, possible smoke-related illnesses contracted exclusively by non-smokers are his responsability (economically speaking).

Smoking in the car is bannable... as long as you are driving. The same using your mobile phone, or anything that can distract you from you driving.

My problem with this kind of anti-smoking laws is to know in which principles they inspire. Do they pass these laws because they want to set up the reasonable limits of individual freedom in society? (that is: one person's freedom -to smoke- ends where the other person's freedom -not to receive smoke- begins.) Or do they pass them in order to protect people from themselves? Because the latter is not at all their duty. People can damage their own health, and it's their responsability, if they are adults.

[AnthonyByakko]

I think that is quite excessive.
I would support banning in public places where smoke can affect others than the smoker. That would exclude open areas from this prohibition.
Private residences, and working places where only workers can access would be at the discretion of the owner. Of course, if an employer decides to allow smoking in the working place, possible smoke-related illnesses contracted exclusively by non-smokers are his responsability (economically speaking).

Smoking in the car is bannable... as long as you are driving. The same using your mobile phone, or anything that can distract you from you driving.

My problem with this kind of anti-smoking laws is to know in which principles they inspire. Do they pass these laws because they want to set up the reasonable limits of individual freedom in society? (that is: one person's freedom -to smoke- ends where the other person's freedom -not to receive smoke- begins.) Or do they pass them in order to protect people from themselves? Because the latter is not at all their duty. People can damage their own health, and it's their responsability, if they are adults.

Which is correct - except that celphone use while driving isn't illegal as far as I know. It may be in some places, but I haven't heard of it at all around me.

But the workplace thing, yes. An employee smoking area is all that's needed. Why would a non-smoker go around a smoking area anyways? But then again, all you have to do is Google search, and you'll find that some employers are banning smoking - by all employees, at all times. Not just at the workplaces, but some employees are restricted from smoking anywhere - or they're fired. Health insurance costs are the claim. I call shenanigans.

[jotabe]

Use of cellphone is banned while driving over here. It's banned as long as you have your engine started... studies say that using a cellphone while driving causes a distraction that reduces your ability to drive as much as if you were drunk.
Cellphone is allowed only in hands-free mode. But even then, it's adviced not to use that, and keep it off whenever you are driving.
And it's true... when i hear the phone alarm going off while driving, for a couple of seconds i feel focused into the phone... and 2 seconds while driving can be up to 100 metres.

[Jebus]

You know, smoking is a pretty stupid thing to do. You have to ask yourself, who the f*** starts smoking? Who one day decides, "hey, I'm gonna get addicted to this s***," (because you do have to make a conscious decision to get addicted to cigarettes). And then you realise that it's not adults, with all their rights and freedom to choose how they live their life that start smoking, but it's kids. Kids who are too stupid and too naive are the ones who are keeping the cycle going. And when those kids grow up, they're powerless to choose not to smoke.

If cigarettes just became available today, with all we know about them, would they be legal? More than likely not. And if they were legal, would anyone start smoking them? I highly doubt it.

[anonshadow]

I would support banning in public places where smoke can affect others than the smoker. That would exclude open areas from this prohibition.

I'm not supporting or not-supporting this law (still need to think about it), but smoke can affect others even in an open area. When I was in high school, I had a friend allergic to something in cigarette smoke and a large population of student-smokers. When I left school with him, if it was normal dismissal time, there would be a ton of smokers outside. This is obviously in an open area. That doesn't mean that his throat didn't close up, and that he stopped being able to breathe.

That isn't a normal reaction, obviously, but smoking in an open area is not necessarily harmless.

[AnthonyByakko]

You know, smoking is a pretty stupid thing to do. You have to ask yourself, who the f*** starts smoking? Who one day decides, "hey, I'm gonna get addicted to this s***," (because you do have to make a conscious decision to get addicted to cigarettes). And then you realise that it's not adults, with all their rights and freedom to choose how they live their life that start smoking, but it's kids. Kids who are too stupid and too naive are the ones who are keeping the cycle going. And when those kids grow up, they're powerless to choose not to smoke.

If cigarettes just became available today, with all we know about them, would they be legal? More than likely not. And if they were legal, would anyone start smoking them? I highly doubt it.

You vastly underestimate the potential for human beings to behave in irrational ways and perform counterproductive actions. But for the same reason we can't regulate someone for wasting their life in a religion, or persuing self-destructive relationships, or having too many children, or having promiscuous sex, we can't regulate someone breathing in smoke. Think about it - we don't let the government use its power of force in our relationships or beliefs or other habits, why would we let them use it against us in the way we breathe? As Jota understood, the right of a person ends at the right of another not to be affected, so minimizing where second hand smoke can be and so on is not under attack (at least by me). I guess I'm not selling it as well as I should, but it's not like Leto's here to piss all over it.

[Jebus]

Smoking rarely only effects smokers. Even if you ban it from public places, second hand smoking is still a problem. Anonshadow brought up an example, I've seen what she's talking about myself. Smokers congregating right outside the front doors, forcing people to walk through their fog. It may seem like nothing to you, but why should anyone have to deal with that? I had a roommate who was a smoker who refused to leave the room when he started smoking, how do you stop that? Do I have to leave the room? And the measure brought in by this city was silly in allowing people to smoke in their residences. Because now what is everyone going to have to do? Smoke at home, forcing their family members to endure second-hand smoke.

It's nearly impossible to stop smoking from encroaching on other people's rights, so what else can you do but make it illegal?

[Luet]

Driving while talking on a cell phone is illegal in NY state as well, unless using a handsfree device; which I think is a very discriminatory law. I believe that NH has a law called something like "distracted driving", where you can get pulled over for doing anything while driving, whether it be talking on the phone, smoking, eating, doing your makeup, etc. That makes much more sense to me than restricting it to just cell phone use.

As far as the smoking law, I would agree to banning it from all public areas but allowing it in cars and private residences. Because people will suffer the consequences themselves when they try to sell their used car. And people who rent apartments are allowed to rent to non-smokers only if they so choose.

[Young Val]

eh, i'm completely torn on this issue.

i'm a smoker, and have been for three years. i started purely because i wanted to do something self-destructive. and now it's just... well, since so many of you will call it this anyway, i'll use your vocab and say it's an addiction.

i certainly don't want to inflict my unhealthy habit on anyone else, and you won't ever hear me complain about not being allowed to smoke in bars or eating establishments or other people's homes, or around children (i'm a nanny. i work from 10 hours a day and not only do i NEVER smoke around the kids, i also don't smoke while they're napping. or at all. before i see them? no smoking. my first cigarette of the day during the work week is at 8pm, after i get off of work. anything else, people who smoke around children? totally unacceptable).

i don't plan on being a life-time smoker. i'd like to actively quit within the year. at the moment, however, i'm gonna need a little help from my vice to get by.

if i have certain friends or family that request that i do not smoke in their presence, i'm only too happy to comply.

but... i don't understand how smoking on the corner of 31st and Astoria Blvd directly beneath the train tracks in NYC--one of the most polluted places i can think of--is really and truly going to cause SUCH outrage that they're going to make smoking illegal.

...at the very least i hope they wait until i regain my sanity and no longer feel emotionally dependant on smoking to seriously consider anything as drastic as this. come on.

[Luet]

Sort of on topic...today is the Great American Smokeout

[Hegemon]

Well AB, firstly you seemed to assume that we are all civil libertarians. I for one am most definitely not. That being said, perhaps this issue can be seen as the government protecting a person's right to not be forced into breathing in noxious fumes.

Whenever you walk down the street, you are forced to breath in the s*** that other people are smoking. Why is it that we have a right to breath it in, but we don't have a right to not do so? They are protecting the rights of the non-smoking public to not breath this s*** in.

I am not sure if I agree with it not being allowed in appartments. Personally, I think that that decision should be up to the landlords.

I totally agree with it being disallowed in cars, espescially if the cars have their windows open.

[zeroguy]

Which is correct - except that celphone use while driving isn't illegal as far as I know. It may be in some places, but I haven't heard of it at all around me.

Just as a note: it is illegal in DC unless you're using one of those hands-free dealies.

[neo-dragon]

You know, smoking is a pretty stupid thing to do. You have to ask yourself, who the f*** starts smoking? Who one day decides, "hey, I'm gonna get addicted to this s***," (because you do have to make a conscious decision to get addicted to cigarettes). And then you realise that it's not adults, with all their rights and freedom to choose how they live their life that start smoking, but it's kids. Kids who are too stupid and too naive are the ones who are keeping the cycle going. And when those kids grow up, they're powerless to choose not to smoke.

You pretty much took the words right off my keyboard. I simply can't comprehend why a person would choose to start smoking in this day and age. It's just idiotic. Can someone who's taken up smoking in the last decade please explain to me what the Hell you were thinking? (I did see Young Val's comment about self-destruction)

[Young Val]

yup. that's really about it. i wanted to do something bad to myself cause i was in a really bad place. for lots of reasons cutting, eating disorders, all the "typical" (not trivializing at all here) self-destructive things were beyond my ability. but i was surrounded by all my friends, who were smokers. and pretty soon, it became vital to my stability.

i've quit smoking twice, and i've never once gone back because i had a "nic fit." both times, i picked up the habit again because the act is so closely tied to emotional issues with me, that whenever i got upset about anything i NEEDED to have one. in three years i've never once experienced physical adiction to nicotine. but i am definitely emotionally addicted to the act of smoking.

it is a supremely comforting act. very repetitive. forces you to be conscious of your breathing. great for those with an oral fixation, like myself.

of course it's a disgusting thing to do. of course it's bad for my health. i'm also gonna keep doing it for a little while. because it calms me. and because i ENJOY it. there. i said it. i enjoy smoking.

::sits back to watch as everyone's opinion of her drastically changes::

[neo-dragon]

I don't think that anyone is going to be shocked to hear that a smoker enjoys smoking. I mean, you're certainly not doing it for your health!

[RoyalMother]

You know, smoking is a pretty stupid thing to do. You have to ask yourself, who the f*** starts smoking? Who one day decides, "hey, I'm gonna get addicted to this s***," (because you do have to make a conscious decision to get addicted to cigarettes). And then you realise that it's not adults, with all their rights and freedom to choose how they live their life that start smoking, but it's kids. Kids who are too stupid and too naive are the ones who are keeping the cycle going. And when those kids grow up, they're powerless to choose not to smoke.

If cigarettes just became available today, with all we know about them, would they be legal? More than likely not. And if they were legal, would anyone start smoking them? I highly doubt it.

You are NEVER powerless to decide to stop smoking!
I have been quit for 1 Year, 1 Week, 1 Day, 5 hours and 55 minutes (373 days). I have saved $1,343.68 by not smoking 7,464 cigarettes. I have saved 1 Month, 6 Days, 6 hours and 48 minutes of my life. My Quit Date: 11/8/2005 1:30 PM

[Young Val]

oh my god, i'm the only person on this whole freakin' board who smokes, aren't i?

[neo-dragon]

Maybe that's your cue that it's time to quit... for good! Whether your addiction is emotional or physical it's ultimately doing you far more harm than good. Find a better way to cope.

[Epi]

That's a great law. Smoking is horrible for everyone.

I'm glad that Ontario was the first jurisdiction in North America to ban smoking in all public places (unless it's Sean Penn doing it). I wish all places were anti-smoking, that would be awesome.

Smoking costs our healthcare system billions of dollars a year. Even in the world of private insurance like the US, non-smokers will still be paying into the pot that smokers take out of, or indirectly using up health care resources.

It's a disgusting habit, and it's horribly bad for you. I hope they can ban it all.

[eriador]

(i just realized that having argued for the legalization of pot, I have no leg to stand on agreeing with Epi)

[VelvetElvis]

Backed yourself into an e-corner, there!

[eriador]

Oopsie!

[VelvetElvis]

heh.


I love this ban. Not having to breathe smoke just rocks my socks off.

[eriador]

as hypocritical as it may sound, i agree. having to breathe smoke as a non-smoker is no fun. hell, even having to smell it pisses me off.

[VelvetElvis]

Hypocrite!

[AnthonyByakko]

(i just realized that having argued for the legalization of pot, I have no leg to stand on agreeing with Epi)

Not really - I don't advocate smoking at all, be it cigarettes or pot. But marijuana doesn't (and shouldn't) be smoked for the effect. It's more potent, less harmful, cheaper and long-lasting to use other methods.

Well AB, firstly you seemed to assume that we are all civil libertarians. I for one am most definitely not. That being said, perhaps this issue can be seen as the government protecting a person's right to not be forced into breathing in noxious fumes.

You're right - I should have assumed the two sides here were tribal collectivists and ineffectual progressivists.

I'm all for not breathing in noxious fumes. But as far as I'm concerned, the few people's second-hand smoke I encounter is the least of my worries in that area. But instead of working on the big-picture problem in airborne pollutants, people want to spend millions of dollars and countless man-hours trying to ban smoking. That's like worrying about the 50 murderers and rapists a year who are executed under the death penalty, and not worrying about the 50 innocent soldiers a month dying in Iraq.

Whenever you walk down the street, you are forced to breath in the s*** that other people are smoking. Why is it that we have a right to breath it in, but we don't have a right to not do so? They are protecting the rights of the non-smoking public to not breath this s*** in.

Really? Where do you live that you're walking the street so much? But that's beside the point - I've never stated that people should be allowed to smoke in public places, streets, parks, etc.

[liquifiedrainbows]

The end of America? I don't think it's overstating it. Banning all smoking, everywhere? People can only smoke in their own "single family, detached residences?" So renters are screwed, and can't smoke ever? You can't even smoke in your own car? On your way to work or otherwise? C'mon, this is absolutely ludicrous.

The only people who have rights are people who fit the norm. I guess smokers aren't the norm.

[Young Val]

The end of America? I don't think it's overstating it. Banning all smoking, everywhere? People can only smoke in their own "single family, detached residences?" So renters are screwed, and can't smoke ever? You can't even smoke in your own car? On your way to work or otherwise? C'mon, this is absolutely ludicrous.

The only people who have rights are people who fit the norm. I guess smokers aren't the norm.

...

[AnthonyByakko]

I guess ol' rainbows doesn't like you, Val.