NYC smoking ban extended to parks, Times Square (New York, York: casino, rooftop)

[nightcrawler]

Originally Posted by Fred314X

This is true, although not exclusive to Mayor Bloomberg's administration.

As to an extension of the smoking ban outdoors, the real bottom line is enforcement. How do you enforce a law like that? And secondarily--haven't the police got more urgent things to do than run around writing tickets for people caught smoking in parks? (All you have to do is take a look at the near-total lack of enforcement of the law that says you can't drive a car with a cell phone in your hand, to know exactly how well a ban on smoking in outdoor areas would go over!)

I would think talking or texting on a cell phone while driving is much more dangerous than second hand smoke or, litter for that matter......................

plus the fact we have terrorism going on, and yet the police will need to ticket smokers.............................I can't even touch this one

[SobroGuy]

In all honesty I would prefer enforcement of all the current laws we have instead of new laws. If they aggressively enforced the littering violations, there would not be butts anywhere, including the beaches, parks, etc. If they aggressively enforced the pooper scooper laws, there would be none of that either.

But what is the reality? They start a ticket blitz for littering and the public goes crazy, complaining, Bloomberg is anti-poor/people of color, he is nickel and diming us out of this city to make way for his rich buddies, don't cops have better things to do than ticket me for a cigarette butt on the street, etc. So the idea of enforcement is great, but actually enforcing it to make a difference in the city is bad unfortunately.

[Michael J. McFadden]

Originally Posted by SobroGuy

In all honesty I would prefer enforcement of all the current laws we have instead of new laws. If they aggressively enforced the littering violations, there would not be butts anywhere, including the beaches, parks, etc. If they aggressively enforced the pooper scooper laws, there would be none of that either..

Sobro, fully agreed! If you check my profile you'll find that my beef isn't about the litter end of the argument, it's about the way Antismokers USE the litter excuse in pursuit of their larger goals. And once the evidence in a particular place (like California beaches) would go against that goal they'll simply refuse to respond to or even acknowledge the opposing facts.

Butt litter was NEVER an "issue" before the smoking bans. Yes, there were some smokers who littered but it was not frequent enough and their refuse wasn't prolific enough, to stand out. The problem was caused by those who forced the smoking bans down our throats... and you'll notice they have nary a word of excuse or remorse.

[Michael J. McFadden]

Nightcrawler, you wrote, "I would think talking or texting on a cell phone while driving is much more dangerous than second hand smoke"

Heh... actually, I just did some research on that after receiving a copy of one of the most recent studies on texting dangers. I can produce the full computations here if folks are interested, but the end result was that being in a car while the driver was texting at the rate of one text per hour was roughly 13,000 times as dangerous as being in a car with someone who was smoking at the rate of one cigarette per hour (Using the EPA Report as a basis for the smoking danger.)

And I fully agree with your analysis on butt litter.

[Doobage]

Originally Posted by SobroGuy

In all honesty I would prefer enforcement of all the current laws we have instead of new laws. If they aggressively enforced the littering violations, there would not be butts anywhere, including the beaches, parks, etc. If they aggressively enforced the pooper scooper laws, there would be none of that either.

But what is the reality? They start a ticket blitz for littering and the public goes crazy, complaining, Bloomberg is anti-poor/people of color, he is nickel and diming us out of this city to make way for his rich buddies, don't cops have better things to do than ticket me for a cigarette butt on the street, etc. So the idea of enforcement is great, but actually enforcing it to make a difference in the city is bad unfortunately.

Another topic altogether but the fact that people would complain about not being able to litter is so lame.

[Carol2000]

The anti-smokers commit flagrant scientific fraud by ignoring more than 50 studies which show that human papillomaviruses cause at least 1/4 of non-small cell lung cancers. Smokers and passive smokers are more likely to have been exposed to this virus for socioeconomic reasons. And the anti-smokers' studies are all based on lifestyle questionnaires, so they're cynically DESIGNED to blame tobacco for all those extra lung cancers that are really caused by HPV. And they commit the same type of fraud with every disease they blame on tobacco.

HPV Causes Lung Cancer
The Surgeon General Lies That Smoking Causes Heart Disease

And, all their so-called "independent" reports were ring-led by the same guy, Jonathan M. Samet, including the Surgeon General Reports, the EPA report, the IARC report, and the ASHRAE report, and he's now the chairman of the FDA Committee on Tobacco. He and his politically privileged clique exclude all the REAL scientists from their echo chamber. That's how they make their reports "unanimous!"

The Surgeon General Lies About Cancer

For the government to commit fraud to deprive us of our liberties is automatically a violation of our Constitutional rights to the equal protection of the laws, just as much as if it purposely threw innocent people in prison. And for the government to spread lies about phony smoking dangers is terrorism, no different from calling in phony bomb threats.

[mmarani]

Personally, I feel smokers in the park adds security, just like anywhere the more folks you have walking around the better. I know quite a few folks who go into Central Park at night to have a few smokes in turn this provides security due to a higher presence in the park. I am not saying crime will spike because of this but I wouldn't be suprised if there are a few more muggings.

But yea smoking in a crowded area is very annoying but I literally see no issue with smoking when it isn't crowded.

The needs of the whiny outweigh the needs of the many.

[mcsfarrugia]

i think this context is being pushed pasted the limit here. I agree that we should have the right to govern ourselves its our right. as long it doesn't hurt anyone else. so if someone wants to smoke its there right. we all know that these regualtions are not for health reasons but for controling. because if they were and the "governement" was truly conserned they would have banned cigerettes all together. and not ad an extra tax on it. i use to be a smoker my grand mother too. but i quit. i believe in second hand smoke. but its my right to move if someone is smoking. and if they are they should have the decensy to clean up there mess. the governemnet doesn't need to create an ordinacne for it. frankly i am sick of all the regualtions cause they just keep adding them on to see how far they can push us. so lets not be carcastic and derogatory. who wants there mommy constantly tell ing them what to do and making new rules everyday. i saw this new law is ridiculous.

[nightcrawler]

The one thing is for sure, if the government was REALLY concerned for our health, (which they are not)...Then then would not make any tobacco products and they would become a part of history....but there is too much money being made there so that will never happen, and because smoking is addictive, the government knows people will buy tobacco products no matter what the cost.