NYC Smoking ban extended
Bronx Bombers
Posts: 2,208
NEW YORK – New York City's parks, beaches and even Times Square will be off-limits to smokers under one of the nation's toughest anti-cigarette laws passed Wednesday by the City Council.
"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," Mayor Bloomberg said after the 36-12 vote.
The smoking ban will cover 1,700 parks and 14 miles of public beaches plus boardwalks, marinas and pedestrian plazas like the one in the heart of Times Square. The ban goes into effect 90 days after Blooomberg signs the bill; the mayor has 20 days to do it.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110202/ap_ ... g_in_parks
"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," Mayor Bloomberg said after the 36-12 vote.
The smoking ban will cover 1,700 parks and 14 miles of public beaches plus boardwalks, marinas and pedestrian plazas like the one in the heart of Times Square. The ban goes into effect 90 days after Blooomberg signs the bill; the mayor has 20 days to do it.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110202/ap_ ... g_in_parks
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
That being said, I'm not in favor of banning smoking anywhere. I hate smoking, but I think it should be up to individual businesses to decide if they do not want smoking. And I certainly do not believe in banning it outside.
My biggest problem is the littering as mentioned above. I do not understand why people think it's OK to throw cigarette butts on the ground.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
well then good luck with the pot thing, smoking is smoking right ?
just saying that agree with you but whats going to happen if pot is legalized ? will it come under the same scrutiny ?
Godfather.
Exactly. As I said in my post, I HATE smoking, but I do not think it should be banned anywhere.
Too many people put their own personal preferences over correct ideology.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
I don't care one way or the other if pot is legalized. I just don't want the government to tax it and not lower taxes in some other area to offset it.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
uhhh ... second hand smoke is the leading cause of lung cancer amongst non-smokers ... there is definitely a need for a ban ...
i'm not sure about everywhere but i don't think too many people are up in arms here in toronto where it is currently banned - mostly restaurants and commercial buildings ...
But people can decide on their own if they want to frequent a business that allows smoking or not.
Statistics are always very misleading, too. 74% of them are made up on the spot.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Should we ban perfume/fragrence since they cause so many allergic reactions???
all things that affect my own and others health... that includes the use of 3 question marks at the end of a sentence.
oh to be so easily amused.
nobody has ever caught cancer from passive soil handling...
will she die a horrible and protracted death because she sniffed in some perfume?
I understand the health risks, I cannot believe people still do it, but it isn't up to the government to make that choice so half assed...They basically are saying, "we still want you to buy the cigarettes, we still want all that tax money, but ....you cannot actually use the cigarettes anywhere."
New york city is such a cool place, I cannot believe the people there put up with this non-sense
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
why do you leave the restaurant? why doesn't the fat lazy smoker walk 20 paces to an outside designated area so they can smoke, then come back and finish their meal?... that way the restaurateur doesn't need to lose any business at all... whereas he's just lost yours.
smokers are so selfish of other people... if i walked around with human shit rubbed into my hair I'd expect to be removed from a restaurant or a bar... but smokers think they have the right to blew their cancer into other peoples faces.
selfish.
Second-hand smoke
Second-hand smoke is what smokers exhale and what rises from a burning cigarette, pipe or cigar. People exposed to second-hand smoke have an increased risk of lung cancer. Second-hand smoke is a main risk factor for lung cancer among non-smokers.
Second-hand smoke is also called environmental tobacco smoke (ETS), or involuntary or passive smoking.
Second-hand smoke contains the same chemicals as smoke that is actively inhaled.
No amount of exposure to second-hand smoke is safe.
from cancer.ca
although heidijam is correct in the Radon exposure stat ... but similiar to asbestos ... there are regulations against this stuff ... not unlike a ban ...
are you guys so hell bent on personal freedoms that public safety is never a consideration? ... perhaps i should be allowed to ahve a pet lion and be allowed to go wherever i want ...
it just got even cooler imo.
Again, there are many sides to statistics. It may be the second leading (or now "main risk factor"), but how many non-smokers get lung cancer? I'm not trying to dispute you, just saying there are other ways to look at things.
I just wish a business could decide whether they want smokers or not rather than have the government dictate it.
In this thread, I already said I wish we could just ban the littering that comes from smoking so I'm not for total personal freedom.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
what side of "No amount of exposure to second-hand smoke is safe" are you concerned with?
businesses can't decide who they serve alcohol to ... you have to be of the legal drinking age ... businesses also can't serve unproperly handled or cooked food ... this is an issue of public safety ... are you against this?
edit: honestly, i can see how people want to protect their "freedoms" but smoking? ... this is where one draws the line? ...
Nothing people do in this life is safe. Saying that "No amount of exposure to second-hand smoke is safe" doesn't say anything of substance. It's like saying "No amount of driving a car is safe".
Since you're going to nitpick, I suppose I should clarify and say that I do not think underage people should be legally served alcohol, so what I meant to say is that I wish business could choose allow people who are of age to smoke if they want. And to ban them if they want to as well. I assumed most people would understood that was what I meant. I guess that's what happens when you assume.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
if perfumes are ever deemed to be even half the public safety issue smoking is ... i'd be more than happy to see a ban ...
no i'm not saying that as you can see from my previous posts where i have never typed the words "every person exposed to second hand smoke gets cancer".
now second hand smoking has been proven to kill many many thousands of people... I don't know the actual stats of people dying from Chanel No 5 being sprayed to close but i'm guessing it's pretty low.
laws like this are passed for the common good... a law banning perfume spraying would only really help about 4 people.
I don't need to worry about that... Scotland (and the UK) banned smoking in all public places many years ago...
now thats the case in NY and I for one think its amazing. well done.