New York Bans Smoking Outdoors

[Slim]

And this demonstrates your self-righteousness. Because this is more than just a recognition by you that government's do such things, you actually AGREE with them. You have a set of assumptions about what the role of government is and your own appreciation of the value of things. Your outlook is just as political as everyone elses.

 

No, it isn't. I've not said if I agree or disagree with this particular action, which I've said multiple times now.

 

In any case, I don't need to start from any baseline about the law. Someone tells you to do something-->You question who they are and ask why they want you to do it-->If the justification isn't good enough then it is ignore/challenge them and think they're wrong. It's that simple.

 

I don't think it is that simple in your case, and I've explained why. As to the justification, that's the New York Authorities, not mine. I've not made any personal views about it, as I keep saying. I think it's fairly pointless to do so, as you'll automatically disagree with any kind of authority action, smokers will obviously hate it as an infringement on their right to do what the hell they like, non smokers will largely not give much of a hoot but probably be in favor of it for the sake of the children and unsightly cigarette butts. There's really not a lot anyone can say that'll change any of that.

[Ben Varrey]

What article?

 

Sorry for playing catch up and apologies if you've already answered this!

 

The article you saw on google?

[Ben Varrey]

In the meantime, back in the good old Isle of Man, as I was walking home from work half an hour ago, I spy with my little eyes...

 

Just by the phone boxes at the bottom of Broadway...

 

An adult, sitting on the pavement with three under age kids, passing around his can of Bud AND a cigarette. Welcome to the Isle of Man.

I might be a non-smoker, but who are we to preach???

 

Good for you - stand against dictatorship my good friend. Once it gets a hold in a country, well, the rest, as they say, is history. Freedom and liberty goes out of the window for pretty much everyone.

[Ben Varrey]

And this demonstrates your self-righteousness. Because this is more than just a recognition by you that government's do such things, you actually AGREE with them.

 

Ah, but, I think you will find that when his likes are infringed upon, he will be singing a very different tune. And trust me, it will happen.

 

 

Someone tells you to do something-->You question who they are and ask why they want you to do it-->If the justification isn't good enough then it is ignore/challenge them and think they're wrong. It's that simple.

 

Absolutely. Mindless machines carry out instructions without question. God forbid we ever become that way.

 

I say that the simple facts of "It reduces smoking" do not necessarily warrant such a law.

 

Spot on. Who do other people think they are telling me whether or not I can smoke? You only have to look at the overreaction of the smoking fascits for this trend to clearly displayed.

 

I am derailing a thread, because you think this explanation is all we need and the justification required. I think you just want to limit conversation to whether it will or will not reduce smoking. That I think pointless.

 

That rather depends on whose point is in question. People will try to limit debate to boundaries within which they feel safe and sure. Passive smoking has never been fully proven. You only have to look around at society and ask why more people were never affected by passive smoking, typically those employed within enclosed spaces that smokers would frequent - why were those figures not abnormally high? Why is adult asthma still on the increase even with all those thousands that have stopped smoking? Why is there no decline in childhood asthma? Spooky! Could there be another reason do you think

[Ben Varrey]

smokers will obviously hate it as an infringement on their right to do what the hell they like,

 

I was with you on this right up until 'their right to do what the hell they like'. That's a bit harsh. Not all smokers are inconsiderate, as I'm sure you know. It isn't a case of doing what the hell we like, it's more the absurd attitude that all will be well with the world if only we can get rid of those pesky smokers! Those who are more enlightened will know this will not be the case.

 

non smokers will largely not give much of a hoot

 

On that I think you are spot on. I have met very few non-smokers or ex-smokers (and they're the worst of all!) that were in favour of the ban. From what they have said to me (non-smokers) is that they were glad to have somewhere to go that didn't permit smoking. Not one of the supported a full out ban (I don't drink so the ban in pubs doesn't bother me but I do feel for those for whom it was their social outlet).

 

but probably be in favor of it for the sake of the children

 

What do you mean 'for the sake of the children'?

 

unsightly cigarette butts

 

Yes, some smokers are very inconsiderate they way they throw them on the floor. When I visited a friend in Belfast, I was amazed at the amount of rubbish bins in general for public use but, fitted to these bins, were ashtrays and these bins were everywhere and, guess what - very few cigarette ends on the floor. Maybe if people were given disposal points then cigarette ends wouldn't be thrown on the ground. It would seem the Irish Government is a tad more considerate to the people who pay their salaries!

 

It's nice to see you're not on the side of the fascists :-)

[ManxTaxPayer]

What article?

 

Sorry for playing catch up and apologies if you've already answered this!

 

The article you saw on google?

I can't be bothered.

[Ben Varrey]

Oddly enough, I thought that would be the response lol

 

Go on, admit it - you made up those statistics didn't you

[ManxTaxPayer]

Go on, admit it - you made up those statistics didn't you

What statistics? Are you a mental?

[Ben Varrey]

What statistics?

 

You were talking about articles you had googled (see messages 38 -42), surely they had statistics, not just some general comment unsubstantiated by fact.

 

Are you a mental?

 

I don't think it's me you should be asking that question of, do you? I can remember what I've said.

[RU4Real]

This forum is so funny

Listening 2 people getting freaked out about those who smoke.

I have cut bits and pieces from the posts and put them into 3 parts. smoke - none smoke and middle.

 

SMOKE: Smoking is legal and smokers pay more tax. Typical yanks biggest polluters in the world and they worry about a bit of ciggy smoke (I like this point)

---cause all that smoke is so bad for you, but we wont worry about all them cars will we (side issue)

There is no good reason for legislation. (Interesting point)

---Depends what reason its being done for?, America seems to enjoy being the first to do everything whether its actually want the majority of people or not! Is it because of littering?, I can't see second hand smoke is an issue when its outside, the health effects would be nil(50/50 point)

---If you and I find two garages, of equal dimenions (say, 12ftx12ft)and no windows, door closed, I will sit and smoke all night long in my garage space and you can sit in yours with a car engine running and we'll see who walks out in the morning (bad aggressive view and a bit like comparing water with acid)

---smoking outdoors does not injure the health of others and banning it is just petty meddling by people with a penchant for interfering in other peoples' lives, presumably to boost their inadequate egos (Questionable viewpoint and argumentative presumption).

---I have yet to see or read of any reliable evidence that "second hand smoking" harms anyone anyway. (View can be looked at the other way to so equal status point)

---What studies and how reliable are the statistics which emerged from them -lies, damned lies, etc. Who conducted these studies and who financed them? How were they conducted - which segment of the population was targeted? Without all this information the figures are meaningless. I guess the answer will be the health mafia or people/organisations in thrall to them - plus the usual load of busybodies who are never happy unless they are buggering people's lives up. As for banning things because they might influence the behaviour of others (I like this view to start with anyway as stats can make anything believable)

---Passive smoking has never been fully proven. You only have to look around at society and ask why more people were never affected by passive smoking, typically those employed within enclosed spaces that smokers would frequent - why were those figures not abnormally high? Why is adult asthma still on the increase even with all those thousands that have stopped smoking? Why is there no decline in childhood asthma? (good debatable points)

--- Not all smokers are inconsiderate, as I'm sure you know. It isn't a case of doing what the hell we like, it's more the absurd attitude that all will be well with the world if only we can get rid of those pesky smokers! (good point)

---I have met very few non-smokers or ex-smokers (and they're the worst of all!) that were in favour of the ban. From what they have said to me (non-smokers) is that they were glad to have somewhere to go that didn't permit smoking. Not one of the supported a full out ban (I don't drink so the ban in pubs doesn't bother me but I do feel for those for whom it was their social outlet). (I like this viewpoint as well)

 

 

NONE SMOKE: Dirty filthy adiction, smokers are killing themselves, their children and anyone that goes near them, And they stink as well (Got a point for most)

---Ah the good old 'two wrongs make a right' argument. Very good. Not that modern cars actually cause much pollution now anyway, unlike say, cigarettes, which are just as bad as they have always been (I like this reply)

---Another good idea from the states. Of course smokers will moan about it, but it isn't just about what other people breathe. It's also about projecting the acceptability of smoking to others, particularly the young and easily influenced. America always leads the way on these things. It's almost inevitable that Europe will eventually follow (Top point to me)

---And I suppose cretins like you will continue to ignore the carcinogens emitted from vehicle exhausts, the adverse health consequences of alcohol, etc. You really have to realise that to persecute smokers without equal action against other, more damaging, things will merely make you a hypocrite.(slagging off/side issue)

---But influencing other's behaviour is, to me, a totally unacceptable justification for placing a ban, as is the concern for the smoker's own health. The only good justification is in protecting other's from inhaling the material from the smoke. I place a much higher value on freedoms - If this were a situation of some 10 year old smoking children and the action of their parents to stop in then I'd think we could agree(fair points although reply edged it)

---I'm guessing from the tone of your emails that it wouldn't matter where the studies came from? Do you need studies to tell you that this kind of thing reduces the number of smokers? The authorities are trying to reduce the acceptability of smoking, it's been going on for years. Advertising bans, point of sale displays, place of employment bans and now the beginning of public space bans. These aren't popular with voters and authorities would only consider them if they were actually effective at improving public health. Smoking is harmful, and these measures reduce smoking. (Mint viewpoint)

 

MIDDLE: According to the studies, smoking in these public places does cause harm to others even if it's just to influence their behavour, but this is about the health of the smoker also. The city's authorities has the power in these places to influence the health of the population, including the smokers themselves. They've reduced smoking massively in the city with previous changes, and this is an extension of that. You can't drink in this kind of public space, you can't run around nekkid, etc. This isn't just about passive smoke (good point)

---I think attitudes and laws regarding tobacco in the region are becoming more like those in the west..(needs substantiating for me to agree one way or another)

---An adult, sitting on the pavement with three under age kids, passing around his can of Bud AND a cigarette. Welcome to the Isle of Man. I might be a non-smoker, but who are we to preach??? (nice bit of pooing)

---(Q)Why is permission for free usage withdrawn? What, in your opinion, is the driving force to make them unaccessible to the general public? (A)In this case to improve the health of the cities population, which so far has turned out to be effective. (also)according to the same article 350,000 fewer smokers during Bloomberg's time (If there is a ban and no-one smokes there, then this has to be a fact also)

---smokers will obviously hate it as an infringement on their right to do what the hell they like, non smokers will largely not give much of a hoot but probably be in favor of it for the sake of the children and unsightly cigarette butts. There's really not a lot anyone can say that'll change any of that. (arguable but see point of view)

 

SIDE ISSUES: Cars/PC/petty slagging off/alcohol/brakes on bikes/political/spelling

 

So thats the topic so far and my spelling might not b good as i noticed in nearly all the topics, but so wot, i dont care and if u do, then so what, get a life!

 

Just cant see why people lose their cool over smoking. Trying 2 look from a wrinklys point of view tho, that if ur brats smoke, then i spose that if u didnt try and stop them, then u'd look as if u didnt care, but 4 those whos candles cost more to buy than their cake and smoke, then if u die, then so wot? Ur relys might ave a weepy but we all die sometime and if they were arsed, then dont do it....simples

[ScotsAlan]

My first post... so go easy on me.

 

I am a smoker. I like to smoke. I actually enjoy it.

 

The outside smoking ban is not new. They have been doing it in Hong Kong for years.

 

But they know how to balance it in HK. No smoking in public recreation areas, play parks etc etc.....

 

That's ok to deal with. because a short walk takes you to a smoking area, if you want to smoke, take a wander to an open area.

 

But they also appreciate smokers have an addiction, as I do. So, in the airport for example, they provide adequate smoking areas for smokers. Not the blanket ban they are trying to enforce here (copied from the UK).

 

What I don't understand,where are all the campaigners who wanted the pub smoking ban? They proclaimed they could not go to the pub because it was too smoky. Then they said they can't go to the pub because of the smokers on the pavement. Now they can't go the the pub in case they step on a butt.

 

I think they just don't want to go to the pub.

 

So hey, if you see me in the middle of a field, standing alone puffing my Marlboro... please leave me alone to enjoy my smoke. There really is no need for you to detour towards my smoke cloud just to turn your nose up at me.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

And the stupid laws you have in the UK and Isle of Man. Apparently, it is illegal to smoke on the grounds of the college. But it makes sense not to smoke only when you are near to others who might breathe it in. But a different matter to have some security guard tell me that I can't smoke in the car park when nobody is around. (More irritating considering that I have one security guard smoking there himself, but that's a different thing).

 

I absolutely favour ways to get people to realise that their 'habit' is nothing but addiction and to try and find ways to get people to stop. But SOME of these bans are quite ridiculous and some infringe freedoms.

[ScotsAlan]

My thoughts are simple. The more laws the state creates, the more criminals there are.

 

Does anyone object to me standing in the middle of a field puffing my Marlboros?

 

I just want a yes/no answer from the antis.......

[ScotsAlan]

And the stupid laws you have in the UK and Isle of Man. Apparently, it is illegal to smoke on the grounds of the college. But it makes sense not to smoke only when you are near to others who might breathe it in. But a different matter to have some security guard tell me that I can't smoke in the car park when nobody is around. (More irritating considering that I have one security guard smoking there himself, but that's a different thing).

 

I absolutely favour ways to get people to realise that their 'habit' is nothing but addiction and to try and find ways to get people to stop. But SOME of these bans are quite ridiculous and some infringe freedoms.

 

 

But LDV. The Guards are only doing their job. They don't make the rules. They are only paid minimum wage to try to enforce them.

[Merkin]

 

What I don't understand,where are all the campaigners who wanted the pub smoking ban? They proclaimed they could not go to the pub because it was too smoky. Then they said they can't go to the pub because of the smokers on the pavement. Now they can't go the the pub in case they step on a butt.

 

I think they just don't want to go to the pub.

 

 

All the non smokers whinged that it was too smokey for them inside pubs. Tey introduced a ban but none of them chose to frequent. Worse, the smokers were alienated as the things they liked doing were no longer available. Pubs close at a record rate; as many as 50 per week in the UK in 2009.

 

The smoking ban, like it or not, has helped kill the pub trade. I like it that the pubs dont stink of tobacco but do feel sorry for the landlords who have had their hands forced.