Smoking outside: a danger to health?
Wednesday, September 16, 2009 New York City's health commissioner Dr Thomas Farley wants to ban smoking in city parks and beaches. Nothing new there. New York wouldn't be the first city to ban smoking outside and they won't be the last. According to the the New York Post, however, "The proposal ... seemed to catch Mayor Bloomberg off guard. On Monday night, the mayor, who has championed antismoking programs but also is running for re-election, issued a statement that did not disavow the proposal but appeared to qualify it, saying he wanted "to see if smoking in parks has a negative impact on people’s health". He added, "It may not be logistically possible to enforce a ban across thousands of acres, but there may be areas within parks where restricting smoking can protect health."
The story here is not that smoking may be banned in NY parks and beaches but that Bloomberg wants "to see if smoking in parks has a negative impact on people's health". How the hell are they going to do that? It could take years, generations perhaps. And even then you would need a control group that isn't exposed to any tobacco smoke or any other pollutant (car fumes, for example), and a second group that is exposed to tobacco smoke but in a realistic way.
If Bloomberg is as good as his word we can safely assume that New Yorkers will be smoking in parks and beaches for years to come. On the other hand, I am willing to bet that genuine medical evidence will be noticeable by its absence when the mayor announces - after the election - that lighting up in New Yorkn parks and beaches is a thing of the past.
The NY Post also quotes Cheryl Healton, president and chief executive of the American Legacy Foundation. Welcomg the proposal she said, "There is no redeeming value in smoking at beaches or parks. Anyone who has sat behind someone smoking a stogie [cigar] can tell you that."
Perhaps I'm missing something. Has Charyl Healton lost the use of her legs or is she just too lazy to get up and move? Alternatively, if she finds it that unpleasant, she could have a polite word and ask them to move, although it begs the question why she is sitting so close to someone in a large open space. Either way, we don't need yet another law to regulate our behaviour.
Full story HERE.
Simon Clark
I will be discussing this and other issues on SunTalk Radio this morning. I'm also on You and Yours (Radio 4) at 12.20, BBC Radio Humberside at 1.35, and LBC at 7.35 this evening.
Reader Comments (20)
"There is no redeeming value in smoking at beaches or parks. Anyone who has sat behind someone smoking a stogie [cigar] can tell you that."
Apart from the enjoyment it provides, of course.
We seem now to be edging towards a Master Formula for Total Control.
If something (anything) is:
a) Not STRICTLY 'necessary', and
b) It 'annoys' ANYBODY -
BAN IT (preferably on health grounds) !!!
Think I might start my own list...........
Adele Jeune, 47, a home health aide from East New York, Brooklyn, does not smoke and had no objection to a ban. “I love clean air,” said Ms. Jeune, who was sitting on a bench in Union Square. “And if I go somewhere like this, I want to smell clean air.”
This from someone sitting on a bench in traffic fumed New York. Can I turn the lights off now?
These are the same kind of people who visit farms to teach the chiiildren about nature and moan about the smell of manure.
I'm afraid these bullies have no idea what the word tolerance means!
How many times are people stuck on a bus, train or in an office with someone else who is wearing a perfume that is really sickly it makes you feel ill? You can't get away from it, neither does it tend to diminish during the course of time. A cigarette is smoked and extinguished, end of inconvenience!
Any scent or fragrance is potentially nauseating to some people, whilst delightful to others; should we look at banning people from wearing perfume if they are going to be around others? This, of course, would mean that we would be back to being stuck with the natural body odour, some of which can be quite nauseating, but then where does all of this stop?
It is said that for a marriage to work there needs to be give and take, compromise, where is that to be found in this country as a whole any more? Its no wonder things aren't working for the once Great britain!
Its a wonder Bloomberg isnt banning smoking in parks until he CAN prove if it has a negative impact on people's health.
The fact that the majority of americans are obese is all right then.
If they could only connected the dots, by encouraging overweight people to take up smoking to help reduce their weight which would then reduce bed blocking in hospitals at the same time.
New Yorkers are famous for their coffee drinking, and 'coffee breath' is disgusting when you're not drinking it. In fact friends of mine who have quit smoking, seem to have aquired bad breath which I sometimes have to shy away from. Obviously this is better than the welcoming smell of smoke, and I thought it was smokers who loose their sense of smell.
In fact as the only smoker in my family, I'm the one who notices any smell first.
The smell coming from New York is the smell of corrupt politics, mind you is there any other kind.
There are still many people dying from the effects of the attacks on the Twin Towers. The amount of pollutants discharged into the atmosphere would be frightening if known. So Bloomberg decides to attack smoking outside and very soon anyone dying from the effects of September 11 will be blaming smokers for having a Marlboro in Central Park!
Are Americans really that naive???
These Political Neurosis always eminate from the US do they not how pathetic, just to follow suit,ridiculous.
I've noticed that too Zitori. People I know with the worst-smelling breath are all non-smokers.
The smell of coffee is now documented as an asthma-trigger, btw.
Most cities in California and San Francisco in particular banned all outdoor smoking over the course of the last two years. In some locations possession of tobacco in public parks is a crime as is tobacco retailing a crime.
New York is just catching up to what has already happened inside many locales in California already.
However - as the following story taken from the internet (and no longer available) clearly states, Mayor Bloomberg may have no right to ban smoking in public parks - or anywhere else in New York City - as he and council have managed to circumvent the will of the people who voted in term limits - which Bloomberg and cronies in council over-ruled - against the will of the people who did not wish him seeking a third term.
Thus he is breaking the law as put into place by a huge majority landslide vote and running for a third-term - which in itself is snubbing his nose at all the citizens of NYC, not just the smokers.
Text of article with link that no longer works (all the "good" stories that reveal dictatorships for what they are seem to "disappear" from the internet it seems) below:
--
NY council extends term limit so Bloomberg can run 10/23/2008
NEW YORK (Reuters) – The New York City Council voted on Thursday to extend the two-term limit for mayor and other elected officials, allowing Mayor Michael Bloomberg to seek another term to help the city cope with the deepening global financial crisis.
Bloomberg, a former Wall Street trader and self-made billionaire who was elected in 2001 and again in 2005, wants to run again on grounds that his financial experience will be valuable in guiding the city through lean fiscal times ahead.
The 51-member council voted 29 to 22 to approve the measure. About two-thirds of the council would have been forced out of office under the two-term limit, but they can now stand for a third term at the November 2009 election.
"It's a vote and a choice that's a difficult one, but it's one we take at a difficult time," Council Speaker Christine Quinn told reporters before the vote.
"In a time like this what you need is New Yorkers to have the opportunity to have consistent leadership," she said.
In 1993 and 1996, New Yorkers voted to limit the mayor and other city officials to two four-year terms. A Quinnipiac University poll on Tuesday found 89 percent of voters say a referendum, not a council vote, should decide the issue.
Bloomberg and Quinn rejected holding a referendum on the issue. A court challenge by two council members to stop the vote failed on Wednesday.
"Democracy will be forever tainted," Council Member Charles Barron said as he voted against extending the term limit.
Former Mayor Rudolph Giuliani sought to stay on when his second term was ending in 2001 after the September 11 attacks. But his proposal proved unpopular, and he backed down.
(Editing by Michelle Nichols and Philip Barbara)
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081023/ts_nm/us_newyork_bloomberg
--
So why then does Michael Bloomberg and other elected cronies who are willfully violating the vote of the citizens by remaining in office a third time, let alone mandating outdoor smoking bans that are nothing to do with health but everything to do with villifying a large percentage of the population of NYC, more spitting in the faces of the electorate - on top of the very fact - Bloomberg technically has no right to run a third term anyhow.
David,
We Brits do not understand how your US laws work. In England, the Mayor of a town/city is a person elected by the majority party in the local council.He/she is appointed for one year and then needs to be re-appointed. The position is mostly ceremonial.I do not think that we have an equivalent of the Mayor of New York.
But all this does not matter. What is important is, "Does the Mayor have the right to stop people smoking in the fresh air?" I note that your post says that two council members went to court to stop the extension of the Mayor's tenure of office - but they did not go th court to stop him banning smoking in the fresh air.
You see, what happens in the US is irrelevant to us.
But your post is well received. It is most interesting to know that your politicians are even more stupid than ours!
Its a wonder that Bloomberg's 'financial experience' didnt see the crash coming no more than all the other financial wizards.
I hope Newyorkers feel good that all his great knowledge is saving them from second hand smoke but could do nothing to save their jobs for them.
Its a well known fact that the jewish community in the US dictates policy.
But one might contend that the increase in smoking bans is an international problem, not confined to any one place in the world.
So I do not think it totally "irrelevant" to UK what happens in US.
If one believes it "irrelevant", it can be believed as "not going to happen here next" or "not of my concern, doesn't affect me" - though the history of smoking-bans shows it in fact moves from the first place of experimentation - usually California - then into other areas - next.
Smoking was banned outdoors in CA quite a while back - now it is being proposed in NYC - soon in UK.
That to me is relevant, as it moves international in scope - the anti-smoking anti-tobacco crusade sees no national boundaries but operates on a worldwide scale as their funding is being doled out internationally, not confined to any one country.
I think the information from what is occurring elsewhere is of relevancy to across national boundaries - for what happens in one location is bound to show up in the next eventually. It certainly has already on most accounts.
And once it has taken hold in one city, state or country, then that is immediately claimed a "great success" - where-upon comes the excuse to then implement it elsewhere across the world - thus "relevant" I would think.
It is also why what happens in UK's current Nanny State government greatly concerns me given we have the equivalent now started up in DC and about to unleash the same over here - thus relevant.
David,
Sorry. I did not explain what I was referring to when I said 'irrelevant' I was referring to your system of government in individual states and the powers of Mayors and Governors and State Legislatures, which is what your post was predominantly about.
I am not sure, but I do not think that our Local Authorities have the power to ban smoking in outdoor places. Such a decision would have to be made by Parliament.
I agree absolutely about the spread of smoking bans.
David -
Thank you for some most instructive posts.
Of course your experiences in the States are 'relevant'.
Funny how as the air becomes (literally) 'cleaner', it becomes harder (metaphorically) to 'breathe'.
Both our countries are suffering from the voracious Moloch of Big Government - whose appetite for ruling our lives ever grows with the feeding.
And in both our countries, the ONLY solution is a revolution that strips government of much (if not most ) of the vast array of powers it NOW possesses, and gives back to the People the freedoms it ONCE possessed.
In America, a start should be made by recapturing for the American People a CONSTITUTION which has been grievously violated by successive governments since the War. The 'Supreme Court' is a joke.
In Britain, a start should be made by restoring to the British People an ACCOUNTABLE Executive which treacherously exchanged its law-making duties for the Fool's Gold of the European Union. 'Parliament' is a joke.
The declining sovereignty of the Nation State is now being matched by the declining freedom of the individual.
Coincidence ?
I rather think not.
There IS a Method in this Madness........for those with the eyes to see.
"Give me Liberty, or give me Death !"
But the majority of the dummies won't rebel they will just accept it sheepishly.
But what happens after that is after being pushed around and bullied by, "poor calibre" governments,like ours,for years,they eventually rebel.
The real dummies are not the apathetic majority but the corrupt rulers .
You only need to look at recent history to see what happens to dictators.
To put it in a nutshell ,Oh boy does a crowd get ugly and violent.
I must admit I would not care for being propped up against a bullet ridden wall or kicked to death I would imagine thats quite sore.
But if that's what they want, and they are far to stupid to see it ,that it where it eventually leads is it not.
Benevelant totaliterianism is the worst surely.
and only the really stupid do not forsee the consequences of their actions.
Now whom do you think I am refering to as the ,"really stupid".
I predict the first ones to suffer at the hands of an angry mob will be some petty official or other.
Thats usually how it starts.
However it is still some years away and there is still time to start thinking of how foolish this all is.
But I forget ,they are fools.
I think that I am beginning to see what the problem is with our Parliament.
The fact is that governing the Nation is becoming so complex that the ordinary MP has no idea what to think or what to do.
A nice, simple thing like banning smoking in public places is a godsend. It enables them to feel good and to appear to be decisive. The fact that it is irrelevant is of no importance.
Meanwhile, the economy is in total chaos. Too difficult for your average MP!
Junican -
Re your "governing the Nation......."
I also rather think that part of the problem is that they are not ALLOWED to 'govern' in the former sense.
Since the EU (much loved of the Lib Dems) has taken over some 80% of our law-making powers, what else IS there for the poor dears to do ?
Which is also ONE of the reasons that we now attract such mediocrities to the political process.
Who'd want to be a deckchair attendant on a sinking ship, anyway ?
Nothing to do with 'money'.
We don't pay peanuts, but we STILL get monkeys....
We are specialize in Nike shox,this kind of shoes are suitable for sport ,when we do some outside execises ,we can prepare one ,it’s the newest fashion ,many star like it vey much ,if you like sport , if you are pursuing fashion ,we are the best ,and we have a lots styles for you to choose , Nike air Max 90 Nike air Max 2009 and so on …the high quality cheap max ,,there are a lot of air max wholesaler ..its worthy to purchase