I believe that New York has just passed a law against smoking "in the open air". How many lawsuits are forthcoming?

Peeing is not against the law. Peeing over the fence into your neighbor’s yard probably is. Same principle.

Drinking alcohol isn’t illegal either, but we still have open container laws. The new law doesn’t ban all public smoking, however. It only concerns parks, plazas, and beaches.

From yesterday’s NY Times “On Monday, it becomes illegal to smoke in many outdoor areas of the city, including parks, beaches, pools, recreation centers and other spaces under the jurisdiction of the Parks and Recreation Department. Pedestrian plazas, too, including the ones in Times Square and Herald Square, are off limits, as is the Coney Island Boardwalk.”

The property is “OWNED” by NYC – - – > “Don’t mess wit da man”

There’s a whole host of things that aren’t illegal in and of themselves, but are illegal to do in a public space like a park or beach. Being naked comes to mind. I see no legal difference between that and this. I don’t see why you’d be expecting lawsuits because of it.

“how can New York and other states pass laws forbidding smoking out in the open air?”

The same way that they can pass laws forbidding any other discharge of toxic, carcinogencic wastes that negatively affect those exposed to them.

I, for one, think it’s wonderful. I forget which country – a cute little one – maybe New Zealand? – wants to ban outdoor smoking completely.

I think that it’s a well-known fact how bad smoking is – and second-hand smoke is just as bad – or worse. Unlike drinking, one’s smoke does affect people nearby.

Keep your cancer to yourself. Smoke in your own home, or designated – ventillated room in the building – but let’s have smoke-free air outside.

I think it is ridiculous. They got what they wanted with indoor smoking bans and you can’t smoke in a public place at all, even bars where smoking was to be expected. Now they want you to stop smoking outside. this is a law that just pisses me off. This law is nothing more than a way to bully people into quiting. You know what this means? This means that businesses like bars will lose customers because now they can’t even smoke outside.

@Mikewlf337 No, the law is a means to protect those of us who don’t want our lungs filling with carcinogens from having to inhale them.

Higher cigarette taxes are a way to “bully” people into quitting. And seriously, why would you be against such a thing? Anything that encourages you to quit you should be in favor of.

@MrItty

It seems to me that most of the people against such regulations are smokers who want to force us all to tolerate their poisonous effluent. It’s interesting that many of them are also staunch Republicans who, in almost any other situation, would be incensed at a minority demanding special rights over the majority…

Yes, smokers, you are a minority. Why should you have any right to poison, sicken, offend, or inconvenience the majority who do not smoke?

@Mikewlf337 They said the businesses would lose customers when indoor smoking was banned, too; but lo and behold, business actually improved. My father is a professional musician. Bars are his workplace. Despite the fact that he doesn’t smoke, he has several smoking-related health problems. As much as I do not like the attitude behind a lot of these anti-smoking laws (which is usually one of smug superiority and not one of actually caring for people like my father), I am happy that an entire forgotten class of people now has the right to a healthy work environment.

@everyone. It begins with things like smoking then once smoking is taken care of then it’s off to something else until everything is gone.

@MrItty because bullying is something one group does to force another into doing what they want. I do not like to be coerced. Like I said before, what happens after smoking is phased out. Off to the next legal thing to be phased out by bullying.

@Mikewlf337 Why should I be BULLIED by you, into a life on oxygen and Asthma?

The public areas don’t include your house or car and you can have as many people as you like / can fit to inhale the smoke.

I don’t want to inhale your smoke!

I won’t visit your house or ride in your car, is that a deal?

@Mikewlf337

‘bullying is something one group does to force another into doing what they want.”

So people who think they have a right to clean air, healthy lungs, and freedom from noxious pollutants are the bullies? Not the people who think they have a right to force other people to inhale their toxic effluents? I think that’s the very definition of doublespeak…

@crisw I learned to live with the indoor smoking ban. I got used to it and it no longer bothers me. Banning it outside is too much. What’s next? I wont be allowed to smoke in my home either? Is that the plan? Like I said before. After they take smoking away from me what are they going to take away from me next? What else are they going to bully me to conform to.

@Mikewlf337 Take it from an ex smoker – if they “take it away” from you – you should sy thank you. The problem is that smokers think they need to smoke, and think they should defend the right to smoke. Neither is true. Smoking is a disgusting, foul and most unhealthy of habits – which claims too many victims – and “collateral damage.” There is absolutely nothing redeeming about it.

@Mikewlf337

I watched both of my parents die long, slow deaths from smoking-related illnesses. My husband’s father died from smoking. I’ve had coworkers and friends die of lung cancer and other diseases caused by smoking. And I am so sensitive to smoke that I cannot be anywhere that people are smoking or I cannot breathe- and I happen to think that my freedom to stay alive and breathe trumps their wish to spew poison into the air.

As far as my ethical system is concerned, people have a right to do whatever they want, free of legislative interference- as long as they are not harming others. Smoking cause harm. Immense harm. Not just the searing harm of losing loved ones, but the everyday damages. This weekend, I drove past a grass fire on the freeway, being put out by at least four engine companies- caused by a smoker’s careless discard. This weekend in San Diego, there was also yet another house fire cause by a cigarette- and two people died. Last month, it was an oxygen-using quadriplegic who burned himself- and his dwelling- to a crisp. And all you Republicans out there- how can you justify the enormous drain on our tax dollars spent fighting these fires or on health care for smoking-related illnesses?

Banning smoking in public places isn’t a cavalier action by Puritans out to next strip away your guns, beer and Glenn Beck books. It’s a sensible reaction to a public nuisance.

@crisw why outside? Non smokers got the all the indoor public places smoke free. It isn’t enough for them. It’s almost like you want to punish smokers for being smokers. Soon it will be cars that are forced to be smoke free because the open window upsets the non-smoking drivers on the road. Then they will force peopel to not smoke in their homes. It isnt going to stop. Then after smoking is gone. They will move to something else. Something else to eradicate slowly. For almost everything in this world. There is a group that is againt it. I won’t even comment on your political rant.

@Mikewlf337 because non-smokers get to use the outdoors too, and don’t like having to deal with getting cancer?

@Mikewlf337 Where do you think the smoke goes when I am sitting next to you at a beach or park and the wind is blowing in my direction? You don’t know how many times I’ve had to get up and walk away from someone at a park or ballgame for my sons because their smoke was filling my lungs. If I wanted to smoke, I’d grab a pack myself.

crisw, referring to your whisper above:
You certainly do have the right to not be poisoned or sickened in this life.
You do not have the right to not be offended or inconvenienced in this life.

I am fine with the ban.

@Mikewlf337

“Non smokers got the all the indoor public places smoke free. It isn’t enough for them.”

Why should we be forced to be harmed by inhaling toxic, carcinogenic pollutants because some people are addicted to them? Can you give a reasonable answer to that question?

@Mikewlf337 Slippery slope fallacy.

@everyone. You all miss the part where I said after smoking. Don’t tell me they wont do it. After smoking is eradicated. They will turn to something else. Something else to slowly phase out because they don’t want you to do it. Another thing. Smokers will still smoke outside becauseyou can’t monitor everyone. I guess you all will be complaining when a group gets enough support to ban something you enjoy. Either ban it or make it nearly impossible for you to enjoy it. Then you will see what I mean.

Some of you have major problems with things other than smoking that you would be happy to see banned. Of course with me being a conservative my opinion isn’t worth crap to most people on here. That is why I am concerned. I am against banning most things. I know if you give someone an inch they will take a mile. They banned smoking indoors. Every smoker had to go outside to smoke. Now you all want smokers to not even smoke outside. That pretty much means either quit or stay home. I have read some of the past post from some of you and I feel that some of you want more than smoking banned. That is why I get concerned about a smoking ban outside because I know it is not the end when it comes to forcing people to not smoke.

@Mikewlf337

“I guess you all will be complaining when a group gets enough support to ban something you enjoy”

Well, if it’s something that kills 600,000 innocent people every year,, as an ethical person, I am glad to say I’d support banning it.

“That pretty much means either quit or stay home.”

Or just manage to go out and enjoy yourself without feeding your addiction for a few hours.

You haven’t yet directly answered why we should be forced to be harmed by inhaling toxic, carcinogenic pollutants because some people are addicted to them. What, exactly, is the answer to that? Why should I suffer because of your addiction?

@crisw ok, after smoking is gone you can find something else to eradicate. Outside smoking bans is where I draw the line. Im sure next you will be pushing for smoking to banned in the home as well. What you all really want is ban on cigarettes. with smokers pretty much not allowed to smoke anywhere that means they can’t smoke at all unless they are home. Like I said a million times on this thread. Smoking is just the beginning. There are a whole list of things that you probobly want banned and will push for it.

@Mikewlf337 Again, slippery slope fallacy. Prove that something else will be banned, or stop banging on the brazen pot.

@Mikewlf337 You are getting paranoid and jittery, do you need a cigarette?
Stay inside your house and smoke all you want. I don’t want to ban you from smoking in YOUR house and car. Just don’t make ME have to get an oxygen tank because of your habit and OBSESSION.

@Mikewlf337

Okay, let’s try this one more time.

Smoking in public areas is being banned because it hurts and kills people. Forget about the claims that next we will all go ban something else, please, for just a moment. Why should people with an addiction be allowed to hurt and kill people who do not share their addiction? Can you answer that direct question, please, without talking about some other subject?

I’m actually surprised it took so long. No-one is disputing the horrible effects cigarette smoke has. No-one. Cancer and emphysema, asthma – the list goes on and on. Plus, it smells horrible and sticks to your hair and clothes – why should anyone be subjected to someone else’ smoke?

If someone has HIV, and runs around with a needle full of his blood wildly jabbing at anyone – he would be stopped and arrested, right? Why should one go around puffing smoke in people’s faces – subjecting them to said diseases?

When public buildings and several outdoor areas in my city became smoke-free, they became much nicer places to be. We heard the same complaints and arguments that people have already mentioned here: smoking is a legal activity, smokers are being discriminated against, the businesses in the area will suffer. I think there are still smokers who grumble, but the rest of us are loving it, particularly those of us who work in hospitality.

Will any lawsuits arise? This sort of thing has been done before. Seriously, if there are some streets in Tokyo where smoking is prohibited, NYC is heading in the right direction.

What about when a smoker goes to work? This law means he/she can’t smoke until the day is over. It is a bully tactic. You all want people to quit smoking so instead of pushing far a ban on cigarettes period, you want to make it increasingly difficult for a smoker to smoke while keeping cigarettes legal.

I think @Mikewlf337 is geographically challenged, and thinks ALL of NYC has a ban on smoking.

And @Mikewlf337 has never been to NYC. Good reason, not to go, for him.

@Mikewlf337 An all-out ban on cigarettes wouldn’t work. By gradually strengthening anti-smoking laws, smokers are more likely to choose to quit, and public disgust towards smoking increases, so if/when the ban does occur, illegal sales will be less successful. Also, the tobacco companies need to be taken into account because they’re still powerful and still employ a lot of people.

Better a ‘bully’ than a dictator.

@SavoirFaire Actually his [@Mikewlf337] fallacy is a Straw-Man fallacy – with elements of a Slippery Slope.

Straw-Man Fallacy:
Person A has Argument A; Person B has Argument B.
Person A makes points regarding Argument A, while Person B makes points regarding Argument B.
Person B then makes Argument X while purporting that it is actually Argument A.
Person B defeats Argument X, and believes he has defeated Argument A.

The Slippery Slope appears just as you described.

The problem, @Mikewlf337, is that you have not been participating in the debate by answering questions.

Please answer these, without commenting on future possibilities, and keeping in mind that most people do not smoke:
– Is it acceptable for non-smokers to inhale smoke?
– Is it acceptable for smoking to occur in public spaces?
– Is it acceptable for bars et al. to be smoke environments?

@iphigeneia: I agree! I’d like to add, that as more and more people become aware of how harmful smoking is, and become used to living in a world where smoking is scarce [in their public spaces], people will begin to react negatively to persons smoking in their vicinity. Non-smokers will become very jealous and territorial of their airspace, no longer bullied into submission by those who smoke.

For me, I look forward to the day when I can calmly ask a person to smoke elsewhere, or even speak to them about their smoking [only to say – “can you move elsewhere?”] As it stands now, If I’m reading on a parkbench, or at a bus stop, and a smoker comes and stands nearby and lights up – I’m the one who is expected to move “if I don’t like it”.

I readily accept this change of power that will allow me to ask the smoker to “Move elsewhere, because I don’t like it.”

@squirbel Yes, I agree that @Mikewlf337‘s argument contains both fallacies. You are quite correct. I just wanted to focus on the slippery slope bit first. Good call, though.

@Mikewlf337 You say “this law means [a smoker at work] can’t smoke until the day is over,” but that is not the case. As I explained in my first response above, this law is limited to parks, plazas, and beaches.

@squirbel the same arguments could be applied to dog farts. People shouldn’t be subjected to others’ dogs’ farts and therefore there should be a complete and total ban on all pets in these places as well.

I’m unaware of any studies proving that outdoor second-hand smoke poses a health risk greater than the natural pollutants already existing in places like NYC. You guys have been making some pretty big claims without much evidence to back yourselves up.

@gorillapaws I have been to NYC and it is a filthy place. They want clean air in a city that doesn’t have clean air. I’m sure there is stuff in the air a lot worse than cigarette smoke.

@gorillapaws

“the same arguments could be applied to dog farts”

My dog’s farts are pretty noxious- but last I checked, they don’t cause cancer, or burn houses down.

“I’m unaware of any studies proving that outdoor second-hand smoke poses a health risk… ”

Here you go.
And here (especially this.)
And another.
Some more.

@crisw not a single study you provided showed a causal link to cancer or other major health risks as you are claiming.

@gorillapaws

You are moving the goalposts.

Harpers quoted a study some years ago that said the levels of toxins (arsenic I think) in second hand smoke was just slightly lower than allowed amounts in most of the US’s drinking water.
Certainly smoking cigarettes is dangerous to one’s health, but I think advocates of smoking bans are annoyed and inconvenienced by having to inhale other people’s smoke so they seek out studies that will prove their point.
What’s that kind of fallacy called?

Once again, I’m fine with the ban. If I want to have a cigarette, (the one or two I average a day) I’ll go out of my way to keep it to myself, but not because I care about your health.

Because it makes sense in crowded open air areas. You need a lot of cubic meters of air to dilute smoke.