The Nanny State Strikes Again! NYC Bans Smoking Outside
Well, it was only a matter of time: New York City has banned smoking in "1,700 city parks and along 14 miles of city beaches," according to the New York Times. Needless to say, Mayor Bloomberg will sign the bill into law.
By a 36-to-12 vote, the Council passed the most significant expansion of antismoking laws since Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg pushed to prohibit smoking in restaurants and bars in 2002.
The Council speaker, Christine C. Quinn, said the ban was an affirmation of the rights of nonsmokers. “Their health and their lives should not be negatively impacted because other people have decided to smoke,” Ms. Quinn said at a news conference.
Opponents of the bill spoke strongly against it; several members derided it as an overly broad law that would infringe on individual liberties.
According to one councilwoman, “I’m not interested in arrests; I’m not interested in revenue. I’m just interested in public health.” There's that public health word again! The term "public health" is becoming like the phrase "social justice"--an excuse, basically, for progressive legislation that serves some "greater" societal good. I'm skeptical, very skeptical, of both phrases.
Two NYC council members, who opposed the bill's passage, nail the issue on the head:
“We’re moving towards a totalitarian society if in fact we’re going to have those kinds of restrictions on New Yorkers,” said Councilman Robert Jackson of Manhattan, who described himself as a marathon runner and nonsmoker.
Others said the ban would set a dangerous precedent. Councilman Daniel J. Halloran IIIof Queens said, “Once we pass this, we will next be banning smoking on sidewalks, and then in the cars of people who are driving minors and then in the homes.”
I'm not a smoker, but I find the anti-smoking crusade to be as odious as the anti-fat crusade. How about instead of prohibiting cigarettes--and taxing junk food--we either let people make their own choices and suffer the bad consequences of their behavior, or we give people incentives to be healthy?
- Comment (28)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (4)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments :
Aug '10
Re: The Nanny State Strikes Again! NYC Bans Smoking Outside
How about we just stay out of it altogether ?
Where are the reams of scientific evidence showing the extreme damage done by second-hand smoke ? Is there any ? Sure it's odious to many, and no doubt it impacts the tooth whitening industry, but is there any proof of second hand smoke damage and in what concentrations and exposure period ?
It seems to have been conveniently forgotten.
Tobacco smoking has been with us since we arrived in the 1600s, has the scientific community become so enlightened in the last 3% of that period that their findings should garner such attention, such funds, and such intrusion in personal choice ?
I am very skeptical about the reasons behind these bans. Bad science has amazing momentum.
Re: The Nanny State Strikes Again! NYC Bans Smoking Outside
flownover: How about we just stay out of it altogether ?
Where are the reams of scientific evidence showing the extreme damage done by second-hand smoke ? Is there any ? Sure it's odious to many, and no doubt it impacts the tooth whitening industry, but is there any proof of second hand smoke damage and in what concentrations and exposure period ?
It seems to have been conveniently forgotten.
Tobacco smoking has been with us since we arrived in the 1600s, has the scientific community become so enlightened in the last 3% of that period that their findings should garner such attention, such funds, and such intrusion in personal choice ?
I am very skeptical about the reasons behind these bans. Bad science has amazing momentum. · Feb 3 at 7:25am
I don't know what the science says, but my hunch is that any scientific reports cited by these legislators is simply a veneer that glosses over their true agenda: legislating behavior.
Oct '10
Re: The Nanny State Strikes Again! NYC Bans Smoking Outside
"I'm not a smoker, but I find the anti-smoking crusade to be as odious as the anti-fat crusade. How about instead of prohibiting cigarettes--and taxing junk food--we either let people make their own choices and suffer the bad consequences of their behavior, or we give people incentives to be healthy?"
Why isn't good health incentive enough? How about an even better idea, one that the Founders would approve of: Taxes levied only to provide revenue for the operation of the government, and not to achieve some "social good" aka; social justice, defined by the guys with the guns, or the guys with the power, if you prefer civility.
I know I'm being a primitive, but it seems to me that the only way we can truly pursue happiness is if someone else cannot pursue their happiness, including smoke free NYC, at our expense. If we cannot control real criminal behavior, adding every petty complaint to the list only reduces safety and increases unhappiness. No, we can't all get along, but, we can stand up against the PC bullies.
Edited on Feb 3, 2011 at 8:05amAug '10
Re: The Nanny State Strikes Again! NYC Bans Smoking Outside
Sorry. You get no agreement from me here. Cities have the authority to do this kind of thing. You can always move from a city to another city. If the Federal government were to do this, that would be another matter. Local governments have the right to establish local rules and tax as they wish.
If NYC were to ban the selling of cigarettes in its jurisdiction, they could do so.
Jun '10
Re: The Nanny State Strikes Again! NYC Bans Smoking Outside
I do find that a stinky cigar can really ruin the beach experience for those enjoying the sun & surf. I don't think the smoke I'd inhale sencond-hand on a beach or in a park will do a darn bit of harm to my health, though. (Maybe an asthmatic would argue the point.) I'd put the anti-outdoor-smoking laws in the same category as anti-noise ordinances. They make life more civil for the rest of us.
Oct '10
Re: The Nanny State Strikes Again! NYC Bans Smoking Outside
Nathaniel Wright: Sorry. You get no agreement from me here. Cities have the authority to do this kind of thing. You can always move from a city to another city. If the Federal government were to do this, that would be another matter. Local governments have the right to establish local rules and tax as they wish.
If NYC were to ban the selling of cigarettes in its jurisdiction, they could do so. · Feb 3 at 8:12am
I entirely agree with you. Stupidity cannot be put out of existence by legislation or the Constitution... only by a less stupid electorate.
Re: The Nanny State Strikes Again! NYC Bans Smoking Outside
But what if seeing an obese man in a speedo ruins the beach experience for me? I would argue that not having to see that would make life more civil for the rest of us too.
Re: The Nanny State Strikes Again! NYC Bans Smoking Outside
Nathaniel Wright: Sorry. You get no agreement from me here. Cities have the authority to do this kind of thing. You can always move from a city to another city. If the Federal government were to do this, that would be another matter. Local governments have the right to establish local rules and tax as they wish.
If NYC were to ban the selling of cigarettes in its jurisdiction, they could do so. · Feb 3 at 8:12am
So if NYC passed a law requiring its citizens to wear monocles and top hats every Friday, that would be ok with you?
Oct '10
Re: The Nanny State Strikes Again! NYC Bans Smoking Outside
Emily Esfahani Smith, Ed.
Nathaniel Wright: Sorry. You get no agreement from me here. Cities have the authority to do this kind of thing. You can always move from a city to another city. If the Federal government were to do this, that would be another matter. Local governments have the right to establish local rules and tax as they wish.
·Feb 3 at 8:12am
So if NYC passed a law requiring its citizens to wear monocles and top hats every Friday, that would be ok with you? · Feb 3 at 8:33am
In their wisdom, even stupidity like that can be Constitutionally permitted, according to the Founders view, given some of the local ordinances in effect at the time. Stupid is as stupid does, sayeth the wise Forest Gump.
As for the fat guy in speedos, perhaps we all need to learn acceptance of less desirable moments in life. My list of dislikes is probably as long as anyone's. My prayer is that I have learned to be at peace with the things I cannot change, and consider the collateral costs of making changes.
May '10
Re: The Nanny State Strikes Again! NYC Bans Smoking Outside
I agree with Nathaniel about local government, but Emily has a point. Our federal system was created to keep the majority of power in the hands of local authorities. But tyranny is just as possible at the local level as at the national level. There must be limits to the power of local authorities.
The question is by whom those local powers should be limited. Is it the responsibility of federal or state officials to keep city and county officials in line? I'd say it's more the responsibility of citizens to keep their officials in line, but maintaining the power to do so is tricky.
What happens in a corrupt city like Chicago where the voting system is untrustworthy? What sanctions could Chicago citizens use to resist local tyranny?
"When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another..." Are revolutions (not necessarily violent) possible at the local level without state and federal interference?
But that's just theory. Regardless of how it should work, the current reality seems to be that local authorities are checked only by more national government authorities.
Jan '11
Re: The Nanny State Strikes Again! NYC Bans Smoking Outside
If cigarettte smokers were responsible, and didn't fling their butts hither and yon, I'd be rolling my eyes. But the reality is, anywhere there are smokers, there are cigarette butts festooning the ground. So, this bylaw is fine by me.
May '10
Re: The Nanny State Strikes Again! NYC Bans Smoking Outside
Yes, Nathaniel, a city council does have the right to pass such a law. They also have the right to suck. While correlation is not causation, there is a strong link between those attributes.
Sticker Shock, you globular pink-pursed nanny, there's an easy solution to your problem. Move two feet away. You may see it as the government's business to protect you from such a burden. You are wrong.
My favorite was the city councilman who said this reminded him of Kristallnacht and the whole Niemoller slippery slope creeping Nazism thing. Then said his kids said he should vote for it, so he did. Which proves nothing except that he's a lousy parent.
Not that I'm being judgmental or anything. Just looking out for public sanity.
Sep '10
Re: The Nanny State Strikes Again! NYC Bans Smoking Outside
I don't think Emily is questioning the legality (or right) of NYC to impose such a ban. She is merely commenting about the wisdom of doing so. Or maybe wisdom isn't the right word.
My guess is that a majority of New Yorkers probably feel like StickerShock and would like to see smoke free parks and beaches. Okay, fine, it is public property after all. My problem comes when these folks turn their eyes on bars and restaurants and decide that their own preferences should take precedence over the rights of private property owners.
The fact of the matter is that the smoking class has a well established track record of bending over and taking whatever rules/bans/taxes come into play. Since this is not likely to change in the near future, I expect more and more nanny state overreach.
May '10
Re: The Nanny State Strikes Again! NYC Bans Smoking Outside
Emily Esfahani Smith, Ed. :
Two NYC council members, who opposed the bill's passage, nail the issue on the head:
A logic professor of mine included slippery slope arguments among a list of fallacies for the obvious reason that the future cannot be absolutely proven. But every week we're faced with more examples, like this, of how real slippery slopes are.
Isn't it interesting that anti-smoking laws are always gradual? That councilman is right. The smoking ban will continue to be expanded.
Also, this highlights the idolization of health in our culture. For some reason, many Americans (including conservatives) seem to believe it's more acceptable to berate people for their health choices than for their social choices. It's apparently wrong to advise someone about how to live, but not about how long to live.
Honoring the body is good, but attention to the body can be excessive.
May '10
Re: The Nanny State Strikes Again! NYC Bans Smoking Outside
Also, Aaron, remember when they first started introducing these things, and we said "they'll be banning Twinkies next." They patted us on the head and said, "silly conservative, you're talking crazy talk."
Salt, sugared beverages... slip-slidin away.
Jul '10
Re: The Nanny State Strikes Again! NYC Bans Smoking Outside
Kennedy Smith: Also, Aaron, remember when they first started introducing these things, and we said "they'll be banning Twinkies next." They patted us on the head and said, "silly conservative, you're talking crazy talk."
Salt, sugared beverages... slip-slidin away. · Feb 3 at 9:28am
Every time we don't deride this ludicrous paternalism just because we don't happen to like the behavior in question we grease that slope. Mandatory exercise is on the way, folks.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/lora/m.lora34.html
http://reason.com/blog/2010/03/24/is-mandatory-dieting-and-exerc
Edit:To be clear, the first link is a parody piece.
Edited on Feb 3, 2011 at 9:50amMay '10
Re: The Nanny State Strikes Again! NYC Bans Smoking Outside
1) I am the resident asthmatic here (along with Midge, if memory serves)- I inhale fluticasone propionate 2 or 3 times a day, which is a fair amount of corticosteroid. Outdoor air doesn't bother me a bit- I haven't even ever had wheezing attacks in China, let alone on the beach.
2) If people care about clean air outside, set aside an area of the beach or park for smoking. The only rationale for a total ban is as described by Emily.
3) The ETS (environmental tobacco smoke) study used as rationale for the second-hand smoke campaign was an order sent to the Harvard risk analysis center by Carole Browner to find stats that would justify her ban. It was shredded by everyone who read it, but no media people did, nor did most members of Congress. The data pulled from the Framingham Nurse study, among other things, didn't control for smoking. If you lived with a smoker and got lung cancer, it was an ETS-caused illness- even if the sick person herself inhaled 3 packs a day.
Edited on Feb 3, 2011 at 10:05amOct '10
Re: The Nanny State Strikes Again! NYC Bans Smoking Outside
Emily Esfahani Smith, Ed.
Nathaniel Wright: Sorry. You get no agreement from me here. Cities have the authority to do this kind of thing. You can always move from a city to another city. If the Federal government were to do this, that would be another matter. Local governments have the right to establish local rules and tax as they wish.
If NYC were to ban the selling of cigarettes in its jurisdiction, they could do so. · Feb 3 at 8:12am
So if NYC passed a law requiring its citizens to wear monocles and top hats every Friday, that would be ok with you? · Feb 3 at 8:33am
Amusing concept for Casual Fridays, save it would surely offend someone, hence another law.. By the way, it is still illegal to walk your pet alligator down the street in Florida... At least that is a clear safety issue...
Might be fun in Central Park...
May '10
Re: The Nanny State Strikes Again! NYC Bans Smoking Outside
Emily Esfahani Smith, Ed.
So if NYC passed a law requiring its citizens to wear monocles and top hats every Friday, that would be ok with you? · Feb 3 at 8:33am
Sadly, while I do own a monocle, there's no top hat in the closet. The only item I have to accessorize with the monocle is:
a cigarette holder
Back to square one.
Dec '10
Re: The Nanny State Strikes Again! NYC Bans Smoking Outside
The idea of banning some activity because you don't like it (as opposed to it being immoral or dangerous to others) is unfair to those who practice it. I like the occasional cigar; but I can't go to a park or a beach here in Southern Cal and light up, because the local nannies have passed laws against it. Lance Armstrong is on a personal crusade to outlaw all tobacco IN ENTIRE STATES. So the slippery slope argument totally works here.
Yesterday it was beaches and parks. Today it is New York City. Tomorrow it will be my own backyard. Where's all that liberal tolerance we hear so much about?