PDA

View Full Version : Times Square becomes smoke free



Qtec
02-03-2011, 09:50 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Anyone visiting New York's 1,700 parks and 14 miles of beaches this summer will be able to do so free from the smell of cigarette smoke after the city council made its biggest anti-smoking push since it banned the habit from restaurants and bars in 2002.

The measure will see smokers fined $50 (31) if they light up in municipal parks and pedestrian areas of Manhattan such as Times Square.

It was passed by 36 votes to 12 after a lively debate in which critics accused legislators of turning the city into a totalitarian state.

The move follows similar health-conscious measures in New York to remove trans fats from restaurants, force food chains to display calorie counts on their menus and efforts to persuade food producers to reduce salt content.

The mayor, Michael Bloomberg, is expected to sign the law this month, and it will come into effect 90 days later.

"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," Bloomberg said.

He has made improving the health of city dwellers one of the main ambitions of his nine years as mayor. </div></div>

link (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/feb/03/new-york-smoking-ban-outdoors)

'New Yorkers who go to our parks and beaches for some fresh air'...he says, then jumps into his Limo that does 8 MPG, belching out toxic fumes all the way home.

Q

JohnnyD
02-03-2011, 11:17 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Anyone visiting New York's 1,700 parks and 14 miles of beaches this summer will be able to do so free from the smell of cigarette smoke after the city council made its biggest anti-smoking push since it banned the habit from restaurants and bars in 2002.

The measure will see smokers fined $50 (31) if they light up in municipal parks and pedestrian areas of Manhattan such as Times Square.

It was passed by 36 votes to 12 after a lively debate in which critics accused legislators of turning the city into a totalitarian state.

The move follows similar health-conscious measures in New York to remove trans fats from restaurants, force food chains to display calorie counts on their menus and efforts to persuade food producers to reduce salt content.

The mayor, Michael Bloomberg, is expected to sign the law this month, and it will come into effect 90 days later.

"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," Bloomberg said.

He has made improving the health of city dwellers one of the main ambitions of his nine years as mayor. </div></div>

link (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/feb/03/new-york-smoking-ban-outdoors)

'New Yorkers who go to our parks and beaches for some fresh air'...he says, then jumps into his Limo that does 8 MPG, belching out toxic fumes all the way home.

Q </div></div>
Excellent post.

LWW
02-04-2011, 05:56 AM
I concur.

Q has again came to his senses to decry leftist acts.

LWW

Gayle in MD
02-04-2011, 07:25 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The move follows similar health-conscious measures in New York to remove trans fats from restaurants, force food chains to display calorie counts on their menus and efforts to persuade food producers to reduce salt content.

</div></div>

Bloomberg really should call on his neighboring, N.J. Republican Governor, Christie, to help sell this idea.

Just imagine Christie in a healthy eating commercial. What a great visual. LOL...

It would rival all those fat hog Tea Partiers, with all of their signs of outrage about their "Health Care" with their guts hanging over their belts. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/cool.gif

pooltchr
02-04-2011, 07:43 AM
I am not a big fan of smoking bans by the government, although banning smoking in public spaces is far less offensive to me than forcing private property owners to enforce similar restrictions within their own property.

However, I wonder if they have considered the unintended consequences of this law. New York State has the highest cigarette tax of any state in the country, and New York City adds even more tax to them. A pack of cigarettes in the state run about $9.40 and in the city about $11.00. Compare that with NC where a pack costs around $4, and you can see how much extra tax money is charged in NY and in the city.

By discouraging smokers, they are effectively trying to reduce a major revenue stream for the city and the state, both of which are already hurting financially.

Makes me wonder about the timing of such legislation. It also makes me wonder what the real motivation for such legislation might be. After all, politicians don't do anything without a reason. What reason would they have to attack such a huge source of tax revenue?

I'm not trying to challenge anyone here. I just honestly don't see why they would make such a move right now.

Steve

Soflasnapper
02-04-2011, 01:19 PM
You raise an interesting question, Steve.

Although, the known effect of the raising of the cig tax rate so high was already exactly to further reduce smoking according to the supply and demand price sensitivity. So the whole project (of getting tax revenues this way) was intentionally all along reducing the rates of smoking, while at the same time relying on the income stream. (?)

Yes, this is new wrinkle that further reduces the amount of smoking. But maybe that's a feature, not a bug?

That is, in Florida at least, don't know about NY and NYC, the state receives their monies paid out of these increased prices or taxes from the settlement with the tobacco companies IN ORDER TO PAY THE SOCIETAL COSTS OF SMOKING. So a twin barrel approach? Get money to pay for the on-going and future costs of smokers to society, AND actually reduce the smoking (thus reducing current and future expenses)?

pooltchr
02-04-2011, 01:52 PM
If they really wanted to end smoking, all they need to do is make cigarettes illegal. Isn't that how they got everyone to quit drinking back in the 1900s?

Steve

Soflasnapper
02-04-2011, 01:56 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If they really wanted to end smoking, all they need to do is make cigarettes illegal. Isn't that how they got everyone to quit drinking back in the 1900s?

Steve </div></div>

Actually, no. Possession and use of alcohol was never made illegal. Producing and selling it was, and that was such an anti-Constitutional action that it required an amendment to the Constitution be passed to allow it.

And that created a huge crime problem, so it was repealed as an amendment with another amendment. Having seen the problems that created, of course it would be most unwise to repeat the same thing. (And it would apparently require the same amendment procedure.)

pooltchr
02-04-2011, 02:06 PM
I think you may have missed the sarcastic slant to my post.

Steve

pooltchr
02-04-2011, 02:12 PM
Am I to understand that you support the state's attempts to regulate the personal activities of individual citizens? Do you really think it is the state's job to make sure people don't smoke? And if so, to you think it's also the state's job to determine how many big macs and happy meals you can eat? Or what kind of car you are allowed to drive? Or how much salt you can have on your food? Or what kind of light bulbs you can use in your home?

Is there anything the government shouldn't be able to control in your life?

Steve

cushioncrawler
02-04-2011, 03:24 PM
Iz snorting weed or tobacco in parks ok????
mac.

pooltchr
02-04-2011, 04:09 PM
I'm not sure. I do know that I would prefer to see someone smoking in a park than doing some of the other things I have seen going on there!
/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/blush.gif

Steve

JohnnyD
02-04-2011, 04:55 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: cushioncrawler</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Iz snorting weed or tobacco in parks ok????
mac. </div></div>Only if one has a flask of fine scotch whiskey on hand.

Soflasnapper
02-04-2011, 05:21 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Am I to understand that you support the state's attempts to regulate the personal activities of individual citizens? Do you really think it is the state's job to make sure people don't smoke? And if so, to you think it's also the state's job to determine how many big macs and happy meals you can eat? Or what kind of car you are allowed to drive? Or how much salt you can have on your food? Or what kind of light bulbs you can use in your home?

Is there anything the government shouldn't be able to control in your life?

Steve </div></div>

I resist all sin taxes on the sins I engage in, and would support any who would lobby the government to stop doing these things. I think they should reduce their interferences or stop them.

However, I also think they are legally entitled to do these things, and in some cases of commercial interference, such as requiring fleet average mileage, it may even be a good idea overall. Do we want to repeal all building codes, for instance? I don't think so-- there's a public good in those, and in some others of their moves.

When we say, don't tax me or thee, but the man behind the tree, then sin taxes that only impact those engaging in the sins seems right to a lot of those who've picked different sins to engage in.

LWW
02-05-2011, 03:57 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">However, I also think they are legally entitled to do these things, and in some cases of commercial interference, such as requiring fleet average mileage, it may even be a good idea overall. </div></div>

Nothing in the COTUS allows the feds to regulate fuel economy directly.

LWW

LWW
02-05-2011, 04:00 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Do we want to repeal all building codes, for instance? I don't think so-- there's a public good in those, and in some others of their moves.</div></div>

Certainly we don't and yes there is much good.

That being said, nothing in the COTUS authorize the feds to do it.

Building codes should be the responsibility of the individual states.

LWW

LWW
02-05-2011, 04:09 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Am I to understand that you support the state's attempts to regulate the personal activities of individual citizens? Do you really think it is the state's job to make sure people don't smoke? And if so, to you think it's also the state's job to determine how many big macs and happy meals you can eat? Or what kind of car you are allowed to drive? Or how much salt you can have on your food? Or what kind of light bulbs you can use in your home?

Is there anything the government shouldn't be able to control in your life?

Steve </div></div>

I have to defend the state of NY's right to regulate smoking ... assuming their state constitution allows them to do this.

Although I disagree with the law, if I lived there and it bothered me that much I have the option of leaving that state.

The founders wrote at length about state's rights being the best way to avoid tyranny and also allow locals to determine what was right for them.

As an example ... people in Montana might see no sane reason to mandate tiny vehicles as they have a small population with wide open spaces. Massachusetts OTOH might see great sense in it being they have a dense population with narrow roads.

If I live in Boston and don't like the de facto ban on owning a GMC K3500 dualie I have the option of moving to Montana and still retaining my citizenship. If I live in Montana and get tired of people making fun of my Smart car I can always move to a state where folks think more like me. But ... if the feds decide for me then I have no option other than to be a criminal or leave my nation of birth.

The best thing the courts here could do would be to start following the tenth amendment again.

LWW

eg8r
02-06-2011, 02:01 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">'New Yorkers who go to our parks and beaches for some fresh air'...he says, then jumps into his Limo that does 8 MPG, belching out toxic fumes all the way home.
</div></div>Any chance you could point us in the direction of a similar post where you called out Al Gore's hypocrisy?

eg8r

eg8r
02-06-2011, 02:02 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Bloomberg really should call on his neighboring, N.J. Republican Governor, Christie, to help sell this idea.
</div></div>Why would he need help? He has already passed those other bills.

eg8r

eg8r
02-06-2011, 02:07 AM
Yes he thinks they should tell you exactly what you can and can't do. It is the GOVERNMENT for pete's sake, they know what is best for everyone. He has already stated he thinks it is also constitutional to allow the federal government to force you to buy health insurance, why can't they also tell you that you cannot smoke or eat?

eg8r

Qtec
02-06-2011, 03:42 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">where you called out Al Gore's hypocrisy?

eg8r </div></div>

I don't think so.

My point is this, nobody owns the air.

If you are going after polution, don't just single out one kind.

Q

LWW
02-06-2011, 05:09 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">where you called out Al Gore's hypocrisy?

eg8r </div></div>

I don't think so.

Q </div></div>

Nobody else thought you would either ... but kudos for the honesty in this instance.

LWW

pooltchr
02-06-2011, 08:03 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Yes he thinks they should tell you exactly what you can and can't do. It is the GOVERNMENT for pete's sake, they know what is best for everyone. He has already stated he thinks it is also constitutional to allow the federal government to force you to buy health insurance, why can't they also tell you that you cannot smoke or eat?

eg8r </div></div>

Notice how he quietly slipped in the fact that he would be against taxes that were on those things that personally affected him. So, a non smoker can easily accept a smoking ban, but will fight against the food ban, if they enjoy big macs.

It's the typical "not in my back yard" mentality. Very short sighted.

Steve

LWW
02-06-2011, 08:21 AM
It's the typical leftist urge to impose their collectivist will on their fellow man.

Any state powerful enough to give one everything one wants is powerful enough to confiscate everything one has.

Conservatism tries to deal with the inherent evil of man by appealing to the better part of each man.

Statism attempts to deal with the inherent evil of man by making each succumb to the power of brute force.

LWW

Sev
02-06-2011, 10:09 AM
I believe CA is planning a cigarette ban of some sort.
But not that of pot.

eg8r
02-07-2011, 01:06 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I don't think so.
</div></div>Yeah, I did not think so either. Your hypocrisy is quite clear.

eg8r