Gothamist: First Bars, Then Homes: Where Banning Smoking Wants to Go

Phoebe

Thu, 16 Jun 2005 13:53:15 -0500

Here is a histerical flash video on the subject of banning...(don't let the title fool you) http://www.fat-pie.com/thechildthatsmeltfunny.htm

jello

Tue, 14 Jun 2005 09:19:31 -0500

next ban: sanctimonious blog-commenters

Sans Cankles

Mon, 13 Jun 2005 21:27:04 -0500

How about banning chicken bones from the hallways?

Lauri

Mon, 13 Jun 2005 17:53:14 -0500

This guy makes me want to vote Republican.

dhex

Mon, 13 Jun 2005 15:27:57 -0500

maybe one day we can apply the secondhand smoke rationale to drivers licenses.

sk

Mon, 13 Jun 2005 14:46:33 -0500

I understand that most "public" housing is actually privately-owned property that is leased out to the city. I think there was some article recently discussing how rundown a lot of these apartments are, yet the private owners have the nerve to charge the city something like triple regardless of conditions. I say fix the PEELING LEAD PAINT first....uh, someone say "toxic baby munchies"?

honey

Mon, 13 Jun 2005 14:38:18 -0500

pungent cooking and loud, but not too loud arguments shouldn't be banned-there are not numerous scientific studies showing that second-hand curry causes cancer or other illness such as asthma or respiratory allergies. Second -hand smoke does has been shown to hurt the health of nonsmokers and ionizing filters and such do not stop the bad stuff in second-hand smoke from entering the air in apts in the same building. That's part of why the indoor smoking ban in bars, restaraunts and city offices stands. noone could come up with filters that would protect people who choose not to smoke from the smoke of smokers inthe same building. So I am all for consenting adults having their freedom, but it has to work both ways. you are free to smoke and choose to gamble with your health or not. I am free to not smoke and not breathe in your second-hand smoke. My choice does not impact your health adversely, but your choice to smoke could affect my health if you smoke in the same apt building as I do and the crap in your second hand smoke enters my home through the ventilation system.

hr

Mon, 13 Jun 2005 13:52:29 -0500

why don't i care? don't live in the P.J.'s.

S.D.

Mon, 13 Jun 2005 13:39:12 -0500

(sigh) Assemblyman Felix Ortiz should just simply outlaw Smoking and be done with it. It'd be quicker, no? IMO, he should have better things to do with his free time. I could be wrong (I live in a house) But doesn't Public Housing also have Private Lease agreements?

You're kidding, right?

Mon, 13 Jun 2005 13:34:16 -0500

Because we all know that the primary problem facing our public housing projects is smoking. Have these people been to East New York or the South Bronx? I have personally asked all the residents there what their number 1 concern is. Crazy enough, they all said smoking! I'm reminded of the words of Bill Hicks: "It's not a war on drugs, it's a war on your rights. Always remember that." Those of you who don't know who Bill Hicks is should google the name ... now.

Joe Blow

Mon, 13 Jun 2005 13:13:29 -0500

Just curious, but since when is a PUBLIC housing project private property?

Mike B.

Mon, 13 Jun 2005 12:59:23 -0500

Well, you know what? Y'all opened the door for this to happen when you decided that the bar ban wasn't such a bad thing. Whether the results were good or bad, the principle behind the law is rotten, and now we're vulnerable to all sorts of restrictions from people who can't mind their own business. I'm with the woman quoted. If smoking's so bad, make it illegal, period. Not only doesn't this approach curb the smoking more than slightly, it sets the precedent that legal behavior can be restricted on private property. And we don't know where that can lead.

fascion

Mon, 13 Jun 2005 12:56:29 -0500

Social engineering is great. I *love* it. We should also ban eating too many calories in one day.

Victoria

Mon, 13 Jun 2005 12:43:51 -0500

I think the urine smell should be banned first.

hr

Mon, 13 Jun 2005 12:37:42 -0500

slinging rock will still be allowed

Rocknrope

Mon, 13 Jun 2005 12:27:25 -0500

lol, so much for snarky sarcasm.

sk

Mon, 13 Jun 2005 12:17:52 -0500

Uh, yeah...and I believe rape and assault are, uh, illegal too, dear.

T.A.

Mon, 13 Jun 2005 12:05:30 -0500

Vandalism and improper disposal are illegal, dude.

drew

Mon, 13 Jun 2005 12:02:32 -0500

how making graffiti and throwing garbage out the windows illegal first. then he could move onto rape and assault, working his way through noise pollution and then drug dealing. once he's made some headway then he can start legislating against 'legal' activities by consenting adults in their own homes. better hide that ky jelly who knows whats next?