Smoking Ban Compromise Stubbed Out by Bloomberg

FlySi's Flickr

Yesterday Councilmember Peter Vallone offered an alternative to Mayor Bloomberg's proposal to ban smoking in all city parks, pedestrian plazas, beaches and boardwalks. Vallone's compromise bill would stop short of a full ban, and create smoking sections in parks larger than two acres. He would also allow smoking in the city's new pedestrian plazas. But City Room reports that Vallone's bill "appeared to gain little traction" at the "occasionally raucous" hearing. And today Mayor Bloomberg expressed no interest in compromise.

"I think the zones don’t work," Bloomberg told reporters. "It would cost a lot to enforce. The bottom line is this is one of those programs that came from the public, rather than from the government’s side. [People] don’t like someone sitting on a blanket up wind of them smoking on a beach or in a park. They keep complaining and complaining and complaining. People complain on the beaches about the cigarette butts and the packs, the same at the parks." (Oh these people and their complaining—it's enough to make you want to give up and run for president!) Also during yesterday's hearing, Health Commissioner Dr. Thomas Farley reminded the council that "secondhand smoke is deadly and causes premature death in children and adults. It contains more than 250 toxic and carcinogenic chemicals including carbon monoxide, hydrogen cyanide, benzene and arsenic."

Councilmember Robert Jackson, a Manhattan Democrat, reportedly got in "a series of heated exchanges," and accused the city of being "too restrictive." And Councilmember Daniel Halloran, a Queens Republican, also came out against both bills, calling the smoking ban a “slippery slope” toward an overbearing government. "Are we going to be back here in five years talking about a ban on smoking in households that have children in them?" he asked. "What’s the line in the sand?" And NY1 reports that a small group of protesters rallied outside, where smoking ban opponent Audrey Silk told reporters, "There is no valid evidence that secondhand smoke is harming anyone. Is it an annoyance? Probably to some people, I'm sure it is an annoyance. But where do we draw the line on legislating against annoyances."

But Scott Santarella, who runs the American Lung Association in New York, also pushed back against the compromise, and thinks smokers should just relax and look on the bright side. He tells WNYC, "We're not taking away the right for someone to smoke; we're actually asking them to be conscious of not smoking around others, that impacts them from a health perspective. They can still smoke in their car, in their home, we're just asking them not to smoke in public places." So buck up smokers, you'll always have your car and your home, right?

Contact the author of this article or email tips@gothamist.com with further questions, comments or tips.

By John Del Signore in News on October 15, 2010 3:00 PM

Comments [rss]

Streetsmartz

"My cigar smoke is less dangerous to humanity than the exhaust that comes out of city buses, and smells better than most perfume I encounter in the subway."

Says you.

marbee

. The CATO Institute (The Second-Hand Smoke Charade http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php...) and Sloan Kettering (http://www.mskcc.org/mskcc/htm... contradict the anti-smokers propoganda, alot! Smoking rates have decreased considerably, yet asthma rates have skyrocketed 500%! The global warming "crisis" looked like a sure thing too until it was blown out of the water by those who knew this was a scam. Obesity is another CREATED "crisis" beneffitting pharma. Anyone looking at all can see this second hand smoke nonsense has also been completely debunked. Have to give it to pharma though, it IS a brilliant marketing scam using our own uneducated government officials against We The People. I have to wonder if any of them have EVER read the Constitution! November can't come soon enough!

marbee

Smoking has been known to make marginally rational people go bonkers over the sight of a smoker. The pleasure a smoker undertakes gets at the very craw of these marginally sane people in a way that defies explanation. The anti-smoker' s brain crawls with unexplainable firing of synapses in the regions of logical thought. The anti-smoker begins to sweat uncontrollably, eyeballs begin spinning, and their heart rates spin out of control. There is no treatment or cure, other than a padded room for a spell.

marbee

Today America is still under attack, but not only by unknown jihads flying planes into buildings or blowing themselves up along with innocents in buildings, shopping centers and trains, etc., but more so by the American media, Tobacco Control and the pharmaceutical industry and our lackey government under their control. I’ve seen this world go bonkers over the years. Freedom is nothing like it used to be. Every time something happens, a law is passed. There is nothing called personal responsibility anymore. If a kid drowns in a pool, it’s the pool’s fault. If an adult gets cancer, it’s a smoker’s fault. If someone is overweight, it’s McDonald’s fault. Special interest has jumped into the fray too many times with the “answer”, their drugs, to “save” us from ourselves, and force our veterans out into the cold to smoke and take property rights from business owners. Our citizens are demonized for their choice to use a legal product that was once commonplace before the production of Chantix, Nicorette, and Nicoderm. The overweight are demonized since the invention of bariatric surgery and sugar replacements. Common sense isn’t good enough anymore, the incompetent politicians have seen to it.

marbee

Buck up Scott Santarella! Because when we restore this nation to what it once was, it's YOU who may wish to stay in your car or in your home! Buck up Scott Santarella! Because when second hand smoke is finally forced to trial it is YOU who may want to run, and it won't be for president! And look on the bright side, you MIGHT still have a job!

Michael

So the Lung Association says they want a total ban in the parks: "We're not taking away the right for someone to smoke ... They can still smoke in their car, in their home,"

Note how they never mention that they are ALSO pushing for banning smoking in cars with passengers under 18 (even if those teens are smoking themselves no less!) and pushing to ban smoking in public housing and private apartments and possibly even row homes.

The entire antismoking push is filled with the same sort of lying. Read the free "Lies Behind The Smoking Bans" on the web to see how they lie about both the economic AND the health aspects of bans.

Michael J. McFadden

Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"

DFHdez

Give me a fucking break. I smoke cigars and I find to be one of the most enjoyable things is to sit in peace reading a book and smoking a cigar while I sit in the park. I'm considerate of others and try not to sit close to anyone (probably because I'm antisocial). But if I'm there first then tough. I don't litter and I don't blow out a big puff when someone is walking by. How about we stop the Stasi Big Borther act and deal with the fact that we share space on this planet. A park the size of Central Park or McCarren Park should have enough space for everyone to do what they want. And the fucking Mayor hasn't set foot in one of the city parks, except to self promote, in god knows how long. Fucking guy shouldn't even be in office since he ignored the law that said twice was enough.

moonbeam

If you smoke cigars in the park you are NOT being "considerate of others" no matter how hard you try to convince yourself that it's true.

DFHdez

My consideration of others is that if I cannot find a place far enough away from people in my usual park, then I look somewhere else. My cigar smoke is less dangerous to humanity than the exhaust that comes out of city buses, and smells better than most perfume I encounter in the subway. I don't ask people who talk loudly or stink to high heaven of Channel to be banned from the park, I simply exercise my free will and find some where else to sit. As I stated this world is a shared space.

inoyourider

In addition to all of the reasons above it would be nice to not see so many cigarette butts everywhere.

If it was anything other than a cigarette butt it would be seen for what it is, which is littering.

Streetsmartz

It's bad enough I have to inhale fumes and toxins. I don't need your cigarette smoked being blown in my face. Ever smell a smoker when it rains? Smells like they've bathed in an ashtray.

John L

Whether you smoke or not, or drink beverages with sugar or not, or eat food with salt or not, or eat trans fat or not, etc., all these nanny laws should bother every American who believes in freedom.

However the dangers of second hand smoke, especially in open spaces, have been greatly exaggerated. Maybe if a person lives with someone who smokes around them for 10, 20, 30 plus years, then maybe there might be some affect but if someone sincerely thinks that if they occasionally go to the park or beach and someone happens to smoke within a few yards of them they are going to get lung cancer then I would say you are delusional and should seek treatment for your anxiety. Also I would suggest that you look into other pollutants that are much more damaging and common in NYC's air, you can begin here http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/html/eode/nyccas.shtml and direct your efforts to much more dangerous pollutants, such as oil burning boilers. And if air quality is truly of concern to you I think that you picked the wrong city to live in http://gothamist.com/2008/05/01/nyc_air_quality.php .

Don't fall for the bullshit please. Bloomberg knows what the worst causes of air pollution in NYC are, and chief among them is the soot from oil burning boilers but what are the chances that he's going to require all his real estate buddies to switch to cleaner alternatives?

tblake

This is a great distraction for the public. With all the problems in this city, especially as concerns the environment, let's all jump on this idiot bandwagon. "See what I'm doing," little Bloomberg screams--"I'm saving yours lungs in the parks." What a bunch of crap. And you people who back it up will get what you deserve. You and your bad habits are next. Smug idiots.

dadoc

Doubtful this is being introduced to promote overall health. It would, however, be another revenue generator for the city. The revenue generated thru the levying and collection of fines could be huge. And the ability to stop and ticket someone would also allow authorities to demand ID, run for warrants, make the precinct quotas, and possibly submit the smoker to a search.

Bakey

We should also ban animals, like dogs, from all parks. Some people are allergic. It's unfair for them to have to breath in someone else's animal dander and suffer.

Unhealthy food should also be a no-go in parks. Stuff like shakes, burgers, hotdogs and fries. There's tons of carcinogens in that stuff, and to think that we just walk around casually eating it in front of kids...it's just barbaric.

Sketto

Well, we do ban dogs in certain places and certain parks. We also have very serious restrictions on food preparation and we ban food carts in many areas.

So, you prove my point yet again: we have reasonable times and locations where these activities are good to go - why should smokers get to smoke anywhere, anytime without regard to who it affects? Why should smokers be special?

Dogsbody

You've missed the point of this particular article. Smokers are not asking for the right to smoke anywhere. They're asking for a compromise that would allow them a "certain place" in which they can smoke.

I don't see why this would be a problem to anyone. We already have special areas of the parks for those who prefer quiet reading areas, areas of the parks for those who wish to let their dogs off leash, areas of the parks for those who wish to play sports. Why can't we have an area where people are free to smoke?

JacqueMehoff

what about these pseudo public/private parks like those along the westside greenway and the brooklyn waterfront?

harleyrider1778

Health Commissioner Dr. Thomas Farley reminded the council that "secondhand smoke is deadly and causes premature death in children and adults. It contains more than 250 toxic and carcinogenic chemicals including carbon monoxide, hydrogen cyanide, benzene and arsenic."

I would demand the fraudster doctor to tenure his resignation imediately for such outrageous claims,basically outright lies.......

There are no deaths to second hand smoke and if he has names please forward them to former LAUGHED OUT OF TOWN SG CARMONA......

About 90% of secondary smoke is composed of water vapor and ordinary air with a minor amount of carbon dioxide. The volume of water vapor of second hand smoke becomes even larger as it qickly disperses into the air,depending upon the humidity factors within a set location indoors or outdoors. Exhaled smoke from a smoker will provide 20% more water vapor to the smoke as it exists the smokers mouth.

4 % is carbon monoxide.

6 % is those supposed 4,000 chemicals to be found in tobacco smoke. Unfortunatley for the smoke free advocates these supposed chemicals are more theorized than actually found.What is found is so small to even call them threats to humans is beyond belief.Nanograms,picograms and femptograms......

(1989 Report of the Surgeon General p. 80).

According to independent Public and Health Policy Research group, Littlewood & Fennel of Austin, Tx, on the subject of secondhand smoke........

They did the figures for what it takes to meet all of OSHA'S minimum PEL'S on shs/ets.......Did it ever set the debate on fire.

They concluded that:

All this is in a small sealed room 9x20 and must occur in ONE HOUR.

For Benzo[a]pyrene, 222,000 cigarettes

"For Acetone, 118,000 cigarettes

"Toluene would require 50,000 packs of simultaneously smoldering cigarettes.

Acetaldehyde or Hydrazine, more than 14,000 smokers would need to light up.

"For Hydroquinone, "only" 1250 cigarettes

For arsenic 2 million 500,000 smokers at one time

The same number of cigarettes required for the other so called chemicals in shs/ets will have the same outcomes.

So,OSHA finally makes a statement on shs/ets :

Field studies of environmental tobacco smoke indicate that under normal conditions, the components in tobacco smoke are diluted below existing Permissible Exposure Levels (PELS.) as referenced in the Air Contaminant Standard (29 CFR 1910.1000)...It would be very rare to find a workplace with so much smoking that any individual PEL would be exceeded." -Letter From Greg Watchman, Acting Sec'y, OSHA