If you don't smoke. You probably want the indoor smoking ban. It will also help take some unnecessary strain off the healthcare system.
Yes, but I have a big problem encroaching on people's personal liberties. Same reason I'm against seatbelt or motorcycle helmet laws. I wear my seatbelt and think you're stupid if you don't, but I don't think it's government's place to make it mandatory.
Yes, but I have a big problem encroaching on people's personal liberties. Same reason I'm against seatbelt or motorcycle helmet laws. I wear my seatbelt and think you're stupid if you don't, but I don't think it's government's place to make it mandatory.
So you have the right to actively endanger the well-being of others?
I'm not so sure about legislating good health. What's next, banning alcohol? Mandatory runs?
Not cool England, do not want.
I have to agree. Drinkers endanger the lives and health of non-drinkers. Maybe not in exactly the same way as smokers endanger the lives and health of non-smokers, but a ban on alcohol would just as effectively remove the danger as a ban on tobacco. Let's ban alcohol as well.
I have to agree. Drinkers endanger the lives and health of non-drinkers. Maybe not in exactly the same way as smokers endanger the lives and health of non-smokers, but a ban on alcohol would just as effectively remove the danger as a ban on tobacco. Let's ban alcohol as well.
Drinking only endangers the welfare of others when it's abused. Done correctly, it only effects is you.
Same thing with guns. We hold a hunter accountable for shooting someone. (Except if you happen to be the Vice President) We hold someone liable for any accident caused when they drive drunk. Smoking is more subtle, but that doesn't make it less dangerous. I think they should put restrictions of cigarettes just like they do booze and guns.
So you have the right to actively endanger the well-being of others?
To an extent, yes. I'm not saying you won't be held responsible for your actions. My favorite example of this is New Jersey and school zones. On a 45mph road by the school they have signs that say "25 mph when children present." What this effectively means is that we're gonna let you go 45 mph, but if you hit a kid then we are going to nail the ever living fuck out of you. This is as opposed to Pennsylvania where the speed limit is lowered at a specific time via flashing signs whether or not there are actually children crossing the street (and there almost never are.) The personal choice is taken away from you.
You're on a beach. You have miles of space. Move the fuck away.
I don't understand why we need more laws to deal with smoking. A wide, but still reasonable, interpretation of existing laws can handle this situation.
Smoking in your own house? Just fine. Smoking on the beach? Fine. But if your secondhand smoke gets in my face, I charge you with assault.
Want to get drunk? No problem. But as soon as you do something stupid like get in a car, spill your beer on me at a football game, etc. Game over.
The old saying is that the freedom to swing your fist ends at someone else's face. So why don't we actually stand by that old saying? Swing all you want, and the second you get in my face, game over for you.
I have to agree. Drinkers endanger the lives and health of non-drinkers. Maybe not in exactly the same way as smokers endanger the lives and health of non-smokers, but a ban on alcohol would just as effectively remove the danger as a ban on tobacco. Let's ban alcohol as well.
Drinking only endangers the welfare of others when it's abused. Done correctly, it only effects is you.
Proof, please. As in, what does "done correctly" mean? Do DUI accidents only happen in cases of alcohol abuse?
I don't understand why we need more laws to deal with smoking. A wide, but still reasonable, interpretation of existing laws can handle this situation.
Smoking in your own house? Just fine. Smoking on the beach? Fine. But if your secondhand smoke gets in my face, I charge you with assault.
Want to get drunk? No problem. But as soon as you do something stupid like get in a car, spill your beer on me at a football game, etc. Game over.
The old saying is that the freedom to swing your fist ends at someone else's face. So why don't we actually stand by that old saying? Swing all you want, and the second you get in my face, game over for you.
I applaud your rationality. I wish that more people would be as rational and not totally lose their crap about smoking.
You're on a beach. You have miles of space. Move the fuck away.
You haven't been to a Jersey beach, have you?
Is the beach crowded? Is it too crowded to move away from the cigar smoker? In my opinion, the croded-ness would be WAY more intolerable than the cigar smoker, and I would solve that situation by just not going at all.
yea, nothing sucks more then a cigar smoker next to you on the beach... Fuck you man.
You're on a beach. You have miles of space. Move the fuck away.
Them before me. They're the ones inconveniencing me with their fumes.
t drunk? No problem. But as soon as you do something stupid like get in a car, spill your beer on me at a football game, etc. Game over.
The old saying is that the freedom to swing your fist ends at someone else's face. So why don't we actually stand by that old saying? Swing all you want, and the second you get in my face, game over for you.
Well, it's not game over until they get punished for thier crimes and that might not happen. There's a load of things geting in the way of that; Getting legal help to drag a guy into court for example, proving s/he preformed a misdemeanor unto you, etc.
As in, what does "done correctly" mean? Do DUI accidents only happen in cases of alcohol abuse?
As in don't drink an drive. It's pretty much that simple. Example, I go out to the bar every thursday. Get there at 7, have two beers and food before 8:00 and then hang out until after 10 because that's the point at which I'm no longer impaired and can safely operate a motor vehicle again.
I wish that more people would be as rational and not totally lose their crap about smoking.
I don't know, sounds like he's losing his shit too.
I would solve that situation by just not going at all.
That's the only real solution.
Them before me. They're the ones inconveniencing me with their fumes.
This selfish mentality really summarizes the whole anti-smoking side.
I applaud your rationality. I wish that more people would be as rational and not totally lose their crap about smoking.
So you agree with me that you shouldn't be allowed to smoke pretty much anywhere except when you are completely alone, or only in the presence of people who have expressly consented to be in the presence of your deadly poison smoke?
I applaud your rationality. I wish that more people would be as rational and not totally lose their crap about smoking.
So you agree with me that you shouldn't be allowed to smoke pretty much anywhere except when you are completely alone, or only in the presence of people who have expressly consented to be in the presence of your deadly poison smoke?
That's not what you first wrote, so no, I don't agree with your most recent statement.
You wrote:
Smoking in your own house? Just fine. Smoking on the beach? Fine. But if your secondhand smoke gets in my face, I charge you with assault.
There's nothing in that statement about being completely alone or having anyone's express consent.
There's nothing in that statement about being completely alone or having anyone's express consent.
This is true. However, if you smoke in the presence of anyone who has not expressly consented, you will be charged with assault. This would effectively make it illegal to smoke in restaurants, sidewalks, outside building entrances, sporting events, parks, or pretty much anywhere you aren't alone. Also, you won't even be able to smoke in your own home unless every co-habitant consents. If you have children, you will almost never be able to smoke.
If I have my way, you'll be begging for a regular old smoking ban. A trivial fine for smoking on the sidewalk will be very preferable compared to an assault charge from every pedestrian who walks past.
There's nothing in that statement about being completely alone or having anyone's express consent.
This is true. However, if you smoke in the presence of anyone who has not expressly consented, you will be charged with assault.
That is not an accurate statement of the law. Lack of express consent does not necessarily equal assault. In fact, depending on the facts of a case, consent to a touching may be implied unless there is an express objection.
The elements of a “tortious battery” (which is what you're calling assault - also, I'm using Torts here, not criminal law even though you talked about "charging someone with something. It would be even more difficult to successfully prosecute someone for the crime of assault because they were smoking because the burden of proof would be mor difficult to satisfy.)) cause of action are:
(1) An intentional touch by the defendant
(2) To the person of the plaintiff
(3) That is harmful or offensive to the plaintiff.
The Restatement (Second) of Torts defines battery in § 18 as offensive contact. Accordingly, the Restatement provision provides:
(1) An actor is subject to liability to another for battery if
a. He acts intending to cause a harmful or offensive contact with the person of the other or a third person, or an imminent apprehension of such a contact, and
b. An offensive contact with the person of the other directly or indirectly results.
(2) An act which is not done with the intention stated in Subsection (1, a) does not make the actor liable to the other for a mere offensive contact with the otherÂ’s person although the act involves an unreasonable risk of inflicting it and, therefore, would be negligent or reckless if the risk threatened bodily harm.
The situation that you described, i.e. that you inadvertently smelled second hand smoke from my cigarette while we were both on a beach and you did not give me express consent to smoke does not fit either definition. The key is that I did not intend for the smoke to touch you. On a beach, I'm very certain that no reasonable person could conclude that I intended for the smoke to touch you in any way. How could you show that I intended for the smoke to touch you if we were both outside, possibly surrounded by other people and separated by at least some distance?
Actually, Leichtman v. WLW Jacor Comms., Inc., 634 N.E.2d 697 was a case in which a smoker was found liable for battery for blowing smoke into someone's face, but I trust you'll see that the facts are way different than anything you've talked about in this thread. In that case, a talk show host intentionally and repeatedly blew smoke into a guest's face. But, even this court found that they would not extend intent to a "substantial certainty" standard, which is what you'd need if you wanted to charge anyone on a beach for inadvertently exposing you to smoke.
If you're trying to say that you wish to be able to charge smokers with assault, that's fine. In fact, you can do that now. You can charge nearly anyone with nearly anything. I could go to court right now and charge you with assault. The question is whether you'll be successful in prosecuting your assault charge. I have some small experience in this area, and I have very little confidence in your likelihood of success.
I live in court. Your statement that you'll have me charged with assault gives me as little cause for worry as you would have cause to worry if I told you that I was going to hack the forum.
I'll note that the majority of the voting population in New York is for the ban by a large margin according to pretty-much every poll. Bloomberg's opponent in the election has stated that he will pursue the ban all the same if he is elected instead. As smoking is not an enumerated right, and as numerous other activities are banned equally on some public property (drinking alcohol, skateboarding, ballplaying, being naked, firing weapons, playing music, etc...), then is it not the clear right of the majority to restrict the activity of smoking? How is smoking any different from the rest of these activities?
If we shouldn't ban smoking in public parks due to ideological reasons, how can we ban any of these other activities? Most people want it to be banned.
As an aside, this is an example of pragmatism over ideology. New York has, in general, had a great reduction in heart disease and other smoking-related illness after the initial ban, and unlike with alcohol, the ban has not resulted in any significant drawbacks. Overall, I would argue a definite net benefit to society resulting from the existing ban, which is extremely popular. My ideology is freedom wherever possible, but my stance is nonetheless for the ban on pragmatic grounds.
As another aside, a better way to handle smoking on beaches would be simply to have a $500 fine if any cigarette touches the sand for more than five seconds (littering). You can use the money to fund improvements to the beaches while simultaneously discouraging smokers and smoker-related litter.
As another aside, a better way to handle smoking on beaches would be simply to have a $500 fine if any cigarette touches the sand for more than five seconds (littering).
How do you propose to enforce that fine? Are you going to pay for police officers to patrol the beach?
Also, smoking is not a "right," like some people in this thread have stated. There are many things that are against the law in New York City. For example, I don't have the "right" to set up a tripod on the sidewalk unless I get permission. Why? Because it gets in the way and obstructs pedestrian traffic. Littering is not a right. Loud music is not a right. You can not eat on the PATH train, or loiter in certain areas. You can't honk in front of a hospital. Are these things infringing on your basic human rights? Why can't you pee on public property? Why can't I wander around naked? Many laws, folks.
I think all the people who bang on about the "right" to smoke are smokers themselves, and cannot admit that often laws are imposed for the comfort of the majority against annoyance. Just like "Bender's freedom train" absolute freedom to do whatever you want often indirectly harms the people around you. Also, second hand smoke has been studied and many of the studies have proved that it DOES have a measurable effect. Cancer and heart disease aside, look at it from purely an annoyance standpoint. There are other things that I am not allowed to do just because they are annoying to the general public.
Also, second hand smoke has been studied and many of the studies have proved that it DOES have a measurable effect. Cancer and heart disease aside, look at it from purely an annoyance standpoint.
Exactly how much second-hand smoke do you reasonably think that you would ingest if you happened to be in Central Park at the same time a smoker was smoking a cigarette in said park?
If we shouldn't ban smoking in public parks due to ideological reasons, how can we ban any of these other activities? Most people want it to be banned.
If the people of New York want to ban smoking, that's up to them. I'm not for it, but I don't live there. NYC can govern themselves however they see fit.
I have a much bigger problem with a national ban like the one England has imposed. What works for NYC doesn't necessarily work for say Trenton, or Miami or D.C.
How do you propose to enforce that fine? Are you going to pay for police officers to patrol the beach?
I worked out the numbers a while ago while musing on it in Wildwood. For the money I expect they could reasonably bring in, they could easily pay the salaries of several officers whose sole job was to patrol the beach watching for such littering, and have large amounts of money left over with which to improve the waterfront. The officer salaries would also be cheaper than the paid garbage removers that have to get rid of them normally (especially if you forced said smokers to immediately, after receiving their fine, remove the trash from the beach or else face another fine).
There are so many smokers littering butts all over the beach, nevermind the normal litter.
On another note, if smoking is OK in public outdoor places, then so is stink juice cologne. ^_~
Also, second hand smoke has been studied and many of the studies have proved that it DOES have a measurable effect. Cancer and heart disease aside, look at it from purely an annoyance standpoint.
Exactly how much second-hand smoke do you reasonably think that you would ingest if you happened to be in Central Park at the same time a smoker was smoking a cigarette in said park?
Is that just one smoker you're talking about, in the entirety of the park? That's not a realistic number.
On another note, if smoking is OK in public outdoor places, then so is stink juice cologne. ^_~
I worked out the numbers a while ago while musing on it in Wildwood. For the money I expect they could reasonably bring in, they could easily pay the salaries of several officers whose sole job was to patrol the beach watching for such littering, and have large amounts of money left over with which to improve the waterfront.
There are so many smokers littering butts all over the beach, nevermind the normal litter.
That's illogical as you know there was be a massive decline in littering if you started slapping people with $500 fines.
On another note, if smoking is OK in public outdoor places, then so is stink juice cologne. ^_~
That's illogical as you know there was be a massive decline in littering if you started slapping people with $500 fines.
Considering the transient and seasonal nature of the offenders, coupled with the fact that it's the only public beach, the stream is unlikely to dry up. And, even if it does, you simply reduce the number of enforcers. If the litter returns, increase them.
Also, second hand smoke has been studied and many of the studies have proved that it DOES have a measurable effect. Cancer and heart disease aside, look at it from purely an annoyance standpoint.
Exactly how much second-hand smoke do you reasonably think that you would ingest if you happened to be in Central Park at the same time a smoker was smoking a cigarette in said park?
Is that just one smoker you're talking about, in the entirety of the park? That's not a realistic number.
Multiply it by however many smokers you reasonably think are in the park. Dilute that by the number of non-smokers breathing the same aire. Further dilute it by the smoke being wafted away from non-smokers by the ambient wind. How long are both sets of people, the smokers and the non-smokers in the same park at the same time? You'll have to account for the fact that a smoker might go into the park, smoke for five minutes and leave while a non-smoker might stay all day. Just how much smoke do you reasonably think a non-smoker would ingest in 30 minutes? An hour? Two?
How do you propose to enforce that fine? Are you going to pay for police officers to patrol the beach?
I worked out the numbers a while ago while musing on it in Wildwood. For the money I expect they could reasonably bring in, they could easily pay the salaries of several officers whose sole job was to patrol the beach watching for such littering.
Really? How many officers are going to stand and watch? How are they going to prove any particular person threw away any particular butt? It sounds to me like it'd be pretty easy to cast doubt upon any such identification unless there was some sort of high definition video surveillance. How many fines are going to be dismissed in court due to the ID issue? How many fines are going to be dismissed through regular good lawyering? How much are you going to pay for video surveillance? How much are you willing to pay your city attorney to defend the constitutional objections to video surveillance?
On another note, if smoking is OK in public outdoor places, then so is stink juice cologne. ^_~
You've tried this argument before, e.g. your "burning sulfur sticks". This argument doesn't work with me because I've been smoking so long that my sense of smell is totally fucked. Wear any sort of cologne you want. Burn any sort of sticks you want. I don't care. I can't smell them.
You've tried this argument before, e.g. your "burning sulfur sticks". This argument doesn't work with me because I've been smoking so long that my sense of smell is totally fucked. Wear any sort of cologne you want. Burn any sort of sticks you want. I don't care. I can't smell them.
The point is that we already ban many things that are considered by the majority to be a public nuisance, such as music in public. Smoking is no different: the majority of people consider it a public nuisance here, and so they want to ban it in public places.
Really? How many officers are going to stand and watch? How are they going to prove any particular person threw away any particular butt? How many fines are going to be dismissed in court?
Cameras are one option. That aside, so many people litter the beach with cigarette butts that all they would have to do is walk around a little while to catch people violating the "don't let them touch the sand at all" rule red-handed. You could rack up many many thousands of dollars in fines in a single day with almost no effort.
Multiply it by however many smokers you reasonably think are in the park. Dilute that by the number of non-smokers breathing the same aire. Further dilute it by the smoke being wafted away from non-smokers by the ambient wind. How long are both sets of people, the smokers and the non-smokers in the same park at the same time? You'll have to account for the fact that a smoker might go into the park, smoke for five minutes and leave while a non-smoker might stay all day. Just how much smoke do you reasonably think a non-smoker would ingest in 30 minutes? An hour? Two?
Okay, so in Central Park I can move away. However, I don't know how many times I have been walking along during rush hour and gotten stuck behind some smoker, and gotten a huge snootful of smoke. This happens almost everyday at the train station, because people light up as soon as they get off metro north. I can tell when I breath in a bunch of smoke! Bus stops? Don't get me started. So, okay, I only have to deal with half a dozen lungfuls of second hand smoke a day, but what if I said "half a dozen lungfuls of asbestos dust?" Cigar and cigarette smoke is still nasty and I don't like it, and it's bad for my body.
Really? How many officers are going to stand and watch? How are they going to prove any particular person threw away any particular butt? How many fines are going to be dismissed in court?
Cameras are one option.
Are those cameras constitutional? How are you going to pay to defend your camera in court in the inevitable constitutional case?
You've tried this argument before, e.g. your "burning sulfur sticks". This argument doesn't work with me because I've been smoking so long that my sense of smell is totally fucked. Wear any sort of cologne you want. Burn any sort of sticks you want. I don't care. I can't smell them.
The point is that we already ban many things that are considered by the majority to be a public nuisance, such as music in public. Smoking is no different: the majority of people consider it a public nuisance here, and so they want to ban it in public places.
The problem with enforcing things like you propose is demonstrated by your citation of annoying music. Do you still hear loud music in public? Is there a law against it and is a fine the sanction for violating that law? Then why do you still hear the loud music?
There's actually a fine for playing loud music in public here. I've personally witnessed many, many cases in which people were cited for playing loud music dismissed.
That aside, so many people litter the beach with cigarette butts that all they would have to do is walk around a little while to catch people violating the "don't let them touch the sand at all" rule red-handed. You could rack up many many thousands of dollars in fines in a single day with almost no effort.
That's pretty conclusory and simply ignores how many of those cases would be dismissed in court. In addition to paying the cops to be on the beach, you're going to have to pay them to go to court. As long as we're being conclusory, I'll bet that good lawyers could have about 85% of those cases dismissed.
However, I don't know how many times I have been walking along during rush hour and gotten stuck behind some smoker, and gotten a huge snootful of smoke. This happens almost everyday at the train station, because people light up as soon as they get off metro north. I can tell when I breath in a bunch of smoke! Bus stops? Don't get me started. So, okay, I only have to deal with half a dozen lungfuls of second hand smoke a day, but what if I said "half a dozen lungfuls of asbestos dust?" Cigar and cigarette smoke is still nasty and I don't like it, and it's bad for my body.
Six lungfuls a day? How many lungfuls of air do you breathe in a day? Are you even sure that you take in six entire lungfuls of second-hand smoke in a day? Lungs have a pretty big capacity, and if all you have to deal with is "a snootful", I don't think you've even filled your lungs. Let's call it more like one lungful a day, if that. You mentioned asbestos. How many other pollutants are you getting while you respirate in NYC? I'd say that you're in much, much more danger of something bad getting into your body from regular old ambient pollution that creeps into every breath you take than a random whiff of diluted second-hand smoke.
In addition to paying the cops to be on the beach, you're going to have to pay them to go to court. As long as we're being conclusory, I'll bet that good lawyers could have about 85% of those cases dismissed.
I note that the vast majority of people would be out-of-towners who couldn't come back to defend themselves and likely wouldn't. You could just dismiss the case of anyone who fights it if it's cheaper. ^_~
Or, just ban smoking on the beach and fine anyone who does it. Much easier, which is probably why New York is doing it. ^_^
In addition to paying the cops to be on the beach, you're going to have to pay them to go to court. As long as we're being conclusory, I'll bet that good lawyers could have about 85% of those cases dismissed.
I note that the vast majority of people would be out-of-towners who couldn't come back to defend themselves and likely wouldn't. You could just dismiss the case of anyone who fights it if it's cheaper.
I'm pretty sure most people would fight a $500.00 dollar fine, especially if they're from out of town and are not accustomed to such a large fine. Also, if you just dismiss the case of anyone who fights becuase it's cheaper, you'll have exactly the situation we have with the loud music: A useless, unenforceable law that no one heeds.
Or, just ban smoking on the beach and fine anyone who does it. Much easier, which is probably why New York is doing it. ^_^
Six lungfuls a day? How many lungfuls of air do you breathe in a day? Are you even sure that you take in six entire lungfuls of second-hand smoke in a day? Lungs have a pretty big capacity, and if all you have to deal with is "a snootful", I don't think you've even filled your lungs. Let's call it more like one lungful a day, if that. You mentioned asbestos. How many other pollutants are you getting while you respirate in NYC? I'd say that you're in much, much more danger of something bad getting into your body from regular old ambient pollution that creeps into every breath you take than a random whiff of diluted second-hand smoke.
Yeah, I'll agree that the pollution isn't doing me any favors. However, it makes me cough when the guy in front of me breathes cig smoke and I inhale it. I don't like that. Normal city air, foul as it is, doesn't do that.
Comments
Same thing with guns. We hold a hunter accountable for shooting someone. (Except if you happen to be the Vice President) We hold someone liable for any accident caused when they drive drunk. Smoking is more subtle, but that doesn't make it less dangerous. I think they should put restrictions of cigarettes just like they do booze and guns.
Smoking in your own house? Just fine. Smoking on the beach? Fine. But if your secondhand smoke gets in my face, I charge you with assault.
Want to get drunk? No problem. But as soon as you do something stupid like get in a car, spill your beer on me at a football game, etc. Game over.
The old saying is that the freedom to swing your fist ends at someone else's face. So why don't we actually stand by that old saying? Swing all you want, and the second you get in my face, game over for you.
You wrote: There's nothing in that statement about being completely alone or having anyone's express consent.
If I have my way, you'll be begging for a regular old smoking ban. A trivial fine for smoking on the sidewalk will be very preferable compared to an assault charge from every pedestrian who walks past.
The elements of a “tortious battery” (which is what you're calling assault - also, I'm using Torts here, not criminal law even though you talked about "charging someone with something. It would be even more difficult to successfully prosecute someone for the crime of assault because they were smoking because the burden of proof would be mor difficult to satisfy.)) cause of action are:
(1) An intentional touch by the defendant
(2) To the person of the plaintiff
(3) That is harmful or offensive to the plaintiff.
The Restatement (Second) of Torts defines battery in § 18 as offensive contact. Accordingly, the Restatement provision provides:
(1) An actor is subject to liability to another for battery if
a. He acts intending to cause a harmful or offensive contact with the person of the other or a third person, or an imminent apprehension of such a contact, and
b. An offensive contact with the person of the other directly or indirectly results.
(2) An act which is not done with the intention stated in Subsection (1, a) does not make the actor liable to the other for a mere offensive contact with the otherÂ’s person although the act involves an unreasonable risk of inflicting it and, therefore, would be negligent or reckless if the risk threatened bodily harm.
The situation that you described, i.e. that you inadvertently smelled second hand smoke from my cigarette while we were both on a beach and you did not give me express consent to smoke does not fit either definition. The key is that I did not intend for the smoke to touch you. On a beach, I'm very certain that no reasonable person could conclude that I intended for the smoke to touch you in any way. How could you show that I intended for the smoke to touch you if we were both outside, possibly surrounded by other people and separated by at least some distance?
Actually, Leichtman v. WLW Jacor Comms., Inc., 634 N.E.2d 697 was a case in which a smoker was found liable for battery for blowing smoke into someone's face, but I trust you'll see that the facts are way different than anything you've talked about in this thread. In that case, a talk show host intentionally and repeatedly blew smoke into a guest's face. But, even this court found that they would not extend intent to a "substantial certainty" standard, which is what you'd need if you wanted to charge anyone on a beach for inadvertently exposing you to smoke.
If you're trying to say that you wish to be able to charge smokers with assault, that's fine. In fact, you can do that now. You can charge nearly anyone with nearly anything. I could go to court right now and charge you with assault. The question is whether you'll be successful in prosecuting your assault charge. I have some small experience in this area, and I have very little confidence in your likelihood of success.
I live in court. Your statement that you'll have me charged with assault gives me as little cause for worry as you would have cause to worry if I told you that I was going to hack the forum.
If we shouldn't ban smoking in public parks due to ideological reasons, how can we ban any of these other activities? Most people want it to be banned.
As an aside, this is an example of pragmatism over ideology. New York has, in general, had a great reduction in heart disease and other smoking-related illness after the initial ban, and unlike with alcohol, the ban has not resulted in any significant drawbacks. Overall, I would argue a definite net benefit to society resulting from the existing ban, which is extremely popular. My ideology is freedom wherever possible, but my stance is nonetheless for the ban on pragmatic grounds.
As another aside, a better way to handle smoking on beaches would be simply to have a $500 fine if any cigarette touches the sand for more than five seconds (littering). You can use the money to fund improvements to the beaches while simultaneously discouraging smokers and smoker-related litter.
There are many things that are against the law in New York City. For example, I don't have the "right" to set up a tripod on the sidewalk unless I get permission. Why? Because it gets in the way and obstructs pedestrian traffic. Littering is not a right. Loud music is not a right. You can not eat on the PATH train, or loiter in certain areas. You can't honk in front of a hospital. Are these things infringing on your basic human rights? Why can't you pee on public property? Why can't I wander around naked? Many laws, folks.
I think all the people who bang on about the "right" to smoke are smokers themselves, and cannot admit that often laws are imposed for the comfort of the majority against annoyance. Just like "Bender's freedom train" absolute freedom to do whatever you want often indirectly harms the people around you. Also, second hand smoke has been studied and many of the studies have proved that it DOES have a measurable effect. Cancer and heart disease aside, look at it from purely an annoyance standpoint. There are other things that I am not allowed to do just because they are annoying to the general public.
I have a much bigger problem with a national ban like the one England has imposed. What works for NYC doesn't necessarily work for say Trenton, or Miami or D.C.
There are so many smokers littering butts all over the beach, nevermind the normal litter.
On another note, if smoking is OK in public outdoor places, then so is stink juice cologne. ^_~
There's actually a fine for playing loud music in public here. I've personally witnessed many, many cases in which people were cited for playing loud music dismissed. That's pretty conclusory and simply ignores how many of those cases would be dismissed in court. In addition to paying the cops to be on the beach, you're going to have to pay them to go to court. As long as we're being conclusory, I'll bet that good lawyers could have about 85% of those cases dismissed. Six lungfuls a day? How many lungfuls of air do you breathe in a day? Are you even sure that you take in six entire lungfuls of second-hand smoke in a day? Lungs have a pretty big capacity, and if all you have to deal with is "a snootful", I don't think you've even filled your lungs. Let's call it more like one lungful a day, if that. You mentioned asbestos. How many other pollutants are you getting while you respirate in NYC? I'd say that you're in much, much more danger of something bad getting into your body from regular old ambient pollution that creeps into every breath you take than a random whiff of diluted second-hand smoke.
Or, just ban smoking on the beach and fine anyone who does it. Much easier, which is probably why New York is doing it. ^_^