EPTI remember when smoking in a hospital was legal. The only possible upside to this is making self righteous assholes feel even better about themselves, and possibly cutting down on litter. But its NYC. Do you really think NYC is ever going to be free of litter or significantly improved because of a smoking ban? It's the dirtiest city in all of the world. I think the legislature//government needs to direct their attention to more pertinent issues aside from smoking, and the war on drugs.
Smoking Ban in NYC - Page 4
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
inamorato
United States263 Posts
I remember when smoking in a hospital was legal. The only possible upside to this is making self righteous assholes feel even better about themselves, and possibly cutting down on litter. But its NYC. Do you really think NYC is ever going to be free of litter or significantly improved because of a smoking ban? It's the dirtiest city in all of the world. I think the legislature//government needs to direct their attention to more pertinent issues aside from smoking, and the war on drugs. | ||
|
Enki
United States2548 Posts
| ||
|
VPCursed
1044 Posts
| ||
|
Kamais_Ookin
Canada4218 Posts
| ||
|
jinorazi
Korea (South)4948 Posts
i dont mind bans on public places but they shouldnt be able to say they can't smoke in their own home and car. smokers have no complaints as they shouldn't smoke in populated areas for consideration of others. and those who get so offended by cigarette smell, don't be a pussy  | ||
|
FallDownMarigold
United States3710 Posts
On May 24 2011 06:08 insaneMicro wrote: This is getting out of hand imo. Banning smoking at bars I can understand, the air can get sticky and tear-inducing at times. But why ban people from smoking in public? It's neither harming nor annoying anyone. If I lived in NYC, I'd be pretty mad about this. Not sure if serious. You aren't sure why the are banning smoking in public places? They give reasons in the article. You might have to...err..you know, READ it. | ||
|
fush
Canada563 Posts
On May 24 2011 06:38 inamorato wrote: This is fucking absurd. I love how they claim 50,000 people die from second hand smoke yearly. The only smoke that is carcinogenic is the inhaled smoke and the smoke that comes directly off of the burning cigarette. No one ingests the smoke that comes off of a cigarette when you are outdoors. I remember when smoking in a hospital was legal. The only possible upside to this is making self righteous assholes feel even better about themselves, and possibly cutting down on litter. But its NYC. Do you really think NYC is ever going to be free of litter or significantly improved because of a smoking ban? It's the dirtiest city in all of the world. I think the legislature//government needs to direct their attention to more pertinent issues aside from smoking, and the war on drugs. just stop if you have no idea what you're talking about. nicotine is the main psychoactive drug in cigarettes and a recent study shows second hand smoke causes activation of 20% of all brain nicotinic receptors in a non-smoker. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2011 May 2. Effect of Secondhand Smoke on Occupancy of Nicotinic Acetylcholine Receptors in Brain. Brody AL, Mandelkern MA, London ED, Khan A, Kozman D, Costello MR, Vellios EE, Archie MM, Bascom R, Mukhin AG. | ||
|
FallDownMarigold
United States3710 Posts
On May 24 2011 06:39 jinorazi wrote: smoke outdoor does not harm the person walking by, there is no health/hazard issue Are you qualified to make this statement? Please provide your primary research on the subject or cite studies that have supported your statement. Thanks. | ||
|
relyt
United States1073 Posts
EDIT: this comment was directed at the comments in this thread, not the article. I am 100% for the legislation even though i am a smoker myself. | ||
|
Myrkskog
Canada481 Posts
On May 24 2011 06:41 FallDownMarigold wrote: Are you qualified to make this statement? Please provide your primary research on the subject or cite studies that have supported your statement. Thanks. Yeah I don't think so. The burden of proof is your job, not his. | ||
|
FallDownMarigold
United States3710 Posts
On May 24 2011 06:42 relyt wrote: do you really care if a person smokes in his own home? Nope. What does smoking in one's own home have to do with this legislation? The ban includes parks and other public places. Please read the article. | ||
|
NB
Netherlands12045 Posts
| ||
|
aristarchus
United States652 Posts
On May 24 2011 06:39 jinorazi wrote: smoke outdoor does not harm the person walking by, there is no health/hazard issue, its just annoying as the person having to smell it when they dont have to. i dont mind bans on public places but they shouldnt be able to say they can't smoke in their own home and car. smokers have no complaints as they shouldn't smoke in populated areas for consideration of others. and those who get so offended by cigarette smell, don't be a pussy As someone with smoke-triggered asthma, I can vouch for the fact that smoke outdoors does harm at least some of the people walking by. It's not just the smell - for me it's nothing serious, but I can feel my chest get a little tighter. I actually felt this a lot more when I lived in NYC - maybe because of more smokers, or because the dense buildings reduce circulation or something. I even get a bit of the effect when someone who works in my office comes back in from smoking outside. Smoking is harmful to those around you, and you can make all the libertarian arguments you want, but they only apply when no one else is near you. (In fact, I read an article once saying that children in apartment buildings in NYC had noticeable second-hand smoke exposure just from people living in *other* apartments smoking, since the ventilation system is shared.) | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15736 Posts
On May 24 2011 06:42 relyt wrote: Wow there seem to be a lot of people who hate smoking in here. I can understand why one would hate being exposed to smoke, but do you really care if a person smokes in his own home? The subject isn't in their own home, its in a place where people are exposed to smoke without consent. Considering the potential health consequences for people who do not smoke, it is a really easy conclusion to reach that this is a good choice for NYC. On May 24 2011 06:45 aristarchus wrote: As someone with smoke-triggered asthma, I can vouch for the fact that smoke outdoors does harm at least some of the people walking by. It's not just the smell - for me it's nothing serious, but I can feel my chest get a little tighter. I actually felt this a lot more when I lived in NYC - maybe because of more smokers, or because the dense buildings reduce circulation or something. I even get a bit of the effect when someone who works in my office comes back in from smoking outside. Smoking is harmful to those around you, and you can make all the libertarian arguments you want, but they only apply when no one else is near you. (In fact, I read an article once saying that children in apartment buildings in NYC had noticeable second-hand smoke exposure just from people living in *other* apartments smoking, since the ventilation system is shared.) Same here. Many people have smoke-triggered asthma, and its really shitty to be walking down the street and suddenly be short on breath and have trouble breathing. Its very invasive. | ||
|
relyt
United States1073 Posts
On May 24 2011 06:44 FallDownMarigold wrote: Nope. What does smoking in one's own home have to do with this legislation? The ban includes parks and other public places. Please read the article. I did, I also read the comments. Some people were calling for an all out ban of smoking. | ||
|
FallDownMarigold
United States3710 Posts
On May 24 2011 06:43 Myrkskog wrote: Yeah I don't think so. The burden of proof is your job, not his. Nope, it's his. There is already evidence that contradicts his statement. If he is to claim otherwise, he must provide evidence. Not sure if you're trolling. | ||
|
Kibibit
United States1551 Posts
| ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15736 Posts
On May 24 2011 06:46 FallDownMarigold wrote: Nope, it's his. There is already evidence that contradicts his statement. If he is to claim otherwise, he must provide evidence. Not sure if you're trolling. Second hand smoke stimulates tumor angiogenesis and growth http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1535610803002198 Cardiovascular Effects of Secondhand Smoke Nearly as Large as Smoking http://circ.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/111/20/2684 The question as to whether second hand smoke harms people has been answered many times. | ||
|
platorepublic
United Kingdom344 Posts
On May 24 2011 06:04 Valestrum wrote: I'm glad, smoking is a bad habit. It doesn't do anything good for us. Agreed, but isn't it the freedom for people to smoke? I think many other things should be banned to, like driving private cars. | ||
|
FallDownMarigold
United States3710 Posts
On May 24 2011 06:50 Mohdoo wrote: Second hand smoke stimulates tumor angiogenesis and growth http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1535610803002198 Cardiovascular Effects of Secondhand Smoke Nearly as Large as Smoking http://circ.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/111/20/2684 The question as to whether second hand smoke harms people has been answered many times. Thank you. | ||
| ||
