NYC Smoking Ban Signed Into Law By Mayor Bloomberg

NEW YORK — New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg has signed into law a ban on smoking in city parks, beaches, public plazas and boardwalks.

The ban goes into effect 90 days after Tuesday's signing. That means that by this summer, those who break the law could face fines of $50 per violation, although the city has said it plans to rely on signs and social pressure instead of active enforcement.

Health Commissioner Thomas Farley says the law will protect people from dangerous secondhand smoke. But some health experts question whether the smoke poses a serious danger in open, outdoor spaces. Critics of the law say the city is trampling on civil liberties.

Bloomberg's administration banned smoking in restaurants, bars and other public indoor spaces in 2002.

Comments

[merlin1246]

07:11 AM on 04/22/2011

Why can't business owners and their customers, who can vote with their feet, decide if smoking is okay in a PRIVATE business. The nanny state prefers to treat us all as children.
What happened to America that we have become such compliant wimps? I'm not. but too many of my so-called 'fellow citizens' are.

[ragekage840]

01:45 PM on 02/27/2011

I have never smoked a cigarette in my life and i personally find them gross. But all this anti smoking has kinda gotten out of control. It's a legal product and people are free to use them if they want ESPECIALLY outside and in public! I can see banning them in restaurants and some other indoor public areas, but outside? In public? Come on now. I get it, smoking is bad mmmkay? But if you have a problem being outside and near someone smoking just take the few steps required, move and let people be. I typically agree on most issues with Mayor Bloomberg but not this one.

[Ajax the Great]

11:15 AM on 02/28/2011

Can I get an AMEN?

[Ajax the Great]

04:08 PM on 02/26/2011

To all the cannabis users and legalization advocates out there who don't use tobacco, now is NOT the time to be smug. The creeping de facto prohibition of tobacco that may soon be upon us will not help your movement in the least, believe me. Even if you hate tobacco, it's time for some coalition building.

[Ajax the Great]

03:20 PM on 02/26/2011

It's both interesting and scary where we as a society are heading. We seem to be moving towards a model of tobacco policy that basically consists of commercialization for the sellers and de facto prohibition for the users. If that's not hypocritical, I don't know what is.

[Rosalee Harris]

10:46 AM on 02/26/2011

As someone who is allergic to nicotine and cigarette smoke this is the only thing I support Bloomberg 110% on. Its a crime to drink alcohol get into a car and drive cause it endangers others but second hand smoke thats been link to cancer well thats OK. If you are blowing foul stuff in the air that others can breathe in the only place you have a right to do that is in on your own property in your own home.

[Ajax the Great]

03:14 PM on 02/26/2011

Ever heard of something called WALKING AWAY? Look, if you can't handle living in a free society, you should take advantage of the best kind of freedom we have to offer--the freedom to leave.

[jamesjm]

03:51 PM on 02/26/2011

What if the non-smoker is there first? Are you saying a non-smoker should have to move every time a smoker comes over to light up? Do you think an ignorant smoker such as yourself is going to give way to a non-smoker? I didn't think so. By the way, it's old news. The law passed in favor of health and you lost. Must have caught you sleeping. You might want to try living in the present, lick your wounds and find another outlet to vent your deep seated anger. Your stale arguments are naive, old and tired.

[Ajax the Great]

03:16 PM on 02/26/2011

"If you are blowing foul stuff in the air that others can breathe in the only place you have a right to do that is in on your own property in your own home."

Until they ban that, which already happened in some towns in California.

[Tygartman]

07:55 AM on 02/26/2011

As George Orwell's 1984 comes one step closer to reality.

[Ajax the Great]

03:17 PM on 02/26/2011

Yes, many people forget that the first group they went after was the smokers. While at first allowing the real criminals to literally get away with murder.

[Rj Cool J]

09:41 PM on 02/25/2011

People shouldn't smoke anyway you all know its bad for you and you'll get cancer from it. Why not just quit?

[RevJimIII]

01:09 AM on 02/26/2011

Smoking is bad for you, so is fast food and alcohol.. many things we do to ourselves and others is harmful or fatal.. but where is the line drawn on micro managing the behavior of citizens by state or federal authority?

[Ajax the Great]

04:13 PM on 02/26/2011

It's not as easy as you think, believe me.

[Matt Lindner]

06:45 PM on 02/25/2011

Where the hell are New Yorkers supposed to smoke?

[Ajax the Great]

06:48 PM on 02/25/2011

Good question. I guess in one's own home, until they ban that.

[Ajax the Great]

06:34 PM on 02/25/2011

It's stories like this that actually make me want to go back to smoking, having quit many years ago. Don't want anyone smoking in parks, beaches, or plazas? Well maybe smokers should go right in front of City Hall and light up.

[Js420]

05:06 PM on 02/25/2011

Cigarette smokers already have enough rights. Thanks Bloomberg!

[KidShalleen]

05:43 PM on 02/25/2011

They'll be coming after you, next.
True @$$h0les are always the last to get theirs.

[Js420]

04:09 PM on 02/27/2011

as a cannabis consumer they have been coming after me for decades. However i dont poison others with my habit. not that the sweet leaf could

[Ajax the Great]

06:27 PM on 02/25/2011

First, they came for the smokers..........

[Ajax the Great]

04:09 PM on 02/25/2011

Notice how no one has the stones to stand up to Big Tobacco and ban radioactive phosphate fertilizers, toxic pesticides, and other unnecessary additives. But hey, God forbid we do anything that might save the lives of those evil, wretched smokers, right?

[wwhitfie81]

03:05 PM on 02/25/2011

It's funny, so many arguments that government shouldn't step in when trying to help people, e.g. this smoking ban and Michelle Obama's healthy eating initiative for school aged children. But, BUT, the wars rage on! And no one, not the GOP or the Democrats are fighting that.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, we don't want, what should be, free healthcare to all, healthy eating habits, gun control laws or banning cigarettes to thos non-smokers who careless to inhale someone else's habit, because it infringes on people's rights.

Then I say, every man/woman in the U.S. shouldn't be forced to enroll in the army once they turn 18, that infringes on his/her rights, but...hey, that's the government being used for the good of the U.S. never mind that most of them now will be too obese to enroll on their own free will.

[Ajax the Great]

03:45 PM on 02/25/2011

Outdoor smoking infringes on NO ONE's rights, since nonsmokers have the right to WALK AWAY. But the zealots insist on getting in smokers' faces to harass them into submission. And gun control takes away the people's God-given right to self-defense, and the courts have ruled that cops actually have no legal duty to protect individuals.

[Ajax the Great]

01:59 PM on 02/25/2011

Yet another law against a victimless crime. When does the madness end?

[wwhitfie81]

02:53 PM on 02/25/2011

Victimless? 2nd hand smoking is dangerous. The victims? Those of us who don't smoke and don't want to be around it!

[Ajax the Great]

03:27 PM on 02/25/2011

There is no evidence that OUTDOOR second hand smoke is dangerous, period.

[jamesjm]

02:55 PM on 02/25/2011

The madness ends when you enlighten yourself to the facts. Then you'll breath easier. Fact: Tobacco smoke is a class "A' carcinogen. It's about the health of adults and children who don't have to endure the annoyance and dangers of breathing second-hand smoke. It's also a fact that many smokers (not all) use our parks and beaches as their personal ashtray.

Let's band together for children's rights. Children should have the right to tobacco-free air in their home. Are you with me on this? Children should also have the right to tobacco-free air in the cars they are riding in. Hopefully there will be laws to protect innocent children from this type of child abuse.

[Ajax the Great]

03:32 PM on 02/25/2011

As I said before, there is no evidence that OUTDOOR second-hand smoke is dangerous, period. And littering is already illegal, butts or otherwise, how about enforcing that? As for the children, what's next? Are we gonna eventually require licenses to breed or something? We need to get off of this slippery slope at once. America is supposed to be a free country. If you don't like it, go move to another country, whiners. It's that simple.

[Derek Lantin]

08:33 AM on 02/25/2011

Sir

I do not smoke and I do not drink. I have no vested interest in a smoking ban or otherwise.

However, I think the war against smokers has gone way too far.
If I go out with my friends, we should have the right to choose between going to a “smoking” bar or going to a “non-smoking” bar.

If we choose to go to a smoking bar, it is our choice. We will have willingly made the decision to inhale primary or secondary smoke and we will have accepted that our hair, our clothes and our breath will smell.

Similarly, bar staff should have the right to choose between working in a smoking bar or a non-smoking bar.

Today, everybody is aware of the dangers of smoking; smokers do so by choice and they make their own decisions about their health.

The argument that smokers place an unfair burden on the medical facilities is nonsense; smokers pay taxes on tobacco and the annual tax haul by the government must be enormous, - far offsetting the additional burden placed on medical facilities by smokers.

Sincerely, Derek Lantin. http://dereklantin.booksabuzz.com

[jamesjm]

01:08 PM on 02/25/2011

Are you basically saying let Company A has toxic residues of asbestos fibers in the air and should let the workers decide if they want to work there? Are you also saying that a barmaid decides to work at a smoky bar, becomes pregnant and now she should look for another job while she's pregnant?

Are you saying that Company B has a saw blade rotating without any safety devices what so ever and it is the workers that should leave if they find it dangerous to operate?

So you are saying that the tax on cigarettes, which is enormous must go to somehow indirectly to pay the medical facilities? Think again.

[Ajax the Great]

02:05 PM on 02/25/2011

From the last episode of Very Bad Analogies. How about just requiring rational ventilation standards--banning smoking entirely is like banning saw blades entirely. By the way, smokers actually SAVE society money by dying younger AND paying exorbitant $igarette taxes so others don't have to pay as much. Some of it does actually go towards healthcare, just think of SCHIP, while the rest indirectly subsidizes everyone else. And if Social Security and Medicare still exist 20-30 years from now, be sure to thank a smoker, buddy.

[Ajax the Great]

02:07 PM on 02/25/2011

Oh yeah, with the advent of birth control and Roe v. Wade, nowadays pregnancy is a choice, not an inevitable event. You can't have it both ways.

[Terry Gerace]

11:39 PM on 02/24/2011

Now if we can only get cigarettes out of pharmacies and CVS medical clinics, I mean really, selling cigarettes in businesses that employ licensed medical professionals is really outrageous. And please, no comments about them selling other things that are bad for you--drink a soda a day and that won't kill you, smoking a pack of cigarettes a day, very well may.
http://news.change.org/stories/activists-target-tobacco-in-pharmacies-with-cvs-sells-poison-campaign