Okay. There are a lot of different arguments going on here, so I’m going to spend some time trying to differentiate my perspectives on the ones I’m seeing….
Do I think telling car companies they must place images of horrendous accidents on their cars would be analogous to the cigarette packaging mandate? Still no, for the reason I offered above and the ones offered above that. Cars aren’t analogous to cigarettes, and car companies aren’t analogous to tobacco companies.
But do I agree with the cigarette packaging mandate? Probably not.
And I do think that if an adult wants to smoke, they should have the right to make that decision (so long as they don’t force me to inhale along with them, or insist that I have to evacuate a premises because they want to imbue the air with carcinogens, tar, addictive substances, and other various toxins… but more on that in a bit). Still, tobacco companies have such aggressive and misleading marketing strategies (and often times blatantly incorrect claims) designed specifically to get people hooked without much regard to the health consequences of the products they’re pushing on those people, that I can sympathize somewhat with a regulation trying to mitigate their persuasive, pervasive influence… But as for how much regulation the government should enact, that’s a matter of discussion. The images seem, to me, to fall under the category of mandated labelling, which is not a new thing, and which on the whole is a form of “government intrusion” that I think is quite a good thing. It’s sort of the only reason we have factual ingredient information on foods and drugs; it’s sort of the only reason we have factual labelling about health effects on drugs or other materials with potentially dangerous effects; etc… that said, the images taking up all the marketing space does seem like a heavy handed way of going about it. Other products—granted, many don’t have as many or as rampant health effects as cigarettes—other products are allowed be decorated with idealized and misleading packaging (the idyllic farms painted onto meat packages, the obscuring of ingredients in complex chemical terms, the fairly meaningless claims of “clinically tested,” etc.). Cigarettes may be some of the more harmful products, and tobacco companies may be some of the most notable misleaders, but I don’t know that they should be automatically bumped into a new category of required labelling. A text box of “side effects” or “warnings” (like with other products) seems like it should be enough. (It would be a long list.)
On the laws prohibiting smoking in certain outdoor locations:
The bans are not in order to inconvenience smokers, and I don’t think such an argument can really hold up; smokers’ inconvenience may be a side effect, and a few people may even think that’s a good thing (I’m not one of them), but it’s not the main reason.
NYC is congested with people—which means everyone is closer, which means there is less space between smokers for the smoke to clear out. It really does begin to accumulate in the space. Additionally, you’ve got the cityscape. The buildings basically become walls trapping in the air. I’ve been to NYC twice, both times before the no-public-places-ban. Both times, walking outside basically meant inhaling smoke until enough of a breeze managed to sneak through the city to give me a little reprieve, or I got to my destination. I know it doesn’t seem that strong to someone who smokes—but to everyone who doesn’t, it does.
Also, when I looked up the law, this is what I found:
“The law, which Mayor Michael Bloomberg signed in February after it was passed by the New York City Council, will make smoking illegal in New York City’s 1,700 parks and on the city’s 14 miles of public beaches. Smoking will also be prohibited in pedestrian plazas like Times Square.
The ban is designed to help curb exposure to secondhand smoke as well as reduce litter.” (source)
So it’s not really banned on all public streets—it’s banned in public places that people gather and remain for an extended period of time. This seems fair, and seems in line with the legitimate reasons for prohibiting smoking in many other public settings.
Central Park… phrasing the issue as “one can’t enjoy a cigarette there” is a bit misleading in the way it uses a single third person pronoun to represent smokers (plural). It’s not about a single person smoking, and it’s just not true that everyone-plus-the-government is trying to inconvenience one into stopping. It’s about the accumulative effect that many people smoking in the park have on the others there. Sorry, but it really is the same effect as people smoking in a pub: People are at risk of breathing in secondhand smoke anywhere there are smokers. Secondhand smoke can also travel about 20 feet in every direction and may stay around for hours. As someone whose apartment window is currently about 35 feet from a smoking bench, and who is frequently several stories above other smoker locations, I say that 20’ is modest. One days/nights with no wind, the smoke just keeps slowly spreading; on days/nights with the correct direction of wind, the smoke travels very far in specific directions. Also, 20’ is not that far away for someone to go. It’s not some tyrannical imposition that’s exiling smokers—it’s legislation that’s honestly trying to find the balance between someone’s desire/right to smoke and others’ rights to not have to be face-to-face with the chemicals in that smoke.
This is the same reason there’s a distance-from-door rule—if you’re standing right outside the door, your smoke is going straight into the establishment, because smoke travels.
As for awnings—I couldn’t find the legislation on that. I’m assuming it means the establishment’s ordinary awnings, like the ones surrounding the building and/or covering the entrance. That prohibition is no more or less than an extension of the one preventing smoking indoors, or if you prefer, of the one preventing smoking in populated areas like parks or plazas. Awnings create ceilings that trap the smoke. If awnings are constructed for general use by patrons of the establishment, someone smoking there would be affecting other patrons the same way they would be inside the building. And, since awnings are usually near the entrances, the smoke winds up going right into the building itself—doubly bad. But even if the awnings are free-standing canopy style, they’re still part of the confined space of the establishment, and they’re still a place that was designed more generally for patrons.
So bring an umbrella. It’s like your own portable awning. Or if you really want to enjoy tobacco/nicotine in these spaces, try something that won’t spread—chews, gums, patches, etc. Those really are individual…
Also, I know there exist canopies designed specifically for designated smoking locations. They show up easily on searches. They were also spread around one state funded college campus I attended, placed in locations that smokers could legally smoke. The campus had benches for people to sit down beneath the canopies, and ashtrays ready to accept the cigarettes. Another state funded college I’ve attended has clearly labelled smoking locations—admittedly no awnings here because the weather really doesn’t need it, but always with benches and places to deposit the cigarettes. These locations are always comfortable, and always located in surprisingly convenient places. I pass them regularly. My bike parking isn’t even as close to buildings as the smoking locations. It’s pretty darn fair.
Composing members:
0
Composing members:
0
