1. Local

Discuss in my forum

Linda  Tagliaferro

Great Neck, NY: No Smoking on Public Sidewalks

By January 6, 2011

Follow me on:

On Tuesday evening, January 4, 2011, the village board of Great Neck approved a ban on smoking on public sidewalks in front of stores and other businesses. The board has said that this is the first ban on sidewalk smoking in New York State.

According to a report on Fox News, Great Neck's mayor Ralph J. Kreitzman commented that village officials received complaints about the number of smokers that stood just outside Great Neck stores.

Those who violate the new ban could wind up with a hefty $1000 fine.

What do you think of this ban? Is it an intelligent way to protect citizens from second-hand smoke? Do you think that smokers scuttling around the sidewalks prevents those who choose not to smoke from entering a store? Or do you think that smokers should do as they please when and where they want to? Please leave a comment below.

Suggested Reading:

Comments

January 6, 2011 at 8:37 pm
(1) Nicole says:

This is a very good thing. I sympathize with people who are addicted to smoking. I’ve known people who continued to smoke even when they coughed up blood because the addiction is so strong.

But in addition to harming themselves, smokers are doing harm to people who want to lead a healthy life style. Smokers are forcing healthy people to inhale second hand smoke. It isn’t something that’s maybe true. Study after study shows this is harmful. And parents who smoke are making their children sick.

I hope this ban spreads throughout New York state and also to other states and other countries.

We need to have programs available to help smokers kick their addiction. In the meantime, we have to protect healthy people who have made the wise choice not to smoke. I even read about third hand smoke, where smoke settles into furniture and can harm people.

Bravo to the people of Great Neck for this intelligent smoking ban.

January 6, 2011 at 10:29 pm
(2) Gerrie says:

It’s interesting because I had a conversation with my sister last weekend. I was talking about how I have to pinch my nose when I walk by a smoker on the sidewalk or else I will end up sneezing, or coughing as if I were a smoker myself. Sometimes the reaction is worse and I end up with a brutal headache or even have a mild asthma attack. I was surprised when she agreed–my sister used to be a smoker. She hasn’t had a cigarette in three years. Unfortunately, she now has asthma and reacts to cigarette smoke the same way I do.

I was happy when some companies created their own rules to prevent employees from smoking at the entrances of their businesses. I’ve been annoyed when I’ve had to walk into a bodega past smokers or, and this is ironic, my pharmacy to get my asthma medicine, and the person who usually hands the medication to me is smoking right in front of the door! Isn’t it great that I’ll at least have an inhaler to stop the attack the poison from her cigarette is going to cause.

Like Nicole I understand that this is an addiction. I can’t get through the day without my morning coffee, but I have a feeling that if my doctor told me that coffee would kill me or anyone who happened to get a whiff of my java breath, I’d switch to green tea.

So I’d love it if this law spread across the entire country. Maybe the inconvenience and the fact that many people find the smell of tobacco on one’s breath, in clothing and other fabrics– and above all, that it is harmful to us all–will convince smokers that it really is time to quit.

January 7, 2011 at 7:39 am
(3) john says:

What does the law say as it relates to smoking in a vehicle parked on the side of the road.

January 7, 2011 at 3:03 pm
(4) mikeyg says:

OK I am not a smoker but if you keep giving up all your rights the next thing they ban might be something that you might not think is harming someone else.
How about staying home if you get a cold how about they fine you if you give someone else that cold there is no end to this insanity.

January 7, 2011 at 5:11 pm
(5) Anne says:

To Mikey G: I think you’re confusing two issues here. If you have a cold and go out, someone may or may not catch it from you. But catching a cold isn’t the same as all the terrible effects of second hand smoke. The real “insanity” as you call it is when healthy people are forced to put up with breathing toxic substances that someone else chooses to inhale. As two people pointed out in their comments, it’s very sad that some people are addicted to nicotine. But that doesn’t give anyone the right to harm someone else.

January 7, 2011 at 5:45 pm
(6) anonymous K says:

This is BS. I’m on my way to great neck right now just so I can smoke on the sidewalk. Anyone that doesn’t like it, I’ll blow smoke in there face

January 7, 2011 at 10:22 pm
(7) mark says:

Amazing! the number of morons, these days — Useful Idiots — who condone tyranny in all its insidious, creeping forms! As Benjamin Franklin said (and I paraphrase here) those who would sacrifice their liberty for security, deserve neither liberty, nor security — and it’s as true now, as it was then!

I find it difficult to believe that I even have to address people who claim that cigarette smoke, in an outdoor environment, is oppressive! It’s bad enough, that these fascists have had their way for years now, with a typical example being, that even partitioned-off, independently-ventilated, specially-designated smoking areas indoors (such as would be the case in restaurants and bars) is still not acceptable to them: no, they brook nothing else than complete prohibition, even when the “offending substance” would no longer have the ability to intrude on their presence! But that is the case, when you give in to these control-freaks: they start, in this case, with indoor prohibition, but it’s not long before they begin to seize regulation of everyone else’s actions in the free-air outdoors, as well. It’s as predictable as the law of gravity! And as for Nicole and Gerrie, I challenge you to produce one single REAL (i.e., refereed, in an actual, recognized scientific journal) study which demonstrates the harmful effects of second-hand smoke in an outdoor, free-air environment; I won’t hold my breath, waiting! It’s a shame that we now have several generations of morons who are ignorant of our history, our Constitution and Bill of Rights, and thus, couldn’t care less about upholding the rule of law of these founding documents. But not to worry: the law of karma’s a bitch! Or, put another way: what goes around, comes around — soon enough, it’ll be YOUR turn to be oppressed by other “do-gooders.”

January 7, 2011 at 11:24 pm
(8) Ty says:

I’m a Non Smoker and believe this is getting outrageous. Every corner you turn new laws are being passed “on your behalf” to protect you . Is this America anymore?? This is just silly. Why don’t you pass a law about dog pooping in the park 2 feet from the sidewalk since the excrement has sulfur toxins which can harm you too!

January 7, 2011 at 11:37 pm
(9) longislander says:

Freedom? To pollute your lungs and everyone else’s. What part of “lung cancer” don’t you understand?

January 8, 2011 at 12:02 am
(10) Robin says:

Mark, I don’t want to plagiarize an article, but you can go to Science Daily to read about a study published in the Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene. The study that assessed “levels of a nicotine byproduct known as cotinine in nonsmokers exposed to second-hand smoke outdoors, found levels up to 162 percent greater than in the control group.” The co-author of the study said that secondhand smoke contains a variety of known carcinogens and “…there is no safe level of exposure,” and that “… the levels that we are seeing are a potential public health issue.”

January 8, 2011 at 12:10 am
(11) Robin says:

Mark, here’s another study done 6 months ago at New Study on Outdoor Second Hand Smoke in Ottawa. They measured “hazardous levels” of carcinogens from tobacco smoke in outdoor patios and bars. The author of the study Dr. Ryan David Kennedy said the particulate matter measured outdoors when people smoked at another table was “equivalent to levels measured during forest fires…”

January 8, 2011 at 12:19 am
(12) RichaRD kUBIS says:

I disagree to ban something a person does since they are part of the public. You want to ban this then there taxes should be reduced since your imposing on them. You want to ban smoking, fine but the town should not be entiled to any tax on cigarettes. Can’t wait for the sity to ban this and the state. You should not be entitled to any tax to tabacco and the city of NYC will hurt. Face it, NYC tries to promote tourism. Many other countries smoke. Those people would not travel to NYC with a ban. They see freedom, you promote sicializm. They have that already.

January 8, 2011 at 3:52 am
(13) sweet sensimilia says:

Only 4 people on here make sense and they know who they are as for all you non smoking jerks I hope someone having a nicotine fit cause they can’t have their cigarette where they please punch you in the face. Robin your a moron BARS and PATIOS last I checked had a goddamn roof you can google since your so good at finding smoking studys it should be pretty easy for you to find that. Also everyone here who lives in great neck I can’t wait till I’m smoking in the street and you hit me with your car b/c your mercedes will be mine along with a large sum of your money. I’m sure you all heard the nyc commercial for chances of dying by getting hit by a car at 40 are 70% well I’m familar with your area and all of you drive well over the speed limit of 40 ecspecially on the main roads. So your dumb villages options is to FORCE people to stop smoking
or risk death every day.

January 8, 2011 at 3:56 am
(14) sweet sensimilia says:

And the non smokers who are on our side who feel this is rediculous thanks for your support

January 8, 2011 at 6:04 pm
(15) Gungistoker says:

Annie said: I think youíre confusing two issues here. If you have a cold and go out, someone may or may not catch it from you.

So essentially you are more likely to get cancer from second-hand smoke than catching a cold or worse, the flu or TB? Sure.

January 9, 2011 at 10:41 am
(16) Terry Martin says:

What might feel like an infringement of constitutional rights is really about protecting public health. The fact is, secondhand smoke is extremely toxic and deadly. A new report from the Surgeon General reveals that any amount of inhaled secondhand smoke can cause immediate damage and lead to death. Secondhand smoke has the potential to trigger a heart attack and kills approx 600,000 people globally every year.

In 2006-07, a team of researchers at Stanford University conducted a first of its kind study looking at the effects of smoking on air quality in public locations such as outdoor cafes and parks. Conclusions were startling. People sitting just a few feet downwind of cigarette smoke are at risk of breathing in significant amounts of dangerous particulates for short periods of time. And these toxins are able to penetrate deep into the lungs.

To date, research has revealed that there are upwards of 7000 toxins in secondhand smoke, 70 of which are known to cause cancer. Who would willingly breathe this deadly air in, unless forced to because of nicotine addiction?

Speaking of which, the vast majority of people who smoke fervently wish they didn’t. They hate the enslavement that keeps them lighting up, breathing poisonous, cancer-causing smoke into their lungs day in and day out, and they live with constant worry that smoking will kill them before they can find a way out. While some smokers might feel picked on due to increasing pressure from anti-smoking efforts and bans, deep down, most know itís the right thing.

Limiting smoking directly outside of public buildings is a positive move that works to protect our health, just as bans inside the workplace, restaurants and bars do. This is not about control, it’s about preserving life.

January 9, 2011 at 2:52 pm
(17) lauren carlson-ferguson says:

Not to say that smoking is a good thing…but this is ridiculous…..To all you non smokers who are sooooo worried about 2nd hand smoke…put a sock over your car muffler and then look to see what is on it……The pollution from cars is a lot more dangerous than 2nd hand smoke…I am sooo tired of our rights being taken away……America home of the free…..Yeah Right…..I will not be shopping in Great Neck anytime soon……

January 9, 2011 at 11:08 pm
(18) Michele says:

The last comment about pollution from cars is correct. But it doesn’t change the fact that people who are addicted to smoking are harming the health of other people. Banning addicts from spreading toxins is a good step forward.

Yes, we have to do something about other problems like pollution from cars. But saying that since there are other harmful things out there, so why not let smokers harm the health of people, isn’t intelligent reasoning. We should work on all of these problems to aid public health.

Years ago, if you suggested that someone not blow poisons up your nose when they spread cigarette’s toxins in workplaces and restaurants, you were ostracized. Now, finally, public health has been put first and you’d be hard pressed to find a state or even a country where smoking and its consequent spreading of carcinogens is allowed in public. The mayor of Great Neck should be applauded for his sane step forward.

And just as naysayers thought NYC’s and LI’s restaurants would suffer from banning cigarette carcinogens in their air, when just the opposite is true, Great Neck’s stores will now flourish, getting back the people who stayed away when forced to inhale the smoke that addicts forced upon them.

The U.S. government forbids addicts to shoot up heroin, snort cocaine or use other drugs. I don’t think anyone says it infringes on the constitutional rights of those addicts. Nicotine is an addictive substance and one that spreads cancer-causing chemicals both to the person who is addicted and also to innocent bystanders.

Terry wrote a very compelling, intelligent post. I think everyone should read it carefully.

January 11, 2011 at 3:02 pm
(19) Lauren says:

again I will say that smoking is not a good habit, but it is legal…..As for the reports from the surgeon general, I really have to laugh…..How does he do his tests? Does he sit in a room and have someone puff a cigarette and do an instant test on the person who has inhaled the smoke….Now again I am not a supporter for smoking but this is absurd….How long do shoppers stand around outside sniffing smoke….Don’t they usually shop and leave?I think no smoking in restaurants is a good law as we are in a enclosed area…..but outside…..PLEASE give me a break….If it were up to me I would install breathalyzer tests in cars so drinkers could not drive after drinking…..Now that would save many many lives…..Alcohol kills more people every year than cigarettes do…..Accidents…..Domestic violence…Heart problems,bloodpressure…etc… I could go on and on….but my concern is really about America and how our freedoms are coming to an end…I don’t want to live in a policed country….and believe this will happen if we keep giving up our legal rights…..I do think perfume is an issue….Thank goodness I don’t work next to someone who wears it…..Most are too strong and make me nauseous….but I certainly would never want to take away someones right to wear it…..It’s about freedom of choice…..

January 11, 2011 at 4:16 pm
(20) Jean says:

There are laws against drinking and driving, and laws against domestic abuse. As for alcohol and issues of health–high blood pressure, liver problems, etc.– it’s really sad that an alcohol addiction can cause an individual to not care about what harm it does to him/her or to others. Sorry, but it’s the same with smokers and cigarette smoke. Lung cancer. Respiratory ailments. Asthma attacks can also cause death, you know.

Really, smokers, think about it–what was the first thing that happened when you lit up a cigarette and smoked for the first time? Did you cough? What do you think your body was trying to tell you?

January 12, 2011 at 10:38 am
(21) Kim G. says:

Yes, it might seem laughable to the person who thought that the Surgeon General’s report on outdoor smoking was odd. But, if you follow some of the links in comments on this topic, you’ll find the answer. These studies either use highly sensitive devices to measure carcinogenic microparticles from cigarette smoke out in the open air. Or, in the case of one study, they analyzed the saliva of healthy people who were outside while someone else smoked. The results were that the test group’s saliva was found to have the same carcinogens that the smokers chose to put in their bodies. The bystanders had no choice. The Surgeon General’s report also found that when a non-smoker who is a bystander when someone else smokes outside is exposed to even a small amount of secondhand smoke, it can can trigger a heart attack. Read the report.

We have many freedoms in the United States. But when someone’s “freedom” harms another person, then laws forbid these actions. If someone wants to harm their body with carcinogens, unfortunately that is their choice and they have the freedom to do it. But, if someone forces someone to be harmed, when they had no choice, laws must forbid this.

Do you think it infringes on the rights of wife beaters to have laws forbidding domestic violence? Do you think it infringes on the rights of alcoholics to have laws that forbid them from driving? (And btw, there are some devices in cars that forbid convicted alcoholics from driving while intoxicated.) How about people addicted to heroin? Is the government assailing their “legal rights” to destroy themselves? I don’t think so.

The woman who wrote that she doesn’t like being around people with strong perfume, but she wouldn’t infringe on their freedoms is talking about something different. Inhaling perfume even cheap, bad smelling perfume, doesn’t cause heart attacks or cancer and the perfume doesn’t have over 7000 chemicals, 700 of which are known carcinogens.

January 12, 2011 at 9:02 pm
(22) Matt says:

Robin:

There are a few flaws which I see in the studies you posted. Firstly, the study that states that average particulate matter at an outdoor patio was similar to a forest fire doesn’t state a) in what location of the area surrounding the forest fire the reference numbers were pulled from and b) how the researcher measured the smoke contamination with the Sidepak device.

It’s entirely possible he’s citing the levels from towns surrounding the forest fire miles away. It’s also entirely possible there is a skew to the study if the device was placed near ashtrays filled with burning cigarette butts or on tables with smokers instead of being moved periodically throughout the environment.

Secondly: the results from the Science Daily tests using saliva tests resulted in markedly higher cotine levels for non-smokers exposed to tobacco smoke. However, the way they are written make them quite sensationalist. A person who never smokes should have almost no cotine in their system, as cotine is a byproduct of the body metabolizing nicotine. Besides from the nicotine found naturally in tomatoes and the few whiffs of secondhand smoke these people may have encountered on their way to the test, their bodies would not contain cotine.

This would make it very easy to double or even almost triple the cotine in their systems, as the test showed (the highest increase was a 2.5:1 ratio, meaning that the person had around two and a half times more cotine in their system then if they hadn’t smoked at all before).

January 12, 2011 at 9:03 pm
(23) Matt says:

Continued:

The numbers here are miniscule. All the study shows is that yes, non-smokers are exposed to smoke when standing around smokers. The absorption rates are tiny when you realize that typical smokers will usually have 150-400 times more cotine in their system than a nonsmoker!

So, if these non-smoking test subjects doubled their cotine, they are still getting 1/75th the cotine from the smoke, at most, than what a typical smoker gets. That’s being exposed to about 1% more cotine after 6 hours of exposure than without having any smokers around, which really isn’t much.

Please research and question your scientific proof before using it to argue in the future.

Source for the cotine amounts from the Foundation for Blood Research: http://www.fbr.org/publications/pamphlets/cotinine.html

January 12, 2011 at 11:52 pm
(24) Robin says:

Matt, I suggest you write to the Surgeon General and the authors of the other studies and tell them that you know a lot more about the scientific method than they do.

January 13, 2011 at 5:15 pm
(25) Micky Dolenzburg says:

I’m totally against this law. What’s next, no cheeseburgers on public streets because flatulence is unpleasant to walker bys?

January 13, 2011 at 8:25 pm
(26) jackie says:

Micky, to answer your question: “Whatís next, no cheeseburgers on public streets because flatulence is unpleasant to walker bys?”

—Only if flatulence causes cancer, heart attacks, asthma, etc., etc….

January 16, 2011 at 4:07 pm
(27) Lauren says:

This is ridiculous…..I remember people being able to smoke in grocery stores when I was young…..I think some non -smokers here need to get honest with themselves…I highly doubt that you really think you will get cancer from Outdoor smokers…..I think is more like eww I don’t like the smell of smoke ,so we’ll throw out the cancer card….Believe me
Florida wouldn’t be alive and thriving with ex- Great Neckers if this were the case…..cause they would have been dead along time ago…….People smoked everywhere then…..I totally agree with no smoking in enclosed places…..That is understandable…….but outside….Please…..Oh, by the way, if you live by the L.I.R.R. you’d better move….Trains emmit more toxins than cigs…Also stop using pesticides in your gardens…..Don’t get me started on Diesel run cars and trucks……Again if you can’t admit it here…get honest with yourselfs……you’re not afraid of getting cancer from a little outside smoke……You just don’t like the smell…..Funny how I’ve heard so many non smokers who love the smell of pipe smoke…..Reminds them of Grandpa…….Not cancer….

January 16, 2011 at 4:31 pm
(28) Jenna says:

It’s very sad when some people are so addicted that they’re in denial about the harm they’re doing to themselves and others. They will rant and rave and rationalize –quite illogically (and with incorrect spelling and grammar in many of those posts)– because they know deep down that they are addicted. But they need to realize that they can beat the addiction. And the Great Neck ban on harmful smoke outdoors –proved by many studies– will help some of these addicts to see the lengths they’re going to in order to continue their addictive habit, and hopefully give them the impetus they need to quit so they can stop harming themselves and others.

January 17, 2011 at 10:50 am
(29) Dave says:

WOW, what a bunch of socialist idiots. Gee Robin if the government says so it must be true!……. If my smoke offends you WALK AWAY!!

January 17, 2011 at 11:35 am
(30) MRB says:

dave, if only it were as easy as walking away from the smoke that’s harming you. your smoke is harming other people, too. you know deep down that you spend money that you don’t have on cigarettes because you feel you can’t stop. You know when you cough over and over that it’s because you smoke. You know your clothes and your furniture smell because you smoke. But you can get help. this law will make it even more obvious to you that you have an addiction and you need help so you can stop harming yourself and other people.

January 17, 2011 at 1:06 pm
(31) Mike K says:

Guess I can add another town to my list that I will not visit in the future and spend some of my retirement money on RV resorts, gasoline, groceries,etc, etc,etc. Bye Bye.

January 18, 2011 at 11:18 am
(32) Pat says:

Very, very sad. If some of the people who posted don’t think they’re addicted to nicotine, they should read their own posts. They are desperate to get their “fix” and will lash out at anyone who doesn’t want to be included in the harm.

And Mikey G, no one will notice if you don’t shop in Great Neck. There will be so many more people going there now that the harmful smoke isn’t there any more. The flawed argument of “they’ll lose money if they stop me from engaging in my addiction” was used many years ago when people thought restaurants and bars would close if they didn’t allow cigarettes’ poisons in the air. But the reverse is true.

Mikey and others, please do yourself a favor. Get help. There are many smoking cessation programs. You’ll have more money to spend on worthwhile things when you stop throwing money away on harmful cigarettes. You won’t wake up in the morning with a cough and a dangerous craving. And, your loved ones (and strangers as well) won’t be harmed. Your body can heal if you quit now.

January 18, 2011 at 3:54 pm
(33) lauren says:

Not denying any addiction here…..I did quit smoking, but missed it…..I do love my cigs…I switched to American Spirits organics…..No additives….They may be harmful, but so is living in N.Y. Look at the snow after a day and tell me about bad fumes from a few people smoking outdoors…..As for more people coming to Great Neck because of the smoking ban…..Highly unlikely….Not with all Manhasset has to offer. If smoking is outlawed in Great Neck, you should not be selling cigarettes and benefitting from the taxes collected from them….You have he freedom to buy them here but don’t smoke them here….I’d like to see a law where if you can’t use a LEGAL product in a town, you can’t benefit from selling that product….I’d bet you’d see this ban go away really quickly…

January 19, 2011 at 10:57 am
(34) Stephen Fletcher says:

This is a terrible law. I like to smoke a cigarette on my way to the LIRR after work in Great Neck. I understand people condemning smokers because it’s unhealthy, but what it comes down to is a quality of life issue. I will trade the possibility of future health for present alleviation of stress. That’s my choice. It’s hard working to just get by, living from paycheck to paycheck, and if I want a cigarette on my way home from work, a long day of work, is it really reasonable to charge me a $1000 fine? I didn’t know about this new law until yesterday when I was told about it from a co-worker. I responded in disbelief until I got home and looked it up. If a cop saw me partaking in my after work ritual, BAM, that’d be up-to a $1000 now that I’d have to pay for, on top of everything else I need to live. Awesome law if you’re on a pedestal looking down on the smoker. Just because I work in a wealthy neighborhood does not mean I am, and apparently I can’t afford to be a smoker in Great Neck.

January 19, 2011 at 12:49 pm
(35) Pat says:

Lauren,
Please read your own post and see how desperate you are to rationalize the habit that is harming you. Organic cigarettes sounds like “organic hemlock.” Maybe you started smoking as a teenager to look “cool” to the other kids. But the first time you inhaled, you probably coughed over and over. And now you’re hooked. But you can help yourself. There are many smoking cessation programs. The American Cancer Society has one and so do some hospitals. Saying that we live in an unhealthy environment is true. But that’s all the more reason not to smoke to add to this. Please don’t rationalize. You can beat your addiction. There’s lot of help out there.

And to Stephen, it’s understandable that you’re stressed after a long, hard day of work. But there are healthy ways of getting rid of your stress. You commented on the $1000 fine, but how much money are you spending on the cigarettes that are harming you and all the people around you.?

There’s still time to quit. Do a web search on how to quit smoking and you’ll have more money to spend on worthwhile pursuits and you’ll be healthier and so will those around you.

January 29, 2011 at 11:35 pm
(36) lauren says:

Robin….You missed your calling…You should have been a preacher….You also must have missed the first line of my post….I did quit smoking for over a year….and dear woman I don’t think there is anyone alive, that hasn’t heard about smoking cessation programs….I will say this again ,so maybe you will get it. My problem is government taking away peoples rights.I stand by what I said. Great Neck should not be able to collect the tax revenues from cigarettes if you can’t smoke them there.

February 1, 2011 at 9:12 pm
(37) lauren says:

Sorry Robin…..I meant Pat….

June 12, 2011 at 1:45 pm
(38) Linda van Riet says:

Good move, go on! I’m from The Netherlands and I have never been to New York yet, but I really appreciate this Non-smoking initiative, I like NY already, so maybe it’s time to move.

June 12, 2011 at 2:36 pm
(39) longisland says:

To Linda van Riet: Thanks so much for your post. It’s much appreciated. And yes, please do come to Long Island, NY to visit or to live.

As to the non-smoking law, you’ll see these popping up in more and more places. New York City banned smoking in restaurants and other public places quite a while ago, and now, you have similar laws in some countries in Europe. Maybe the Netherlands will be next!

Best regards,
Linda Tagliaferro
Your About.com Guide to Long Island, NY

July 7, 2011 at 9:52 pm
(40) Noble Valerian says:

I want to be honest with the smokers I see posting. It’s disgusting and ignorant to smoke. It’s a waste of money. No, one puff of smoke to my face is not likely to give me cancer. It is repugnant and disrespectful to subject the common population to such a repulsive and unhealthy habit. I DON’T care if you smoke, but you should smoke in a designated area specifically for smokers. That’s my compromising side talking. I think smoking should be banned entirely and tobacco companies shut down. To those of you that say I should walk away if my smoke offends you, you’re not thinking clearly. You think I walked up to you to subject myself to that? Of course not. Secondhand smoke has been proven to be harmful. At this point it is common knowledge. Let me give a fair example of what I’d like to emphasize without being too threatening. If someone knowingly tried to shoot me in the face or stab me in the heart – I would kill them on the spot… no hesitation. I will never be subject to that persons vicious will again. It is perhaps more mild, but the principle transfers well. Subject my family to that and the principle is no longer mild.

July 7, 2011 at 9:53 pm
(41) Noble Valerian says:

Also, smoking is an addiction. Smoking does not “relieve stress”. Your body craves a few of the 4000 chemicals in a cigarette and goes through withdrawal. Smoking again alleviates the symptoms of withdrawal, not stress. I have had a difficult trying life. Physical, emotional, and sexual abuse throughout my childhood among other things. I have seen difficult times as an adult, struggling with work, bills, love, and all the trouble a young man can muster. I have never thought for a second, some drug, or chemical, or bad habit was going to suddenly improve my quality of life. Do you know why? That’s just stupid, my friend. How does smoking make it easier to pay bills? How does drinking make it easier to raise 4 children? How do drugs make you more fit and active? It doesn’t work like that. Smokers justifying their actions and refusing to quit boils down to the exact same thing that got them started in the first place. Weakness. Grow a pair and handle yourself for all our benefit!

July 7, 2011 at 9:54 pm
(42) Noble says:

Also, smoking is an addiction. Smoking does not “relieve stress”. Your body craves a few of the 4000 chemicals in a cigarette and goes through withdrawal. Smoking again alleviates the symptoms of withdrawal, not stress. I have had a difficult trying life. Physical, emotional, and sexual abuse throughout my childhood among other things. I have seen difficult times as an adult, struggling with work, bills, love, and all the trouble a young man can muster. I have never thought for a second, some drug, or chemical, or bad habit was going to suddenly improve my quality of life. Do you know why? That’s just stupid, my friend. How does smoking make it easier to pay bills? How does drinking make it easier to raise 4 children? How do drugs make you more fit and active? It doesn’t work like that. Smokers justifying their actions and refusing to quit boils down to the exact same thing that got them started in the first place. Weakness. Grow a pair and handle yourself for all our benefit!

July 7, 2011 at 10:01 pm
(43) Noble Valerian says:

Sorry for the double post. Those of you making this a government issue have a fair point. The government should be attacking the tobacco companies and reservations. Solve the problem at it’s source for lasting results. Really, I wouldn’t choose to give the government another responsibility they can’t handle. However, I don’t have the time or resources to wage war on tobacco companies. If there are any independently wealthy people interested in the cause, I could probably destroy major tobacco companies within the decade with the right resources. So, I’m willing to bet there are plenty of “idealists” more capable, and more expeditious than I am.

June 19, 2012 at 6:49 pm
(44) peter says:

I don’t agree. I’m a non smoker. In the open air there is NO risk to anyone else. Second hand smoke studies have all been done in enclosed spaces. Out side, smoke away. You’re only hurting yourself. On a darker side, look at this and many others chipping away at our freedoms bit by bit. Anyone ever read George Orwell’s 1984? Wake up!

September 15, 2012 at 4:07 pm
(45) Lauren Carlson-Ferguson says:

How do you all feel now that 16oz.sodas are banned. Freedom of choice… Your freedom of choice is now made by your mayor…

Leave a Comment


Line and paragraph breaks are automatic. Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title="">, <b>, <i>, <strike>

©2014 About.com. All rights reserved.