From the article:
"Anyone visiting New York's 1,700 parks and 14 miles of beaches this summer will be able to do so free from the smell of cigarette smoke after the city council made its biggest anti-smoking push since it banned the habit from restaurants and bars in 2002.
"It was passed by 36 votes to 12 after a lively debate in which critics accused legislators of turning the city into a totalitarian state.
"The move follows similar health-conscious measures in New York to remove trans fats from restaurants, force food chains to display calorie counts on their menus and efforts to persuade food producers to reduce salt content."
So what should be the limit of the state when trying to control what we do to ourselves? (keep in mind the smoking ban is also meant to protect people who don't smoke from the dangers of second-hand smoke)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/feb/03/new-york-smoking-ban-outdoors
I don't think the state should place any limit on trying to control what we do ourselves. In other words, I always thought people had a right to smoke outside. Now, as seen in New York and various other places, smoking has been banned in pedestrian areas. As seen at Appalachian State University, smoking has been banned fifty feet from building entrances. What does a pedestrian area even mean? If I am a pedestrian and I am walking in an area does that not make it a pedestrian area?--which in turn would mean I would not be able to smoke virtually anywhere. Then there’s always the argument: well what about second hand smoke and its effect on others (i.e a protection of others issue). So it comes down to this question: Is it more important for the government to protect individuals or is it more important for the government to protect the individual’s right to act. (in this case the act of smoking?). Coming from a non cigarette smoker, I believe to the fullest it is more important to protect an individual’s right to act. The right to act is essential to America and its values.
ReplyDeleteThis is a tough call I think. On one hand I agree with the above comment in that the government should protect the individual's right to act; however, I do agree with this particular ban against smoking. I cannot stand walking around campus and having smoke blown into my mouth. There are usually so many people around that it becomes very hard to avoid this situation. I can only imagine all the smokers in Times Square and all the non-smokers trying to enjoy their surroundings but can't because of the smell of smoke. I don't see how this is any different than stores making their foods healthier. People also have the right to eat unhealthy (although I believe this will be more difficult with the new health care plan) so maybe they don't want this new healthy food. Oh well. Cigarette companies are big corporations though and I wonder if they had been advertising in any of the now banned smoking areas. If they were I'm sure they aren't anymore!
ReplyDeleteThe article linked makes use of both reliability by using government sources/quotes, as well as balance by acknowledging there are two sides to the issue.
ReplyDeleteAs a former smoker, I get this. I always tried to go out of my way not to infringe on others, and now as a non-smoker, I appreciate when people go out of their way not to infringe on me. Totalitarian? Not hardly! We all give up certain rights to be a part of society. If I'm in a public park, I can't be running around naked or drinking. And if I were drinking I couldn't just toss my trash where I felt like it. I can't shout obscenities at passersby for no reason...and I don't think I should be able to engulf people in cigarette smoke, either. I sure would appreciate the reassurance that I wouldn't smokers at the park when I take my kid to play!
What I find interesting about the non-smoking push is that it is entirely driven by media in one form or another; not sure if you can call a campaign against something "advertising". But it has used borderline propaganda in an actually positive way. I think this ban is just one step further in a good direction for this issue. In fact, the media push has been so effective, I've heard the (good, in my opinion) suggestion that we need to treat fast food with the same disdain.
I have to agree with the last comment about the reliability used in this article and balance that they take into account about the non-smokers and the smokers. It is very interresting to see how the smoke rate has decline according to the article, and honestly I have never smoked before and it really boders me when people smoke specially around kids. I am glad that in NY they are doing something to avoid it, I am not sure how this is going to turn out but at least they are trying. Now regaridng the fast food issue it will be good to have clories display although this might not change the way we eat!
ReplyDelete