New York City’s mayor for life Michael Bloomberg doesn’t like the idea of anybody ever smoking in parks. Not just in park buildings or in picnic shelters or concert venues or playgrounds – but in the massive entirety of the New York’s outdoor public spaces.
But let’s take a step back. Imagine for a moment that it is cold and misty outside. Imagine that you–either as a New Yorker or a touristic visitor to fair Gotham–are walking alone in the vast reaches of Central Park. It is sundown, and you are in the Great Meadow. There is no one else in sight. Not another human being for at least 200 yards in any direction. Let’s say you find smoking–on an occasional basis–to be a wonderful aid to meditative enjoyment of moments like this. Let’s say that’s particularly the case when there’s a bite of fall in the air, as there happens to be on this misty evening. Being a civilized person, you would never want to inflict displeasure on anyone. But this is outdoors, in a vast and lonely public space, so who else’s business is it, really?
Well, Mayor Mike’s, if fact! If an officer of the law to glimpse that glowing red cherry in the misty gloom, if this proposal were ever to become law, he would issue a citation, which would likely lead to a very large fine given that this is New York.
We think it’s a great idea to try and reduce smoking in this city from 16.9% to 12% of the population. Certainly the 2003 law banning smoking in bars and the hellaciously high tobacco taxes that have been enacted since have both helped reducing smoking. And bravo on that.
Former FDA commissioner David Kessler suggests that this “no smoking in parks” proposal is the next logical step: “The issues with secondhand smoke are very real and the majority of the population today doesn’t want to be breathing in tobacco smoke, whether indoors or outdoors. While undoubtedly some will think this is going too far, 10 years from now, we’ll look back and ask how could it have been otherwise.”
But the problem is not in what “some will think.” Rather, it’s that the proposal itself is overzealous, counter productive and stupid. For a number of reasons, in fact. Let us count them:
- Parks and beaches are outside. The entire concept of second hand smoke depends on enclosed spaces–like the waitstaff in a bar with lots of smokers or children in house with parents who smoke. It’s a bastardization of the term to apply it equally to the whiff you might get walking past a smoker in a park. You might occasionally smell smoke. But that’s a very different phenomenon.
- It should obviously be a matter of public policy to encourage everybody to use parks. Going to parks necessarily involves walking and exercise. So if some 65-year old chronic smoker likes walking a half mile each morning in Riverside Park and has a couple of cigarettes along the way – do we really want to discourage that? To nudge him toward taking his walk on busy streets instead? Or just toward staying home and smoking there?
- Banning smoking at playgrounds makes perfect sense. They are places intended for the dense gatherings of children and the virtues of discouraging smoking there are self-evident. But that’s the proposal – not doing it for thousands and thousands of acres of open parkland and public beaches, which don’t generally have that same character at all. Parks are very different things than playgrounds.
- There are plenty of people who might be inclined to start smoking or smoke more because they spend a lot of time in bars and restaurants. So that ban, again, makes sense. Please, please can anyone come up with even a wild hypothetical reason why a person might stop smoking (or even smoke less) because of this ban, or take up smoking if it were not enacted?
If you actually want to cut down smoking, Mayor Mike, ban any visual display of cigarettes in stores or throw another buck or two more in taxes on each pack or find some way to crack down on all the illegal sales from fake Indian tribes. Don’t discourage a class of people with already elevated health risks from going outside to using public spaces and getting some exercise.
The Times story about the ban quotes one proponent as saying, “I hate smokers.” We’re not going to argue anecdotally here, but that socially-sanctioned “hatred” of smokers seems to be the genesis of this proposal, considering the absolute lack of practical benefits. The apparent logic is that overzealousness in pursuit of something good is in itself a virtue. And that just ain’t so.
Pic 1: maysoulpower - Pic 2: DavidHune
September 15th, 2009 at 8:14 pm
Because it’s the people’s right to not have to breathe in and smell cigarette smoke when they want to go to a park. If there’s really no one around at all and you really just can’t wait until you get back home to smoke, no one will notice you smoking so it doesn’t matter if it’s banned.
September 15th, 2009 at 8:43 pm
Yet you don’t have that right on the streets? Or in an apartment complex where smoke might come up through the vents? Or…
The point is that it’s outside, the capaciousness of which allows for people to do a fairly wide range of activities that they couldn’t do indoors without starting a brawl. For instance, I’m not a huge fan of bad musicians, but in the park near my home there are a lot of them and I have no right to shut them up. Nor would I want that right.
There is no way you can argue health effects for whatever tiny whiffs of smoke you might get outside. And without that basis–which is why smoking was banned in bars and restaurants–I’m not sure what the legitimate public interest argument is.
September 15th, 2009 at 8:54 pm
You may not have known, but it is illegal to smoke tobacco products in San Francisco Parks.
Funny story, is I was at a concert in Golden Gate Park, and the announcer said (paraphrase):
“Just a reminder to you all, you cannot smoke tobacco products in Golden Gate Park. For those with a license to smoke medical marijuana, go right ahead.”
I think that for concerts, gatherings, etc., where second hand smoke is an issue, I have the right not to breath in other people’s death wish.
September 15th, 2009 at 9:02 pm
It’s the cigarette butts that is the real problem. It could start fires. They are also one big litter problem. Put the butts in your pocket if you can’t find a safe place to dispose of them properly.
September 15th, 2009 at 9:48 pm
I’m surprised you don’t support this. I mean, smoking does contribute to CO2…and you have been a huge proponent of limiting individual liberty to reduce CO2 in the past.
September 15th, 2009 at 9:54 pm
Why not just ban smoking except in designated areas? Technically throwing one’s butt on the ground is littering, so NYC could institute designated smoking areas for that reason alone.
September 15th, 2009 at 10:00 pm
I agree that catching a whiff of cigarette smoke while walking in Riverside Park shouldn’t be a problem for anyone, but what happens when you want to just veg out in a park instead of walk? Imagine you’re sitting on a bench at Conservatory Pond, watching the little sailboats and taking in a perfect early fall day. All of a sudden some jackass sits next to you and lights up a butt. It doesn’t matter that you’re outside, the wind is gonna blow that smoke right in your face. So you have to get up and move, and lo and behold there are no other empty benches. Does that seem right? Now imagine you’re holding a 6-month-old baby….
September 15th, 2009 at 11:18 pm
Actually, I’d be more in favor of prohibiting smoking on the streets, although that would almost certainly anger 16.9% of the population quite a bit. On some of the more crowded Manhattan streets, it’s awful to be stuck behind a smoker, and not have room to walk around him.
Parks are a bit different, given that these are wide-open spaces (although I’d certainly support banning smoking in playgrounds if it already isn’t…)
September 15th, 2009 at 11:31 pm
Jeb, I’m with you on this. This is ridiculous.
If the reason is the health of the people he might as well put into law that no motor vehicles are allowed on the street because of CO2, reckless drivers killing pedestrians and other drivers, ban the sale of hot dogs on street corners, you don’t know where he washes his hands do you. Why not go so far as banning drinking. Last time I checked that was a HUGE health risk too, not only a health risk it turns most people into pricks. Smoking never turned me into a prick it actually calmed me down. I socialized with friends without any side effects, affecting me or affecting them.
The health argument wont work in this case because walking down the street or through the park with no smokers anywhere still leaves you with the thousands of motor vehicles buzzing around, and no, vehicles aren’t a necessity nor are they a convenience, not in NYC.
This ban won’t stop people from smoking. Charge people more for cigarettes and maybe they will smoke less. I’m an ex-smoker and I smoked with bans in effect, you find a way, I smoked after seeing people with lung cancer and throat cancer, I smoked paying $ 6,50 a pack, if you want to smoke you will. Simple as. Same as prohibition people still drank with a complete ban on alcohol. This wont work. He’ll piss off more people than anything else. They’ll still smoke.
September 16th, 2009 at 12:18 am
Yes, the calls for restricted individual liberties just come so fast and furious and around here…
Anyway, I don’t disagree that it can be unpleasant to have a smoker sit down next to you. But a guy with horrible body odor could sit next to you, or a dog could sit next to you and you might be allergic to dogs, or a bus could idle nearby or… but for heaven’s sake, you’re *outside*.
Which isn’t to say there might not be an argument for banning smoking at, say, concert spaces in parks or other places where people are tightly packed for extended periods of time. Personally, I wouldn’t care, but at least I can see the case in that restricted context.
September 16th, 2009 at 12:30 am
Just because it’s “out of doors” doesn’t mean the smoke can’t sink and linger or blow on people. Especially if it’s windy it can carry.
As someone who works with chain smokers, we often meet outside and even when I stand reasonably maximum social distance away, I can still smell, breathe and taste the smoke.
I try not to be a hypocrite since I only recently quit myself, but now I’m ever more sensitive to it, and just being outdoors doesn’t mean the smoke magically disappears.
So, I say, ban because it can impinge the rights of others.
September 16th, 2009 at 1:11 am
Maybe I’m sensitive because I’m a non-smoker, but I can smell cigarette smoke outdoors from quite a distance — and it’s just as wretched from 100 feet away as it is from 5 feet away. It’s also my understanding that the hazardous particulates within cigarette smoke remain airborne well past the point where you can smell the smoke (let alone see it).
Yet as much as I detest cigarette smoke, I don’t think I could support such a law. I also detest campfire smoke, barbeque smoke and diesel smoke, but I realize that I just have to deal with it in places where those things are legal.
September 16th, 2009 at 1:37 am
Third-hand smoke, anyone?
September 16th, 2009 at 4:47 am
I love Infrastructurist and this is one of the first times I’ve disagreed wholesale with a post (and the first time I’ve been motivated to write). Though it might sound counterintuitive, a body of good peer-reviewed research has in recent years increasingly shown that secondhand smoke found outside can be as concentrated (and as harmful) as it is inside. It sounds like the writer was driven more by emotion than checking facts for this particular issue. A strange anomaly as usually posts on Infrastructurist are well-written and informed.
As far as legality goes, smokers are not a protected class à la race, creed, disability, sexual orientation, etc. This isn’t willy-nilly discrimination based on an arbitrary class of people who perform some benign activity. This legislation aims to reduce the prevalence of a substance (secondhand smoke) harmful to those who have every right not to be subjected to a deadly activity they’ve chosen to avoid.
From the vantage point of California, I admit it’s sometimes funny to see the rest of the country complaining about smoking bans in places we’ve had for years. Park bans aren’t statewide law in CA but many cities (including the largest) have had them for some time now. Yawn, New York. Publicly owned and shared places like parks and beaches are no place for secondhand smoke, period.
It’s a shame that usually more civic-minded Infrastructurist has failed to recognize this; I’ve grown accustomed to this blog meeting selfish hyper-individualistic activities that are at the expense of others (and smoking certainly is with the secondhand smoke it inflicts on others) with a critical tone–perhaps Infrastructurist has had a change in heart? Might I expect tomorrow’s post to be about how 5th Ave should be turned into a freeway to facilitate the movement of SUVs to Central Park? There could be a real nice big pretty cloverleaf at 59th! And ashtrays every 30 feet around the reservoir!
September 16th, 2009 at 8:33 am
Smoking outdoors should remain legal. Tossing your butt on the ground should be made punishible by caning.
September 16th, 2009 at 9:15 am
I don’t like the idea of the government controlling behavior, so I’m opposed to this sort of thing. However, I will note that at least I think that the government has a legitimate interest in policing activity in its parks, whereas I don’t see why the government should be able to tell you what you can and can’t do in your own place of business or home. In other words, it’s sort of odd that NYC chooses to ban smoking in its government-owned areas AFTER it banned this activity in privately-run offices and restaurants, rather than the other way around.
September 16th, 2009 at 9:42 am
Well I am a little torn on the issue. I wish the government didnt have to tell us all how to behave, but lets face it. The American public as a whole is incredibly stupid and selfish.
The 2nd comment from admin, I agree. I really wish that I could do something about the smoke at my building coming up from a stairwell into my open windows. This causes us to close the window to avoid that crap in the air, and then run the a/c to keep cool instead of a breeze through the apartment.
As for in parks, people do throw the butts on the ground. Same goes for highways. So yes, lets ban it in cars too. Oh, and its distracting too. Where do you draw the lines? But when the public is stupid and selfish you need to tell them what to do.
September 16th, 2009 at 9:56 am
Nietherhood,
Thanks for the comment. Two quick things:
* I’d be curious to see a citation about outdoor second-hand smoke, if you know of one
* As I tried to make clear in the post, I agree with the goal of reducing smoking. If this proposal might reasonably help toward that goal, I would probably support it. But I don’t just don’t see how it accomplishes anything besides discouraging smokers from using parks. Butts or not, I just don’t see that as a good thing.
J.
September 16th, 2009 at 11:19 am
I think if you are going to ban smoking in parks, you might as well ban it on the street, too. If anything, that’s MORE of a health hazard and annoyance, as people are closer together. You might as well also ban it in private residences, as in apartment buildings the smoke can waft to other apartments (though many landlords already prohibit smoking, and most people I know who smoke go outside to do it), and in private vehicles.
I think we’ve all gone a little bit too far on this anti-smoking thing, and I’ve never had a cigarette in my life. Smoking can be a public health hazard and annoyance? Sure. Here is a partial list of other things that can be public health hazards and/or annoyances:
Drinking
Automobiles and buses
Cheese
Red meat
Body odor
People with very loud voices
Crying children
Elevated highways and train tracks
Fast food
Street vendors
Tourists blocking the sidewalk
Are we to ban all of these things, as well? You want to make the quality of life as high as reasonably possible, but in New York there comes a point where you just say “there’s 8 million people in this city. Some things are inevitable.”
A story: I was on the subway yesterday, and this big, burly guy was taking up two seats. Some other guy walked up to him - and there were lots of people standing, it was during rush hour - and rather snottily asked him to move so he could sit down. The big guy, who might’ve been able to make room but was going to take up lots of space regardless, refused to move and got angry. They shouted at each other for a couple of minutes, until someone sitting next to the big guy just got up and let the other guy sit down. I really admired the person who got up - he understood that we’re all living packed together in this city, and we all have to sacrifice a little to keep the peace.
Those other two guys who were fighting over the seat? They’re the people who tell you to put out a cigarette in the park, or lower your voice in a restaurant. Nobody owns this city.
I think for some reason we, as a society (and this doesn’t just apply to New York) have decided to take out all of our anger over the small nuisances and health issues of life on smokers. Why? Because they’re an easy target. Nobody, even other smokers, likes smokers. I’m all for banning it in enclosed spaces where people congregate, but at some point, enough is enough.
Oh, and before we talk about the hazards of second-hand smoke, show me one person who got cancer from hanging out in a park too much. Banning smoking in parks makes no sense unless you also ban it on the street, and if you are going to ban it on the street, you might as well just ban it altogether. I don’t favor prohibition.
September 16th, 2009 at 12:36 pm
Taxes will only go so far. In Canada they raised the taxes so high it created a black market operating through the native reserves along the border. Lots of gun violence too. They brought the taxes down just low enough to kill demand for smuggled cigarettes, yet still high enough to continue telling us how to live our lives.
I would second the comments above about butts littering the streets, I would love for the police to actually enforce littering laws, it’s something we supposedly care about. You can’t walk 2 feet anywhere downtown without seeing a cigarette butt on the sidewalk, and people routinely toss them from their cars. Beyond any health risks that they’re sharing with non-smokers, what gives them the right to toss their garbage wherever they feel? It’s selfish, rude and makes me disinclined to give smokers any benefit of the doubt on other issues.
September 16th, 2009 at 12:43 pm
Ridiculous…
I was completely for the indoor ban, and I support a ban around schools, hospitals, playgrounds (all kid zones for that matter). But what is this coming to? I am an ex-smoker and there is nothing I hate more than getting a face full of cig smoke, but this is not attacking the real problem I have with smoking. That problem is of course the massive amounts of litter caused by all the butts; and this happens on the streets and in parks. Tax it more and actually enforce and give fines for littering, that’s all.
September 16th, 2009 at 12:59 pm
The city of Calabasas, CA banned smoking outdoors a few years ago.
From the wiki articlce:
“In February 2006, under the leadership of then-Mayor Barry Groveman, who at the time was running an unsuccessful campaign for the California State Assembly, Calabasas enacted the Comprehensive Secondhand Smoke Control Ordinance which prohibits smoking in all public places in the City of Calabasas where other persons can be exposed to second-hand smoke. These places include indoor and outdoor businesses, hotels, parks, apartment common areas, restaurants and bars where people can be reasonably expected to congregate or meet. Under the law, smoking outside in public areas within the city is restricted to select “Designated Smoking Areas.” The law went into effect in March 16, 2006, garnering much local and national media attention. The full text of the ordinance may be found at Calabasas’ official website.”
Calabasas’ website: http://www.cityofcalabasas.com/secondhandsmoke.html
September 16th, 2009 at 1:03 pm
Let them smoke in parks.
But, take away North and East sides of the streets. Getting trapped behind smoker after smoker while getting around is yucky.
September 16th, 2009 at 1:08 pm
The only reason tobacco went down was because insurance turned against them. Now it is safe to bash tobacco, so politicians do to look like they are doing something. We waste time fighting among ourselves over the position of deck chairs on the Titanic while the iceberg of energy waste and global climate disruption crunches into the hull.
September 16th, 2009 at 1:16 pm
Joe:
That’s a good point, but I think the solution there is to actually enforce littering laws. Difficult, I know, but there is a near-appalling amount of litter of all kinds in New York, not just cigarette butts. Most other cities do not seem to have this problem to nearly the extent that NYC does - there’s gotta be something we can do.
September 16th, 2009 at 2:03 pm
As an environmental health professional, I support the smoking ban in NYC parks with the following condition:
-Designated smoking areas in parks properly designed not to interfere with others and to encourage smokers to dispose of cigarette butts in a receptacle.
A few thoughts:
-Second smoke doesn’t have to be shown to be directly toxic at ambient levels to make the health case. Any amount above the odor threshold could induce stress in a passerby. Stress itself has a well documented toxicology. Raised blood cortisol levels can aggravate a number of widely prevalent conditions including heart disease, diabetes and depression.
-Reducing litter from cigarette butts would also be a benefit as pointed out by a few commenters. These cigarette filters are highly toxic to animals and collectively can contaminate soil.
September 16th, 2009 at 4:18 pm
This is all so silly. Where are all of these brash smokers that plop down next to you on a bench and light one up? I’ve simply never had it happen to me in the 30+ years I’ve lived in the NYC area. Generally, in public, I notice most smokers try and be respectful to others about it. But, even then, as the admin points out, what is the health risk? It can stink up the air for a bit, but that’s really it. Assuming this ever has happened to you, have you ever thought about asking the person to put it out or move? Try it. In other locations and settings, I’ve done just that without it ever resulting in any conflict. Some of you just might want to make sure you can hold back a condescending tone or stink-eye while making the request.
Frankly, I’m really sick of the hypocrisy about smoking in NYC. If Bloomberg and so many others feel so strongly about how awful smoking is, then just ban the sales of tobacco altogether already. I’m sure a number of you will say you have absolutely no problem with that. So, if that’s true, stop dilly-dallying and make the push for it already. I find it on the disgusting side that the city government of NYC is all but happy to continue selling cigarettes, increase the taxes on them significantly, then make a ridiculous move while claiming banning smoking in parks is about the public health, with the intention behind all of this supposedly being about getting people to quit. Yet, at the same time, the city relies on the revenues generated from the taxes on tobacco sales for various projects. If Bloomberg and the city wants to start getting righteous about this, then taxes revenues from the sales of tobacco will be used as nothing but supplemental financing of hospitals and healthcare.
As for the litter silliness, why not just start enforcing the already existing laws regarding litter?
September 16th, 2009 at 6:01 pm
Danny, smoking doesn’t contribute to global warming at all. There was an article in Popular science about that a few months ago and it said that smoking releases such a microscopic amount of CO2 that it doesn’t matter, and what warming it did contribute would be cancelled out by increased sunlight reflection because of the smoke.
September 17th, 2009 at 9:35 am
This post is very disappointing - mainly for it’s lack of research.
Proposals like this are designed for one reason, and one reason only - to make it extremely difficult for smokers to find a place to light up. There is no one “magic bullet” which will get people to stop smoking - instead, public health advocates use a scatter-shot of tactics to reach as many people as possible.
The thinking goes - some smokers are smokers of “routines” - they smoke during certain designated times, in certain designated places (for instance, social smokers, who only smoke in front of bars on Friday / Saturday nights). The hope is that a person who normally only smokes while walking in the park will be forced to change his or her habit.
Jeb - you mentioned that “Mayor Mike” would do better to ban advertising - but a small amount of research (or a quick conversation with a constitutional scholar) would have shown you that advertising bans are incredibly risky as they create a 1st Amendment fight - and there’s a good chance that cigarette companies would win a legal battle (the tobacco settlements of the 1990’s allowed for advertising restrictions - but not an outright ban for this very reason)
You also mentioned that “Mayor Mike” should raise cigarette taxes higher (not a bad idea) - and should crack down on the illegal cigarette sales from Indian Tribes - Currently, the NYC government has an entire enforcement department dedicated to fighting illegal cigarette sales - but any real change often runs into the roadblock of the powerful Indian Lobbyists. Illegal Indian Cigarettes are becoming a federal problem.
And JM -an outright ban on cigarettes would lead to a black market that would undo many of the reforms that have already passed
Cigarette taxes help pay for the health care of elderly smokers - Jeb - the 65 year old you mentioned who wants to burn two cigarettes while taking a short walk is going to die early, regardless of where he walks. Chances are, he’s one of the 43 million Americans on medicare - which means you and I are paying for his habit. Cigarette smokers suck up a ridiculous amount of our money - and the cigarette taxes that cities like NYC collect go a long way to paying off his debt to the rest of us.
Finally - I don’t work for the city (or for the mayor, etc), and I don’t have a dog in this fight - but I am a big fan of this website - and for that reason I expect more from you guys.
September 17th, 2009 at 4:38 pm
1. For all of those who likened smoking bans to an “attack on personal liberties” or to “government policing behavior” i suggest you reexamine your claims. Individuals have no inherent right to smoke tobacco. Individuals do have a right to clean air. Regulations that limit the right to smoke tobacco in CERTAIN PUBLIC AREAS in order to protect public health are an enhancement of civil liberties, not a curtailment of them. (Incidentally, the general prohibition on marijuana, cocaine, et al. is a severe affront to personal liberty)
2. Citing other unhealthy or dangerous activities or products that the government does not prohibit is COMPLETELY NON SEQUITUR to this discuession. Moreover, I do not gain calories by sitting next to a man eating a cheesburger. Moreover again, while cars my be dangerous, they are also vital to our transportation system (unfortunately) whereas cigarettes perform no vital tasks to society.
Cigarette smoke and butts are a blight on cities and parks. As someone who prefers cannabis to tobacco, I suggest that you be thankful your combustible of choice is not criminalized try to survive two hours without a smoke while you are enjoying the public amenities of prospect park.
September 17th, 2009 at 5:43 pm
People smoking on sidewalks is a lot more dangerous (getting burned) and annoying (if you’re walking behind them you end up breathing their smoke over and over) than smoking in a park. In Japan they have designated smoking areas on sidewalks with ashtrays for this reason. Why not just have those in parks as well as on sidewalks? Also, I hope they don’t go and ban smoking weed in parks too. That would suck.
September 17th, 2009 at 7:49 pm
Jebediah, you strike me as a very very intelligent guy. So I’m surprised! What is it about the dangers of smoking you are not getting? Second and third hand smoke are hazards. It’s a medical fact. Banning in parks is not far enough.
September 25th, 2009 at 3:53 pm
“And JM -an outright ban on cigarettes would lead to a black market that would undo many of the reforms that have already passed”
Nonsense. The costs of cigarettes in NYC, which is now roughly $10 if I’m not mistaken, has already created that black market. Either way, the notion that there is a valid reason to ban smoking outdoors in a park is nothing but “morality police” nonsense. You are not going to get sick or get cancer by happening to smell smoke for a second in a park. Any of you who contend otherwise are more than free to post up the data that proves it.