In 2011, New York City implemented an outdoor cigarette-smoking ban in all public parks, beaches, and pedestrian plazas, including Times Square - enforced by a $50 fine.
Supporters of the ban view this as a public safety issue and say the law will help minimize second-hand smoke exposure and will allow New Yorkers to relax on the beach each summer without having to inhale others' fumes. On the other side of the debate, however, critics frame this issue in terms of individual liberty and believe the outdoor smoking ban goes too far.
New York City-based bloggers, like The Gothamist, have shared a wide array of opinions on the matter - some supporting the ban, some opposing, others simply mocking and ridiculing.
Perhaps this bit of irony sums it up... "Cigarettes are no good," agreed long-time smoker and Midtown worker Tony Romeu, 53, as he exhaled a mouthful of smoke.
Political disagreements like this occur when two core American political values like individual liberty and public safety come into conflict with one another. So... Is the government being too active in citizens' lives or is protecting non-smokers from inhaling secondhand smoke in outdoor areas an activity that the government is right to be actively involved in?
We can similarly frame these questions by bringing into the discussion New York City's proposed ban on any sugary soda larger than 16oz.
How active a role do you think the government should play, both in these cases and in general?
In my opinion I feel whether the government plays a role in both cases it doesn't honestly matter. The government in my opinion is doing these laws and bans for there pockets. Yes in retrospect banning smoking in public parks and beaches morally is a good thing. However, can we honestly believe that people are going to abide by this law. This law really won't affect anything because people will still find ways to smoke and the government will make some extra cash on the side.
ReplyDeleteWith the new law for the soft drinks that one can't buy a sugary soda larger than 16oz, in my opinion that is a dumb law. Regardless of how limited someone can get a sugary drink there is always loopholes to anything. Think about it I could buy four, 16oz Pepsi's which defeats the purpose of the ban in the first place. However, then again do I really want to pay extra just to abide my soda needs. Once again in my opinion I feel these laws and bans are for profit purposes and it doesn't benefit the people.
--Stephen Nourijanian
I believe that this ban is effective and does contribute to the welfare of the city's people.Think about prohibition; yes people found ways of drinking, but in the end alcoholism was way down during prohibition because most of peoples morals kept them from breaking the law. This won't stop smoking by any means but its a good way to help the well fare of people around those who are smokers.
DeleteAs for the soda no one really wants to buy extra cups it turns out costing more and it can be a hassle for people to carry.making it very inconvenient for the customer to get the extra soda.and although it will cost more money to get the soda that money does not go to the government in fact enforcing the ban on larger cups of soda will cost the government more money than it would make on any fines. these methods are simply deterrents to aid in the health of the New York citizens. so in conclusion these bans do matter a lot! -TR
Stephen Nourihanian, I agree with you a 100%, and just reading the passage before yours I already knew that the government had some financial gain when implementing these laws. For one on the soda bang, who's to say that a person is not going to buy a case that makes up more than 16oz of soda to drink, and as far as cigarettes people smoke in front of government buildings, especially the workers so that should tell you right there, is not really caring about the people is what ever financial gain the government can get. If that was the case cigarettes is one of the main killers in America I causes cancer so why doesn't the government band the sell of cigarettes to all at once. Furthermore, diabetes is another killer it cause the government millions of dollars just to provide medical insurance just for the condition and not to mention the supplies. Diabetes can cause death, blindness, amputation, stroke and the list goes on so if there are so concerned why not band all sweet artificial drinks? but because is such a money maker in this country they wont. is like they experiment with us while they reap the spoils.
ReplyDeleteI see these laws as a step in the right direction. As the human race evolves, we come to realizations - for example: cigarettes are bad for your health. And as the human race evolves, I believe the law should evolve along with it. I do value individual rights...and individual rights are still protected here, just limited. You can still smoke cigarettes and drink soda if you want, but there are limitations and I think that's a good thing. Thinking positively, I'm hoping these laws will continue to curb smoking amongst all people which has been going down consistently for the past ten or so years. As well as obesity, I see this as a step in the right direction to create a nation of healthier individuals and to encourage people to make better decisions. The federal government in my opinion should be involved in these types of matters that will determine where we are headed as a country. We have a government for a reason - that's to settle conflicts (in this case between smokers and non-smokers in public) and to protect the people that the gov't represents. I am in favor of these laws and I don't think the federal gov't is out of line for intervening on public health issues.
ReplyDelete- Antonio Albano
I agree with you Antonio, especially when you stated that individual rights are still protected, just limited in these instances. The government is not forcing us to stop smoking or drinking sodas all together. These limitations of not smoking in areas such as public beaches, and a limit to purchase a soda up to 16 oz is in our favor regarding our health. As far as some statements from others, even if the government is proposing these limitations to "get some money in their pockets" is it still not benefiting our health and or the health of others?
DeleteThe banning of smoking in some outside public areas, reduces the risk of second hand smoke to others which can cause breathing problems such as asthma. The limit to purchasing no more than a 16oz soda reduces the risk of health diseases -for example diabetes.
I am for these limitations but would not go as far as agreeing to completely ban the smoking of cigarettes altogether or banning the drinking of soda if the government were to go this far. Although, it would likely mean a decrease in health issues, I believe it should be left up to the people to determine for themselves whether or not to smoke or drink sugary drinks. I, Myself, Have stopped drinking soda for about 5 years now. That was as a decision I made on my own.
I agree with the government playing an active role regarding the issue of banning smoking in public places. Yes I believe to some extent that it may be in violation of an individual right in some aspects, but why should someone who is not a smoker be subjected to the adverse effects of smoking for NOT being a smoker? A lot of this has to do with the fact that so many are exposed to second hand smoke and may have issues such as asthma and other chronic diseases that may be severely agitated when in that environment. I do not think that it is fair to risk someone else's health/life because of an obvious bad habit that some have. We have been educated on the dangers of smoking and being exposed to second hand smoke and I think that basically when someone smokes around someone who is not a smoker, especially in a public place that they are both entitled to, they are basically saying that they could care less about what the risks are to others. As to the fine, I find that most people only follow the law of the land if the consequence for not following it is severe enough to deter the behavior. I totally agree with the government stepping into this situation to ban public smoking as it is a health hazard.
ReplyDeleteRegarding limiting the sale of soft drinks to 16ozs, I have to disagree with the government stepping in. Like Stephen stated, if they limit the amount, I could just as easily buy more than that, and still drink as much as I want to on any given day. Yes I agree that Americans are in a health crisis and some are severely obese but I also believe that you cannot force someone to become healthy, that is definitely a decision that should be made by the individual. I think that the government should play a limited role in such cases, and maybe find healthier options to offer, especially in public schools where meals often have low nutritional value. My question is if this is that important why is it so much cheaper to buy a burger and soda than it is to get a healthy and well balanced meal? Maybe this is something that should be considered to make healthy options more affordable for the middle class population.
I completely agree with the government playing an active role regarding the issue of banning smoking in public places. The government is not trying to force the public to stop smoking or drinking sodas all together, instead they are trying to look out for what’s best for everybody and if they have to banned the smoking in public places and the also banning soda. New York over all is trying to stop many death of each can be prevent.
DeleteFurthermore I strongly believe all 50 states should try banned smoking in public places and soda as a result as I stated above many lives would be save and many sickness will be prevent. In reality what the New York government is trying to should be a lesson and as stated many states should adopt those principle the public needs to be more aware of health overall and in other to do so drastic measurement must be made by government. Of course many will argue that is pointless but if at least one life is save that is a big improvement.
M.E.
I believe that this law was made with good intentions behind it. Highly populated areas like Times Square and the beaches does pose a threat of second hand smoke. Now the issue is that if smoking is such an issue then why not just ban it altogether. The reason why that will never happen is because the cigarette companies hold a lot of power in government. The payments made to these politicians from big tobacco companies will always outweigh banning smoking altogether. This is where I believe government is getting way too involved and trying to play both sides. The governments needs to learn how to play a role that does not inhibit people in their daily lives.
ReplyDelete-PJ Monaghan
You better believe it, tobacco and The NRA are two of the biggest lobbyist in Washington> I also believe that the reason they have put limitations on soda and smoking is you have some people that are concern about their well being and others. So the people are speaking out, their reaching out to congress and of course just so shut them up they try and put limitations, but to band it all never Yeah right. It is called the POLITICAL FAVOR GAME.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteFrom my personal opinion I believe that what the government is doing these for our own benefit. Some people might think they are doing these laws and bans just to get money from people but if you see it on a different way its beneficial for both, for non-smokers and for smokers. It is beneficial for non-smokers because obviously they don’t want to be bother by someone else smoke and at the same time it is also beneficial for smokers because those that don’t have the money to pay the fine would stop buying cigarettes to smoke in public which it means that they would spend less money on cigarettes.
ReplyDeleteAs far of the soda I don’t know if that is going to work out because the majority of the people in the United States drink soda and buy 2 or more per day. So I disagree with soda limitation is not going to work out unless they stop selling it at all which I do not think is going to happen. Smoking and drinking soda is not the same thing, the government can pass laws about smoking in public areas because it affects the health of the people around but the soda does not affect anyone around the individual that decides to drink it.
-CD
I think the government should stay out of this situation. It's controlling and it's too personal. Smoking is bad, but second hand is worse. But would you rather have a person smoke or take drugs? People have different reasons why they smoke. People could be stressed. I have a cousin that used to be addicted to drugs. He went to rehab. In rehab you can only have cigarettes. It helped him.
ReplyDeleteI think it's dumb to ban soda. If I want more soda all I have to do is buy another soda. I don't drink soda, but it doesn't mean other people around don't drink soda. In both cases the government have nothing better to do, but bother someone.There will always be obese and unhealthy people. People are going to do what they want to do.
-TRW
As I read some of the remarks, I ask where did so much concern and awareness of this subject come about. I mean smoking and soda have been around for so long now, why so much interest? Is it because of the health outcomes or economic issues? In some way an individual's right are affected here and "Tyranny of majority" comes to mind.
ReplyDeleteAlthough smoking and soda can be harmful to an individual it's basically up to that person to decided what is good or bad for them rather than band it based on other people's opinions. Based on this band an individual's views can be drawn out by votes of the majority. The government has too much involvement on these matters should try to focus on other more tangent subjects. What one drinks on their personal time and at their leisure should not be determined by anyone else. Tobacco because if some health risk can only be limited but not totally banned. Once we start affecting individual's rights it give them more access to move in and try to pursue other issues.
Now to answer this question I will put it in our current era, Now regarding the smoking banned in New York I believe it was right to get involved in peoples life to that extent. Is it not also the government jobs to protect the citizens?? Seconding hand smoking could be called a chemical warfare the only difference is the symptoms develop over time. Depending on the perceptive you looking at it the NY government was simply protecting there citizens. Now in modern society self harm is a real problem to obesity etc. Now our laws and regulations haven't caught up with out time period yet. But in the next century are so government will have to challenge individual rights to keep citizens safe from themselves.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, the government does have a right to be involved in cigarette smoke, there have been significant research and ads over the last twenty years on the issue and the health effects and risks. At the beginning, the public just focused on the risk of the smoker; however, as of recently, they have begun to focus on the risk of the second-hand smoker. It is one thing if someone wants to take a risk on their health, but another to put someone or their child at risk. It affects all of those around them. The laws have been effective. When I was younger, I would walk and people would be smoking everywhere, in restaurants, in the park, everywhere. Now it is weird and almost strange when you're walking and you smell smoke because there are so many non-smoking areas. Smoke is one thing that lingers and goes into the space of others; it cannot be contained like other health risks.
ReplyDeleteWith individual liberty v. public safety, the government balanced and weighed the competing interests and they found that there was more concern to protect the public. As with sugary drinks of more than 16 oz., I do not feel that the government and public safety outweighs individual liberties. Yes, there are significant health concerns with consuming a significant amount of sugary drink. However, people do you force another to partake in this action and drink the entire drink, it is their individual desire and choice to do so and by doing so they are not affecting anyone else's health but themselves. That is the difference between the two arguments is that smoking affects not just the smoker, but those around the smoker. Drinking sugary drinks only affects the smoker.
- Reem Rasheed
The consensus of these comments seem to be all for the government taking a role in these matters and that it is beneficial for our health. Heart disease and obesity are a big problem in the United States and these bans are directly affecting people in selling these sugary drinks in excess. The ban on smoking in certain public areas is just in that they still have the ability to smoke but not impose their smoke onto others. Secondhand smoke is proven to be be just as bad as being the smoker. The bans on cigarettes and soda are not preventing people from actually smoking and drink but limiting where and how much people engage in theses unhealthy things. The fines are also a means of generating money but, I feel these bans are really hard to enforce. People still continue to smoke wherever and people can just buy multiple sodas then just one 32 oz soda. People should be able to do what they want in regards to how much they drink and smoke the governments actions are thoughtful but somewhat infringe on these peoples rights.
ReplyDelete-RG
In the society today, In regards to banning smoking and drinking soda in NYC I believe is outrageous, because the government wants to control these citizens and what they do with their body. Even though the NYC government thinks that they are helping these people, all they are doing is manipulating the citizens and treating like their own personal puppets. I can tell if this law were to pass, people would still find a way to smoke and drink soda whether it is legal or not. The people of NYC have a right to live their life how they want to and the government can't force the citizens to obey the law.
ReplyDeleteS.D
I am a little confused about these bannings and restrictions on the things at hand. My understanding of how this country was founded and based on was that we had minimal involvement on how the government dictates us as citizens, but I could be wrong. It is a known fact that cigarettes are bad for you, its is known that you are not supposed to smoke in buildings as we know it is a risk for a fire. But now they do not want those whose smoke not to smoke and any of these places that are open to the public which I really do not have a problem with. But if you can't smoke in these significant open places, the government mind as well ban cigarets altogether. Banning soda over 16 ounces seems weird too, I don't see everyone in New York buying 32 ounces of soda all of the time. I could understand in schools maybe but not buying soda thats bigger than 16 ounces in a supermarket is absurd, you mind as well ban soda altogether with cigarets.
ReplyDeleteKevin Jones
I firmly believe that rules and regulations like these will have a negative impact on people. People will start to feel like they have no freedom or as if they were being dictated. Smoking tobacco is a choice someone has the right to do. It will in no shape or way affect a non-smoker if they breath in that odor. It is just an odor that one has to get accustomed to because it is not going anywhere anytime soon. Just like the smell of gasoline is not going anywhere anytime soon.
ReplyDeleteSoda is another unhealthy habit that won't be going anywhere anytime soon so banning a certain amount of soda available to people will not make a difference to the community as long as the product can still be obtained. These bans are 100 percent useless because people will not obey them and fining them will only infuriate people.
C.A
I just had to reply to this comment due to the fact that you said second hand smoke does NOT affect non-smokers. I'm sorry to be the bearer of bad news but the reality is that second hand smoke is just as dangerous, if not more, as first hand smoking.
DeleteThe risks of inhaling second hand smoke vary from harming children to cardiovascular diseases and of course, lung cancer. Going back to your statement that second hand smoke does not affect non-smokers in any shape or form, I urge you to go to this link:
http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/secondhand_smoke/health_effects/index.htm#children
This is the official CDC(Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) website and the above link goes into further detail of how second hand smoke is dangerous to non-smokers.
So as biased as I may be toward this issue being a non-smoker myself, there is no denying the health benefits associated with the implementation of this ban on public smoking.
People can point out the whole Personal Liberty perspective but when one's actions become a health hazard to those around him, it no longer is just Personal, it becomes social.
The same extent may not be relevant to sodas but in the end, these limitations still have the general population's overall health in mind, no matter our personal opinions about it.
-J.Mo
You can analyze the intent of these policies in a number of ways; whether its for the greater good of humanity, financial gain of the government, politicians trying to be relevant, etc.; the only question that matters is whether or not they reflect the voices of the New Yorkers they embody. From a personal stand point and even as a smoker myself, it would be foolish to argue that smoking is acceptable in all public areas. Not everyone has the courtesy or even morals to avoid smoking around others but especially near pregnant woman and children.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, this is a perfect example of tyranny of the majority. Smokers should still be afforded their right to do so, however, in easily identified designated locations away from the general populous. As far as the proposed soda distribution restrictions are concerned, its nonsense. Banning a couple ounces of sugary soda per container will have absolutely no significant impact on the amount of individuals who develop associated health complications.
JS
Laissez-faire is the political policy or even attitude of letting events of the people/nation take its course without much government interference. Such as it is the case with the French. A common question that pops up constantly in our own government is, “What should be the role of government?”, and “How involved should government be in everyday people’s lives?” I agree with the concept that a “Government that governs least, governs best.” I am aware there are those who feel there should be a law or government intervention in every breathe we take.
ReplyDeleteToday our government is heading in the direction of institutionalizing every aspect of our humanity. Students stay in school longer hours and days as opposed to having more family/personal time. Our school systems provide morning and after school care as well as breakfast, lunch and after school meals. What is missing from our government to do for the youth is to provide a bed and clothing for students. Oh! Stop! Our government does pay for rentals and clothing of children through the welfare system and government agencies. The only thing our government does not do is to have the sexual encounter to produce children, yet!
In 2011, NYC put into a law banning cigarette smoking in public places in order to increase public safety and protect individual liberty. I agree, everyone is entitled to be protected in the eyes of the law, this means everyone. People also have the right to choose and make their own decisions, regardless if the government agrees or disagrees. People’s lives are their own. They can do whatever they want as long as it does not hurt anyone else. If there are those who want a smoke free environment, they should have such a place. Also. We as a government cannot tell smokers that they too do not have a place where they can smoke.
The same city government is now telling people they can or cannot drink soda. Think about it! Who is the government to tell me what I can drink or eat or even how much of it? Is farting in public illegal? Is it right to inhale someone else’s gas in a restaurant while I’m enjoying a good meal? I feel there should be a law making someone pay a fee of one hundred dollars.
I understand our government wants what is best for us, if that is the case why doesn’t the government pay for my college tuition? Instead of spending over thirty thousand dollars for each prison inmate? As a citizen of our great nation, I want our government to always do what is best for all and not leave out any of its members, because a great nation is not judged by how they treat the majority but the minority! -- SF
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete