In our course we began with the overarching question, "What should be the role of government?". Some believe the government should play a minimal, passive role in the lives of citizens, adhering to the principle that "the government that governs least, governs best". Others believe that it should play a more active role, delivering more services and social programs, and engaging more actively in the economy.
As we've discussed, New York recently 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 this 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, are sharing 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 an activity that the government is right to be actively involved in?
How active a role do you think the government should play, both in this case and in general?
I think that government should provide information about the consequences of smoking such as health problems. But here is an excess of authority approving smoking ban.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I found very helpful the smoking ban in the parks and beaches. Because there is where more people concentrate, and people will be less exposed to second-hand smoke. At least youth and kids.
Armando Hernandez
I can see how both sides make sense, smoking is unhealthy and people shouldn't do it regardless but they should also have the freedom to do it if they please. The government is trying to protect others from inhaling the fumes because second hand smoke is supposedly worse than smoking itself.
ReplyDeleteI don't think the government is taking it too far because they only banned it in certain locations and not everywhere so I think the government is playing a moderate role in this scenario.
The government should have a moderate role in not only this but in general because people should have the freedom to do whatever they want as long as it does not cause any harm to anyone else, however the government should still be able to regulate our behavior and make sure everyone is acting accordingly with the laws.
Danielle D.
As an ex-smoker I can't stand the smell of smoke in public. I haven't smoked a cigarette in almost ten years now after smoking for six. Whenever I smell it at the beach or the park and especially by hospital E.R's (for some unknown reason) I get very agitated. With that said, I would oppose any ban on public smoking or the ban of the ingestion of any substance for that matter. I do not see the role of government as protecting me from harm. The only role of government should be to protect my rights. I am also overweight but I do not consider it the responsibility of the government to educate me on why I should not eat too much. If they can control what we eat and drink and smoke then why not bring back prohibition? As an opponent of cigarettes themselves I would still defend the rights of the individual to consume any number of tobacco products any place they please, as long as it is not in my home.
ReplyDeleteI agree with both of the above comments except the part that describes the role of the government as not only protector but educator as well. Do we really need the government to tell us that smoking is bad for us? As individuals we should be allowed to think and act for ourselves, if not then we need to re-assess the definition of freedom
Michael Moreno
As Mayor Michael Bloomberg said in a statement,"Now our public spaces will be not only more enjoyable but also healthier, cleaner and more beautiful. We all know that smoking is deadly, but second-hand smoke poses a similarly grave danger to public health. Lowering the rate of second-hand smoke exposure for New Yorkers is an important step toward making our city healthier," I will agree with this statement because all we know that million people died in smoking every year. Therefore, smoking ban is a kind of a way to prevent the New Yorkers' health from being injured.
ReplyDeleteA rule which someone has to obey and execute, but who will implement the smoking ban law? NYPD already said that they wouldn't participate and the law enforcement related to smoking. In addition, NYC Parks Enforcement Polices are not interested in it. so will the smoking ban law stop smokers from smoking outdoor?
Yiquan Chen
There are many risk in life, and good health has been seen as a way to minimize the risk of life, but can we really control everything that happends in life around us? I personally don't think so.
ReplyDeleteI believe that people should have the freedom to do as they please in public places as long as they are not disrupting other people's setting in the public place. People are responsible for their acts and should also feel free to do as they please when acting accordingly to their desires. I do not smoke but i do not believe the government should control every outcome or decision a person wants to make.
We need to find the reason why people decide to smoke and figure out better ways to compromise, not just band them from public areas if they decide to smoke.
That goes for food as well.Weight is relative, and the numbers which states whether a person is obese or not should also be based on body type.
Noriella Santos
The City of New York claims it has passed the “Smoking in Public Places Ban” law, a law I personally support, for reasons concerning public safety. Smokers, rightfully so, argue that this law is an infringement on their personal liberties, liberties assured to them in the “Due Process Clause” in the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution. Although I agree with the law and the reasons NYC has used to support its decision smokers do make a valid argument.
ReplyDeleteThe “Due Process Clause” in the Fourteenth Amendment “prohibits state and local governments from depriving persons of life, liberty and property without proper steps taken to ensure fairness.” In the issue at hand one can clearly see how the local government is depriving smokers of the liberty to smoke in public parks; however, and more importantly, our government was created to protect the people of this country; if this means that restricting some of our liberties is a way to protect us, than so be it.
Evidently smokers who claim to be victims of the implementation of a law by the local New York City government, which “infringes in their right to liberty,” are not thinking rationally. There are more nonsmokers than smokers in this city; smokers, without doubt, are infringing in the liberties of nonsmokers. Public smoking threatens the lives of every nonsmoker nearby, whether it causes a small or large threat, it is a threat. This brings us into the realm of morality. It is immoral to knowingly threaten the life of a fellow citizen, especially when that fellow citizen may be a family member or coworker, the more likely occasion.
Erwin Fernandez
I understand both sides of the argument in response to this new ban and if it is true that inhaling secondhand smoke is actually worse than the cigarette itself, it may be the right decision. However, I agree with what Whoopi Goldberg said in the video that I do not think it is fair to simply ban smoking in these places without giving smokers an alternative, since they are tax payers in society as well. I have to disagree with the argument that banning smoking in public places protects the safety of others because if people do not want to smell the smoke, they can just move. I know that sounds like a silly argument but it's true. It's a public place at the end of the day and people should be able to do what they want. When I think of government protecting my safety, the first thought that comes into my mind is national security against terrorists or laws that protect me if I physically get hurt as some examples, not someone sitting, minding their own business smoking a cigarette.
ReplyDeleteI feel that if someone exhales smoke in a park and there is no one around, what's the big deal? I can understand that on beaches and more populated public places, it may affect more people especially when it gets crowded. It may bother some people and they wouldn't want to breathe it in and that's fine but there has to be an area that they can go to smoke if they're going to ban it completely. Also, I do not buy this whole air quality, public safety argument at all. If NYC were serious about cleaning the air, they would have energy efficient buses or other types of motor vehicles that don't release toxins that may be much more harmful to breathe in. NYC already made a ban in restaurants and bars and raised the prices to over 10 dollars a pack, which is fine but there has to be a little more respect to people who smoke because it is their business if they want to do it or not. One last thing, who is really going to enforce this law with the amount of people that smoke in the city? It just doesn't seem realistic and I don't think people will follow the rules, which will defeat the purpose in the first place.
Paul Zehngut
I personally find the ban on outdoor smoking to be absurd. I am a smoker, yet I believe I speak for all sides when I say I truly believe there should be other things on the city government's agenda than debating, formulating, agreeing, passing, and enforcing such foolish legislation.
ReplyDeleteThe ban, as outlined above, covers beaches, public parks and pedestrian plazas. When will it expand to bus stops, sidewalks, streets and avenues, even one's car that happens to be using said streets and avenues? Soon enough it may even be that, if I own a yacht and happen to be in New York City waters, I may not be able to smoke. Also, how on earth does the city government think it is going to ban smoking in Times Square? Millions of tourists will not come to New York City for that fact alone.
This transcends any public safety issue, and I think the city government is not going about it in the most sincere manner. If that were truly the case, then the cigarettes would not cost $12 a pack, they would be $25. There would be an embargo on cigarettes. All this represents is a form of social stigmatization, in the same manner as marijuana. Show me tangible proof and evidence that second hand smoke is as dangerous as they say it is.
For anyone who takes a different position and wishes to criticize my manner of presentation - take note that I am not an American citizen and have nothing invested in the American way of life. I do not live in New York City and have diplomatic immunity, so I can very well smoke wherever I choose. The point I'm making is, the ban directly affecting me in any way allows me to make an almost purely objective judgement.
This ban means nothing to me, but if it did, those would be my thoughts.
Cheers,
Amir A.
I think that the government should have some involvement in certain thing but not get extremely out of hand. You can not say that people have free will butthen monitor everything that they do. however Smoke is unhealthy and suffocating. It pollutes the environment considering the bad effects of smoking on individual's health, environment as well as individual rights, it should be banned in public places. A person who wants to smoke can do so by keeping theirself away from others when doing it.
ReplyDeleteI truly believe that this is less of a story about the government having health concerns of citizens who smoke..and more about creating more of a "utopia" by eliminating cigarette butts and the need to clean up after them in public places like the beach.
ReplyDeleteI do, however, see some positive to it, I heard a no-smoking ban went into effect in an area surrounding an asthma clinic, and that makes sense to me as a smoker..and as a justification for the law in terms of the health benefits. A recent law supposedly went into effect at CUNY schools, but if that's the case, why doesn't the law extend to all schools or anywhere that children could be exposed to smoke? Why just certain public areas?
Why is smoking even legal? Since people are so up in arms about others lighting up in their airspace, why hasn't the tyranny of majority influenced even more restrictions on smokers than what exists now?
With that said, I think the government could and should focus on more important things related to health and what New Yorkers breathe in, like the fact that the Bronx has extremely high amounts of asthma and other lung-related issues due to all the highways and auto traffic releasing fumes into the air. I'm sure that to the people who live next to the Cross Bronx Expressway cigarette smoke is the least of their concerns.
My point is that if government is going to claim they're serious about public health and cleaning up the city, they should make it across the board, instead of singling out members of the community who don't necessarily pose that much of a risk..but..I could be wrong..
C. Cox-Cintron
Smoking ban in the public area in New York is one of the best decisions that Mayor has done for the New Yorkers, because I think this will reduce the individual health problem causes by the cigarette smoking. This also will show the positive image of the Mayor of New York City, because it will allow people to see Mayor Bloomberg caring for our health. In the opposite, this may reduce the government revenue toward collecting tax and decrease the employment rate. We have two competing value here, which one is better for us?
ReplyDeletePersonally, I don't smoke and I hate second or third hand smoke, because it will damage our bodies and poison our mind. Our atmosphere is getting weaker and weaker due to the pollutions. Smoking cigarette is one of the causes of this environmental problem. A lot of countries have putted so many national budgets into fixing the atmosphere, such as United States and China. Government is to protect our people from any threats, including health problem and that is why U.S. government puts the most of the national budgets into Medicare and Medicaid for the citizens. Government may restrict some of individual liberties, however the goal of government is to achieve better living standard and provide better living environment for its people.
A lot of people care so much about details, but government is on the view in the general. For instance, a police breaks into a private house due to weed smoking reported by the neighbor. This is a proper action done by the law enforcement department, it is because weed will damage and poison people and violate public laws.
I don't smoke, so I agree with this ban smoking policy. Good Job.
My opinion on this issue is that on one hand, I understand and respect those who smoke. I know that people have the right to do whatever they want. Smokers know that they are killing themselves slowly, however, it is their decision whether they want to smoke or not, and we have to respect it.On the other hand, when we mention the freedom of every individual to do whatever they want, this involves those who want to enjoy smoke free areas. It is not fair to put others in danger of the effects of second hand smoke. I believe that there has to be some middle ground to resolve this issue.
ReplyDeleteRegarding government involvement,I think that the government is exercising proper intervention to listen to the concerns of its people. By banning people to smoke in areas like parks and beaches, the government is promoting public health, and trying to reduce health care cost. I don't think that the government is violating anyone's rights, to the contrary, it is ensuring clean air for its citizens, and is also reminding the smokers that smoking is their choice, but where to do it isn't when it affects non-smokers.
Girlane Tarph
Cigarette smoking in the New york have always been an issue between smokers and non-smokers. I feel that smoking is bad for your health and that certain areas should ban smoking. Like when the government passed the law to ban smoking in closed public spaces. It was very necessary because there were many people with health issues and pregnant woman that just can't be in an environment that could risk their health. I feel that if you are in an open public space that you should be able to smoke or have a certain area where you can freely smoke. It is ridiculous to ban smoking in parks and in public open areas. It violates the liberty of people who do smoke. Since cigarettes are still legal then people should be able to smoke. I doubt smokers are going to be smoking on a slide with kids. A park is a relaxing place where you see many smokers on a bench or walking a path throughout the park.
ReplyDeleteSince second hand smoke does effect non-smokers, congress should just enforce designated areas. If the government really wanted to they could just ban cigarettes as a whole since smoking will kill you faster. The government does make a lot of money from cigarettes so that will never happen anytime soon. The role of the government in this situation is too much, they need to regulate instead of completely banning smoking in public places.
Natasha Matombo
I think it is an issue that needs to be addressed. its not good for ones health, and the second hand smokers get the worse end of it. I personally dont smoke,and I enjoy playing basketball at my local park. so when there are smokers while im playing basketball, it makes it that much more uncomfortable.
ReplyDeleteKareem Mitchell
I second Amir's comments that Outdoor Smoking ban is an absurd thing to ban. First of all Public Parks are for the good of the Public and not a certain group of people with families and kids. In my former workplace many of my fellow co-workers would go to a nearby park to relax and have a smoke during their lunch break. The biggest problem I have with the current smoking ban is that the argument that many people have produce saying that it is solely for the public health.
ReplyDeleteJust as the tax on cigarettes were originally passed as a way to stop people from smoking it has basically turn into a way for many state governments to raise revenues without raising taxes. While there was a huge brouhaha over raising the taxes for the top 2% there was no such opposition when the taxes for cigarettes were raised in this state earlier this month.
Also the argument for second hand smoke has always focused on repeated exposure and not transient exposure which most outdoor second hand smoke happens in real life. Another argument is that Non-smokers pay and undue burden and price for smokers. However the Journal for the American Medical Association did a study which found out that on the whole smokers pay for their way through external taxes.
Ivan L
I second Amir's comments that Outdoor Smoking ban is an absurd thing to ban. First of all Public Parks are for the good of the Public and not a certain group of people with families and kids. In my former workplace many of my fellow co-workers would go to a nearby park to relax and have a smoke during their lunch break. The biggest problem I have with the current smoking ban is that the argument that many people have produce saying that it is solely for the public health. Kids already have their own places to play, Playgrounds across the city is there for the benefit of the Kids, and there is already a law that says smokers cannot smoke there. Which I am not against, and in truth I do agree on most smoking regulations except for this one specifically. ( you can argue whether or not enforcement of these laws is actually working or not)
ReplyDeleteJust as the tax on cigarettes were originally passed as a way to stop people from smoking it has basically turn into a way for many state governments to raise revenues without raising taxes. While there was a huge brouhaha over raising the taxes for the top 2% there was no such opposition when the taxes for cigarettes were raised in this state earlier this month.
Also the argument for second hand smoke has always focused on repeated exposure and not transient exposure which most outdoor second hand smoke happens in real life, or at least in this one specific law. Another argument is that Non-smokers pay and undue burden and price for smokers. However the Journal for the American Medical Association did a study which found out that on the whole smokers pay for their way through external taxes. In comparison the gas excise tax that is added to your bill when you fill up the car does not cover the expenses for the upkeep for the roads.
Most importantly smoking is a perfectly legal activity and while I don’t have the “right” to smoke, I do have a right to participate in a legal activity such as smoking. While Edwin brings up a good “argument” about the 14th amendment, if I were to argue the 14th amendment it is not that smoking is a right, but that it is my right to participate in a legal activity. (Also I am offended when you say that my argument is not rational. Just because you disagree with my argument or anybody else’s argument does not make it irrational) secondly as we have learned in this class, the role of government and specifically the founding of the United States Government has never been to “protect the people”. And while there are more non-smokers, a main role of the US Government while giving a voice to the majority is also to keep the tyranny of the majority from trampling the rights of the minority.
I hope my arguments are skewing too much towards being a Libertarian, because that is not my intention. While I am dead set against the arguments that any and all liberties are “God-given” and cannot be taken away. It cannot be taken away by simply the majority of the people. As Oliver Wendell Holmes said there must be a “clear and present danger” , and while no one is arguing the health consequences there is no clear and present danger. And if you argue that there is I will argue as some other “legal activites” are just as dangerous. Just as the role pollution in areas in NYC, or how in other situations where abandoned gas station were shown to be leaking chemicals into the water system. “One gallon of gasoline can contaminate a million gallons of drinking water”.
Ivan L
The fact of banning smoking from public parks and other public venues is matter of public health, and the governments job is to protect its citizens, as Erwin pointed out "our government was created to protect the people of this country; if this means that restricting some of our liberties is a way to protect us, than so be it." what I do not agree with is to what degree should the government restrict our personal liberties. what issues are real dangers to our well being in which the government needs to step in, and what I dangers that we are aware and choose to participate in.
ReplyDeleteWith numerous commercials and label warning on cigarette packs, most smokers are aware of the dangers that smoking encompasses. these individuals choose to still smoke, the government can not protect the well being of people who do not want to themselves.
As argument that other non-smoker fall victims of second hand smoke in parks, beaches and pedestrian plazas, there are worst things people are breathing in while walking through streets.
The governments is there to protect its citizens well being, but what degree of dangers should the government step in. if the matter of national security or criminal acts the government should definitely take the initiative. to compare the dangers of second smoke to national security is ludicrous. to conclude, I believe the government cannot ignore a citizens personal liberties for public safety in minor matters. to what degree of danger to public safety needs to be taken into account.
Sabina Sajid
I agree with everything you said except for the part where that the country was formed to protect the citizens. At best it was formed to protect the rights and liberties. The Dec. of Ind. does not say anything about the betterment of the people. And neither does the Constitution of the United States. The Preemble of the Dec.of Independence states that its goals were "to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."
ReplyDeleteThe idea of the role of government as a protector of citizens did not come to the forefront until the late 1890's and the 1900's. Again I am not against this train of thought but as you had stated before; second hand smoke in Public Places does not pass the "Clear and Present Danger" test.
Ivan L.
There are a lot of ads on the subways and train stations that are designed to prevent people from smoking. These ads show and tell about the dangers of lighting up, “Smoking causes lung cancer, smoking causes mouth and throat cancer, smoking causes stroke, smoking kills, quit smoking today!” Along with these ads are pictures of a person’s Lungs or teeth severely damaged as a result of smoking over a period of time, but are smokers really affected by the graphic images of these ads? Mostly likely no. I think it is safe to say that smokers who see these ads will disregard those images and as soon as they reach outside will pull out a cigarette and start smoking again.
ReplyDeleteJust because some smokers are not affected by the long term effects of smoking a cigarette, this does not mean that second hand smokers should have to suffer the consequences. The ban on cigarettes in public parks, beaches, and pedestrian plazas may actually be a reason for smokers to lessen or eventually stop smoking. If they have nowhere to legally smoke, why smoke at all? After all smoking is detrimental to their health.
On the other hand of the argument, if smokers are fully aware of the risks of smoking, but still choose to practice that right, they should by all means be allowed to do so. Some smokers smoke as a means to relieve stress, to forget about the stress of everyday life and if smoking is their only outlet they should be able to smoke. If there are cigarettes available to them and they buy it, why shouldn’t they be able to smoke it?
Over all I think that smokers should be able to smoke in some public areas because it exercises their individual rights as human beings, but I do believe that they should have other options available to them of where they can smoke. Also I think the issue of morals comes into play because I believe that smokers should be considerate of the people around them as they smoke. Personally, smoking is irritating to me but I would not mind a person who is smoking a few feet away from me but is conscious of where the smoke is going or even says sorry.
La Moure Lewis
http://www.ny1.com/content/top_stories/141744/parks-smoking-ban-results-in-one-ticket
ReplyDeletePeople have the right/freedom to smoke and people have the right/freedom to clean air(non-smokers). I think that this ban is appropriate because it implements a compromise between smokers and non-smokers. People are still allowed to smoke even though they know the health risks involved. The government is looking out for non-smokers as well.
ReplyDeleteGovernment should play a role just active enough to regulate the safety of its citizens and this is just one of those regulations of many.
Avery person in the United States has the right to liberty. However having too much right come with a consequence. there many pro and con with this decision to ban smoking. every person has the right to do what they want with their health. even though public knows the consequence of cigarette for their health in the long term they continually smoke.
ReplyDeleteAnd there is also a saying the 'rules are meant to be broken'. history has shown this with the supreme court declare Segregation unconstitutional. the idea of banning cigarette in place like parks and the beach, where there are many people should not be view by smokers as an issue. Depriving this right is for the safety of the person within that area. after all they could smoke anywhere else they prefer.
ALIMOU DIALLO
In my opinion the smoking ban bill is a positive step for society, specifically to those that are constantly affected by second hand smoke in public area. Now that people are banned from smoking in parks plazas and beaches people can enjoy time in the park without subjection to the smell of cigarettes and smoke. As consequence of the smoking ban bill New York City parks are less toxic, cleaner, and more welcoming. As for the government of New York City, people say that they are playing a too active role in people’s health: they are taking away smokers’ rights. In my opinion, smoking is a problem that often drastically impacts people’s health. Smokers may say that government had not right to do this, but smokers do not have the right to affect and harm other’s health with their lifestyle.
ReplyDeleteMarvin Palomeque
When it comes to the non-smoking ban I'm not sure how to feel about what role the government should play. I would really like for smoking to be illegal all together because there is absolutely no benefit to it in my opinion and it only causes death. On the other hand though, people should be allowed to do whatever they want to do and who is the government to deprive them of that right. Even if smokers are slowly killing themselves and the people around them.
ReplyDeleteIn General government should be really careful what they decide is government business because they could easily be violating the people's "natural rights".
Maybe instead of banning smoking they should have slowly stopped producing as much cigarettes as they do. I doubt they would ever do that though because they make so much money off of selling them. It's almost like their producing something terrible but condoning it because it brings so much money into the country.
-N. Arthur
Is it healthy to inhale what others exhale? Is it okay for one person to force another to participate in an act in which they choose not to partake.I believe the government assumed its roll to govern.The government should take an active roll when the mass populace natural nature of life has been threatened or violated.Inhaling second had smoke is a violation of my civil liberty.
ReplyDeleteInvoluntary smoking or passive smoking is detrimental to our health. When someone breathes in secondhand smoke they are inhaling in nicotine and other toxic chemicals just like smokers do, but forcible. The more exposed you are to secondhand smoke, the higher the level of these harmful chemicals stay in your body.
Putting you at higher risk to being diagnose with cancer.
Secondly, we will have fewer cases of cancer. It would help the national deficit. Government would need to pay such high medical bills for those who might have been diagnosed with cancer from passive smoking. Healthy society breeds productivity. The banned on Smoking will help us develop more of a working force rather than debt force.
J. Longmore
I believe that the smoking ban is beneficial on many levels. Apart from the health benefits for those around the smokers, the decreased risk of their health issues will save hospitals and insurance companies that cover such health issues as already stated. It is debatable as to if the government should be invading the individual rights to this extent. It should be noted that this ban is only on specified public places and if it comes down to forcing nonsmokers to smoke or forcing smokers to be considerate of others the government chose the lesser of two evils.
ReplyDeleteKareem
In the relation to the smoking ban I feel that it is good for public safety. The reason why I said this is because of of the health concerns for the citizens in the New York City area. It is bad enough that we have a congested polluted areas where automobiles are used in the inner city. As we live with in an ever growing city, we have to be mindful of our actions.
ReplyDeleteMichael C.
On a personal level, I feel that the smoking ban is justified since very few people, especially not me, enjoy having puffs of smoke blown in their face when they're in a park. The smoking ban shows that the government is taking a rather active stand in the lives of people, but I feel that this is because the purpose of the government is to look out for the well-being of its citizens. The city is generally full of pollution from vehicles and garbage, but they aren't as prominent as the smell of smoke.
ReplyDeleteL.D.
I agree with the quote that " the government who governs the least governs best" because the government may take away rights for public safety, yet it is understandable why this is being done but on the other hand no one wants to inhale fumes from others but it also is as simple as moving.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the smoking ban is ridiculous and unnecessary and that in a way it takes away freedoms. I understand that the government wants to protect public interest, but also the interest and opinions of those who smoke are not being accounted for it is better for the government to stay out of a situation like this.
Claudia Chevez