Mayor of New York Tries to Bust the Stones for Smoking

This is sheer entertainment value at its finest.

Is that it? Because they ejected themselves eventually. Justice was served.

Ny isnt the first or only place- I remember being in Colorado around 1998-99 and there was some ritzy little town that had banned smoking on the streets..

and I agree that it is outrageously stupid, outrageously 'American' (and yes Im american)..

Thats most cities in Canada as well. Can't even drink on your front lawn in alot of cities and towns.

can smoking in a totally public area be illegal?! Outrageous!
I was under the impression alot of California was like that too, or at least near Napa Valley. Think it had more to do with the fire hazard.

I watched Uncle Buck ont he weekend, smokes about 20 cigars through the movie.

As a non-smoker, I gotta say I love going in to a bar/show where my eyes don't turn red & my clothes don't smell like shit the next day.

But I feel for the smokers. (but really, fuck 'em. )

gah, its like Americans (or at least the authorities) have more in common with the people that hate them than you'd think

I don't see how smoking outside or at a place with high ceilings would be a problem.. except that a lot of smokers throw their shit whereveer they please .. but that's littering that's the problem - not smoking.

is was a discarded fag-butt that started that big forest fire in the States not too long ago!

if you're referring to the one that started in northern arizona and spread through new mexico and colorado (i think), then it was revealed that was actually started by a firefighter who was looking for work.

Why not? Smoking is addictive and destructive and serves no purpose other than to kill smokers and make some very evil people rich. Since the tobacco lobby is so powerfully entrenched in the system, the only way to dismantle it is through laws like this. What else is legislation for besides to protect the public good?

On the other hand, how many people only smoke when they're at bars? Why do they smoke? Because that's what people do in bars. So if people didn't do it in bars, would fewer people start?

I believe in freedom of choice etc etc etc yadda yadda ... but if you're under 50 and you smoke ... why? ..And why do I have to suffer for it? (second hand smoke, cig buts thrown out of car windows, higher health insurance premiums, this thread, ...)

And I'm not calling for the banning smoking altogether - I just think that it shouldn't affect me or cost me. (And I think it's a crutch for the insecure, but ... fine with me...) So if it can be dealt with via filtration systems, people not throwing that shit out of their car windows, separate health insurance, ... then it's fine.

..but I wouldn't be upset if it were banned in public places.

.. seems like a good idea...

of course government and law should protect the public good, but at some point people have to make a choice. I mean, people start smoking for one reason basically, and that is pleasure. Personally It does not work for me but many people actually enjoy smoking. Law can be used to make sure people know about the health consequences, protect the non-smokers, and make sure the industry doesn't use shady tactics. But at some point people need to choose. If not then go ahead and ban alcohol, coffee, candy, cheeseburgers, and everything else that is bad for the public health. And make a law banning sharp corners on tables because those are dangerous as well. Then we will just have the most fucking boring world as a result.

now that's just silly. If a bar advertised as non-smoking, wouldn't it draw some of these people who don't go out because of smoky bars. Somehow they know bars are smoky, right? I'm convinced that if there is enough public concern to make laws about it, then there is a market for a non-smoking bar. The only thing I have sympathy for the non-smoking bar worker who has to endure the second hand smoke in the bar, but no-one has a right to work in any given profession and presumably the compensation makes the job desirable even with the health danger.

What planet are you from? People start smoking because they're brainwashed and peer pressured. I doubt anyone's first drag on a cigarette (invariably followed by hacking coughing) could be termed "pleasurable". Tobacco cigarettes have no psychoactive properties, and the only physical effects they produce (aside from coughing, asphyxia, etc.) come later when the body's addiction-pacification mechanisms have begun to function.

"If not then go ahead and ban alcohol,"

Alcohol has psychoactive effects far different from tobacco. People drink to obtain these effects. Alcohol is not as physically addictive as heroin (tobacco is MORE addictive than heroin). Totally different situation.

"coffee,"

See alcohol.

" candy, cheeseburgers,"

Candy and cheeseburgers are FOOD. Food is required for humans to survive. It is not the healthiest of food, but it fulfills a definite, legitimate human need. Tobacco does not.

"and everything else that is bad for the public health. And make a law banning sharp corners on tables because those are dangerous as well."

None of your comparisons are in any way appropriate or accurate. Tables, food, alcohol - all these things serve purposes in the larger human sphere of behavior. Tobacco SERVES NO PURPOSE. It does not fulfill a biological, emotional, or psychological need. It is a substance that has been used to kill people to make other people rich. There is no way this is in the public interest.

Can't the staff-in-smoking-bars problem be solved by hiring smokers?

Tobacco smoking was completely unheard of (in Europe anyway) until around the 17th century (see this timeline: http://www.tobacco.org/resources/history/Tobacco_History.html). From there it was established as an industry ideal to prop up colonialization of the "New World" (along with chocolate and coffee). And then folks like William Morris got involved, and it was all over...

Also I have no real argument concerning this but I can't resist the temptation to point out that for a person who's very much against actually smoking you seem awfully convinced that the experience is no fun!

As for James point it's the one that I completely bow to: even Tom's hiring-smokers point can't entirely work because it puts actual economic pressure on workers to compromise their health for the sake of certain jobs. This is why I can't actually complain about these regulations. But I still feel free to complain about people complaining about smoking in bars, the one place in the U.S. where there is ever smoke and everyone knows its there before they decide to walk in.

I know about the marketing and addiction - what I don't get is why when it was first imported tobacco became enormously popular and other colonal drug products (mate, khat, etc.) didn't.

Oh, I agree that the issues surrounding alcohol are different from the issues surrounding nicotine. It just seemed like you were arguing that alcohol is harmless, or even harmless when compared to nicotine, and I don't buy that line of reasoning. Both are harmful, both are bad habits, and you can make a very convincing argument that being around one person who's smoking for an hour isn't as dangerous as being on the road for an hour with someone who is drinking. (Actually, even if you take the drunk-driving issue out of the picture, there's still the problem that drinking can cause people to become belligerent and violent, a charge that to my knowledge has never been levelled against nicotine.)

Also, initially at least there ARE physiological effects from tobacco; one reason people start smoking/chewing tobacco more is to recreate the mildly disorienting nicotine buzz that starting smokers/chewers experience. I agree that this buzz doesn't really cause you to act any differently, though.

"I want them to ban these things," he says, waving the cigarette in his hand, "then I could quit - it's a filthy habit". His wife, sitting next to him, agrees and laughs at his words.'

Sounds remarkably like Pete Townshend's attitude to child porn on the internet.

That's true - I would like to see it listed as schedule one by the FDA. But scroll up-thread: I pointed out that the tobacco lobby is immensely powerful and deeply entrenched, and their political clout makes such a classification highly unlikely at best. Which means the statewide smoking ordinances (and other legislation like them) are currently the best means to achieve this end, which is why I support them.

http://www.robert-morten.de/files/william-morris.jpg

I have a pleasant relationship with marijuana, and I've smoked a cigar or two, but I've never smoked a cigarette in my life. I have watched cigarettes mutilate and murder several family members though, so the subject kinda gets my blood up (obviously).

Please dont protect me from myself and I promise I wont sue you for not doing it.

Well, we're not talking about the budget crisis or the MTA's proposed fare raise on ILM now are we?

As far as Bhutan, lovely place sounds like, this quote was funny:

"...no follower of Lord Buddha should smoke," says Mr Ngedup.

"He may have been referring to opium, but we feel very comfortable extending his concerns to tobacco."

Whatever happened to choice?

And, as they've now banned the annoying, unacceptable habit of smoking on buses and trains and planes - when oh when will they ban annoying, unacceptable fucking CHILDREN from buses, trains and planes? Because screaming spitting crying kids annoy me FAR more than someone having a fag.

what do y'all think about his new education policy changes?

So there's plenty of good reason to smoke, its just a trade off with other things, like health.

THAT RULES!!A library where you can drink!?!?! I'm moving to Britian asap!!!

Maybe he wanted a chance to meet the STONES!!!!!11