1. Dear Drugs-Forum readers: We are a small non-profit that runs one of the most read drug information & addiction help websites in the world. We serve over 4 million readers per month, and have costs like all popular websites: servers, hosting, licenses and software. To protect our independence we do not run ads. We take no government funds. We run on donations which average $25. If everyone reading this would donate $5 then this fund raiser would be done in an hour. If Drugs-Forum is useful to you, take one minute to keep it online another year by donating whatever you can today. Donations are currently not sufficient to pay our bills and keep the site up. Your help is most welcome. Thank you.
    PLEASE HELP
    Dismiss Notice

New York City Mayor Supports Smoking Ban In Private Residences

Rating:
5/5,
  1. 5-HT2A
    New Yorkers may soon be unable to smoke in their own homes, as New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio is pressing landlords and developers to prohibit residents from lighting up inside apartments.

    This comes as part of the de Blasio administration’s efforts to reduce smoking citywide. It recently released a “sustainability blueprint” that outlined the initiative, which involves paying four health advocacy groups $9,000 each to get apartment complexes to ban smoking, reported the New York Post.

    City health officials emphasized that the initiative is voluntary, but the same blueprint, titled “One New York: The Plan for a Strong and Just City,” also said that de Blasio is moving towards legislation that would require apartment buildings to create a smoking policy and “disclose it to residents and prospective residents.”

    “Everyone benefits from smoke-free housing. Residents enjoy breathing cleaner, healthier air in their homes ... while owners see reductions in property damage and turnover costs,” a Health Department spokesman said to the Post.

    The Big Apple has already banned smoking in parks and all commercial establishments, a program initiated by former NYC mayor and billionaire Michael Bloomberg. De Blasio seems determined to pick up where his predecessor left off, but regulation concerning smoking in private homes is a new frontier.

    De Blasio’s efforts are a part of anti-smoking policies that are gaining ground across the country. California’s Democrat-controlled Senate recently voted to raise the minimum smoking age to 21, and New Orleans passed smoking bans earlier this year that included prohibiting residents from smoking at drive-thrus.

    June 30, 2015

    Source:
    http://rt.com/usa/270568-blasio-stop-smoking-homes/

    Share This Article

Comments

  1. RoboCodeine7610
    This is outrageous. One should be free to smoke a goddamn cigarette in their own house that they paid for. Why are people so obsessed with tobacco? It's over, you won. Smoking is now seen as a disgusting habit.

    But come on...not even in your own house? Fuck that.

    Robo
    1. milo182nd
      whats next.....that's a very scary thought....the nsdap in new york...oh that's right trump is from nyc!
    2. milo182nd
      Please ignore my previous comment, i did not read the rules. my apologies. Milo182nd
  2. Shampoo
    Robo, while I'm on the same page as you regarding civil liberties (personally, I'm a proponent of across-the-board legalization and regulation of psychoactives) you have to remember the logic here: the US now works on a healthcare system that is funded by income tax, meaning that if you are a citizen, regardless of how you spend your money, your dollars are going to fund medical care. If my money is going to fund your healthcare bill, why should you be allowed to do something that is unquestionably linked to severe health problems when I'm going to be footing the bill?

    I'm not saying that I agree with this, I'm just laying out the logic.
  3. RoboCodeine7610
    Well Shampoo,

    The thing is that we smokers pay a hefty tax for our habit, each and every time we buy a pack of cigarettes. That money goes straight into the federal government's pocket. So you're not willing to pay for our shared medical care but you're willing to profit from our addiction regardless?

    Also, since we're at it, let's ban trans fats, motorcycles, sugary drinks, alcohol (a big one) and having sex without a condom.

    The fact is, smokers recently became a vast minority. People who don't smoke, don't like the smell of tobacco. Ergo, these crazy, unconstitutional and draconian laws are passed.

    At this point, after it's been banned in bars, clubs and pretty much everywhere but the open air and your house, you can't really say the anti-tobacco lobby does this because of non-smokers' health. As for the smokers, we're free to choose just like anyone else.

    Robo
  4. 5-HT2A
    Only a tiny fraction of your income will ultimately go to service the problems of smokers. You are part of a social contract, the fact that other people's behavior is self-destructive is a poor explanation for why their behavior on private property is something you should have a say in, especially given how long it takes for tobacco addiction to actually kill you. If we were to actually apply your logic across the board, you would throw kids under the bus who had just been hit by an actual bus because they didn't put on a helmet before they got on their bicycle. People who contract AIDS because they didn't use a condom, or because a condom was expired and tore, would receive no treatment because they were poor. Your logic would create an ugly and strange world for all of us.

    If you want to do something meaningful to lower your own taxes, you should 1) advocate for a progressive tax structure 2) advocate to eliminate corporate personhood and 3) advocate for a single payer system with cost controls. The Affordable Care Act, along with Medicare part D, have no cost controls in them. In fact, Part D explicitly FORBIDS the government to negotiate for lower drug prices. As a result, identical patent drugs that you would receive via Canada's single payer system are only half as much or less in some cases.

    Furthermore, if we go with the logic of Dr. Gabor Mate, nicotine addiction is often due to neurological changes initiated by childhood trauma. Demonizing those who are trying to sooth never-ending anxiety or uneasiness is a cruel and inadequate solution to the problems of ongoing psychological pain. If you want to REALLY reduce healthcare costs, read about Adverse Childhood Experiences and try to understand that just as with other addictions the solution is to behave with compassion, rather than blaming and further burdening the drug user. This will resolve human pain with the greatest efficiency while also serving to reduce healthcare costs over time.
  5. Alfa
    How exactly are they going to check and enforce private residence smoking bans? Mandatory smoke detectors & alarms locked into Google NEST? Random Razzias? Will there be an anonymous tip line? WTH dude!
  6. Calliope
    Nineteen Eighty-four is the answer is it not? But not an anonymous tip line, people informing on each other, and people's spouses, friends, neighbours and children esp. will learn to be free much better by going in to inform in person and getting a bit more than the usual shot of daily love. or was that hate? i find newspeak hard to keep straight.
  7. lkt004
    As much as smokers have the right to smoke, privately owned apartment complexes have the right to enforce whatever rules they want. You can't scream "but ma liberties" then complain when the apartment building does the same thing.

    They aren't saying banning smoking in privately owned houses, just encouraging body corporate rules banning smoking in areas governed by those body corporate rues............
  8. 5-HT2A
    If I have a mortgage on a house that isn't yet paid off, should the bank be able to restrict my personal freedom on my own property until it is?
  9. frizz
    Anybody read the short story by Garrison Keillor "the end of the trail"? It's about the last smokers in America, I read it not long after I quit and its hilarious! Really worth reading.
  10. lkt004
    If you sign on the dotted line then sure it's in your contract.
  11. Rewil
    If you think about that according to WHO statistics 1% of overall deaths worldwide are caused by second and third hand smoking than this is not an entirely stupid idea. I do believe in personal freedom to do whatever you feel like as long as you do not hurt anyone else's right to do so ( so basically in the definition of freedom by John Stuart Mill). However when delivery personnel, paramedics, repairmen etc. come to your home and can be exposed to second/third hand smoke against their will, than you might hurt their right to not to inhale harmful things.
  12. RoboCodeine7610
    Man second hand smoke where?? The idea that me smoking in my apartment is somehow going to expose my neighbors to any significant amount of tobacco smoke is absurd. Just because you can smell stale smoke it doesn't mean you're being "exposed to second and third hand smoke".

    Okay...where are people getting these ideas? It's tobacco not Vx nerve gas. You don't get lung cancer because you go into a smoker's apartment (can't believe I have to actually say it). Second hand smoke is something that damages in the very, very long term. The anti-tobacco lobby has exaggerated the dangers of smoking to the point where their claims are completely out of touch with reality.

    Just think about all the people that have smoked in the past and all the people that were exposed to real amounts of second hand smoke. If your perception of the dangers of tobacco weren't exaggerated, then where is the huge spike in lung cancer in non-smokers? Everyone was exposed to it back then.

    The dangers of second hand smoke are hugely inflated and based on junk science, and it's not hard, at first glance, to call bullshit on this idea for this simple fact: If you're a smoker that has been smoking a pack a year for 4 years (low end of the estimate), statistically, you have no higher incidence of smoking-related illnesses (except maybe bronchitis). That's a smoker breathing in 20 cigarettes a day. As a non-smoker you're unlikely to inhale more than the equivalent of 1/5th of a cigarette a day (assuming you're exposed regularly, every day).

    Statistically then, assuming you're inhaling a full cigarette's worth through second hand smoke (exaggeration), it would take you 80 years to begin to be at risk for smoking-related illness.

    A counter-argument people usually give against this is that inhaled smoke is not the same as "sidestream smoke" because it doesn't go through the filter. That, however, is a ridiculous argument given that a smoker is exposed to both kinds when he smokes a cigarette.

    Trying to ban smoking has been going on for centuries, by people who simply don't like the smell and find it a nuisance, far before any health effects were known or even suspected.

    Robo
  13. Rewil
    Where are those people? I don't know 1% of overall deaths seems significant enough to tell where they are. I mean 1% of the overall population paying the price for something like smoking is absurd...

    And yes you are right the people I mentioned only go to your apartment for a very little time. However they spend their work hours in other peoples apartments. And obviously they spend part of this time in apartments where they are exposed to second hand smoke. So for them it's not a very little time.

    You say anti-tobacco lobby exaggerated the dangers. I think smokers are the ones underestimating it. Come on we are talking about a substance that kills around 50% of its users (WHO statistics again). I feel like smokers try to avoid the fact that what they are doing is not far from a slow suicide. And of course if they don't admit that they harm themselves why would they admit harming (killing) others?
  14. DiabolicScheme
    Shampoo, then we better ban fast food and junk food by that logic. Why should I have to foot the bill for someone else's poor diet practices (obesity).

    At least smokers get taxed to death, don't see that happening with fast food/junk food industry. (not that I'd want that)

    As for the second hand smoke theory, the atmosphere is much larger than what is provided on the other side of the cigarette so the smoke is dilated quite drastically on the other side. I would agree that inside a house/car would be harmful but outside with such a massive atmosphere I really don't think it's hurting anyone.

    Smoking is stupid but I chose freedom of choice over the illusion that smokers are out there murdering others with their habit when they're smoking in an entirely different area (in their own apartment). It's absurd.
  15. Shampoo
    The US just banned trans-fats and New York has put major restrictions on multiple other types of junk food...

    and as for risky activities like riding a motorcycle or skydiving, these require licenses, thus adding a layer of protection for the healthcare providers and the users themselves.

    again, I'm not saying that I agree with any of this - I think it's ludicrous. I'm just trying to explain the logic that drives these decisions.
  16. psyche
    I don't find it that strange, the smell does propagate to the hallway. Sound disturbances are not tolerated either, why smell. I'm not sure it's the city's business to enforce a ban, though.

    Junk foods.. seriously? That is insane.
  17. RoboCodeine7610
    As opposed to contraception, for example? Is 1% of women an acceptable toll to not use a condom?

    What about burning fossil fuels? Are they worth that 1%? And, what about, as a prime example, getting drunk or high? Surely a small fraction of drug users have psychotic reactions or severe disinhibition and harm someone.

    Freedom entails risks. It also entails defending our collective freedoms and not just our immediate individual needs. By supporting this draconian cause as well as many others, you create a new attitude towards societal issues, such as later on perhaps one of your rights will be infringed upon. Freedom is either collective, or it ceases to exist.



    So your argument is people shouldn't smoke in their own houses just in case someone has to come in to fix something and gets exposed to second hand smoke? \That's ridiculous. It's like saying that if you're HIV positive you shouldn't go to the hospital, in case someone gets infected. When you do a job, there are inherent risks that you have to either accept or find a different line of work.

    In this example, however, I think it's an absurd exaggeration to say that repairmen get cancer from being exposed to smoke in people's houses.

    Yes, but I find it hard not to see these types of laws as Orwellian, setting a precedent for future laws that may infringe upon our freedoms in considerably more severe ways.

    And if an apartment building decided to ban smoking it'd be their right to do so. What I find ridiculous is the spending of taxpayer money to create an incentive to do so.

    The answer to 1984, is 1776.

    Robo
  18. startinnuttin
    I live in an apartment and i smell the neighbors smoke right now as i sit in my bathtub. The smoke is only noticeable here, in my bathroom and in my closet. So not only do i, a non smoker, get to sit here and smell the stench, i also get to wear clothes that stink so bad that i don't even put my clothes in there anymore.

    Now, how is that fair? I have just as much right to be a non smoker as they have to be smokers yet only one of us is offending the other one's rights and probably killing them to boot.

    Both my parents died from smoking related causes and sometimes I'm so stressed even i want a cigarette but i choose to be careful about my life.

    Alot of people think their choices only affect their lives but its just not true. So many choices, so many burdens on others.
  19. prescriptionperil
    ^^^In an article in "The New York Times," while Bloomberg was mayor people with asthma were complaining they couldn't breath due to the smoke drifting into their apartment. Given the high rates of asthma among poor children in the city, exposing them to second hand smoke would be another blow. It's been proven second hand smoke causes serious health problems, so I have no qualms about making smokers go outside. The inconvenience may cut down on the numbers of cigarettes smoked each day.

    As stated, they're speaking of apatment complexes, which are prevalent in the city.


    Asthmatic poor children don't need to be choking on wafting second hand smoke. One can go outside to light up. Second hand smoke is linked to heart and pulmonary disease. Even if only 1% of the world suffer health consequences from second hand smoke that's lots of people. Robo, Can I have a citation on that, as it seems low.
  20. Rewil
    This argument is not really about fossil fuels. But as you brought it up: I am completely against fossil fuel use of the average individual. Public transportation, paramedics, firefighters etc. should use it as long as humanity finds an alternative.

    You can't compare psychotic reaction that might occur to something that is harmful for you with every breath you take. That makes no sense at all.

    Also no, second hand smoking is not like a person with HIV in a hospital. Because again: a person with HIV do not harm people who are around him. And it is the very same thing. Something that might happen if something goes wrong is different from something that happens every time (even if slowly).

    And I don't agree that the risk comes with the job. This is not a risk like getting burned alive/something falling on you as a firefighter. This is a risk that could be avoided in a modern society.

    What I was saying is this ban can have some health benefits for people who spend a significant amount of time working in other people's homes. Even if it is a small benefit it is positive. If humanity could reduce all these little risks in life it would make a lot of difference, and this could be a step on the way.
To make a comment simply sign up and become a member!