New York City Cracks Further Down On Smokers Because Enough Is Never Enough

It’s getting harder and harder to be a smoker these days.  Not only has it become oddly socially acceptable for both people and the media to shun smokers, local and state government officials (you know, the guys and gals elected to represent the people) seem to think taking smokers down a couple of notches is okay as well.  And of course the preeminent leader among all the states is New York, which continues to pioneer new ways to give the finger to smokers.

If you too tired to click on my links, the CliffsNotes version of this story is that New York City just passed another ban limiting public smoking.  Starting May 23 of this year it will be illegal for people to smoke in New York City public parks (yep, all 17,000 of them), boardwalks, beaches, recreation centers, swimming pools, and pedestrian plazas.

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who is certainly no friend to smokers, signed the bill last Tuesday.  After May 23, people who are caught violating the new law will be subjected to a $50 fine and the obligatory public shaming and warnings concerning the dangers of cigarette and second-hand smoke.  That new ban further restricts New York City’s already tight anti-smoking laws, which previously prohibited smoking in restaurants, bars, workplaces, and even construction sites.

Now to be fair to New York, it bears mentioning that smoking bans are in effect throughout the entire country and the laws governing them aren’t all that different from those in both the city and state of New York.  However, doesn’t it seem odd to you guys that there seems to be this horrible backlash against smokers?  Don’t get me wrong, I’m not a smoker by any stretch of the imagination.  Other than the occasion cigar here and there, I never touch the stuff.  Clinical studies after study have shown that smoking is obviously horrible for a person’s health.  Both first and second-hand smoke can cause cancer, birth defects, and a whole bunch of other nasty stuff, not to mention that it’ll yellow up your teeth and make you stink to high heaven.

There are so many reasons why a person shouldn’t smoke and these smoking laws are meant to not only protect the health of people inadvertently exposed to smoke, but also the smokers themselves.  The rationale being that the harder and more expensive it is to light up, the less incentive there will be to do so.

I get all of this, really, I do.  But shouldn’t we leave the decision of whether to allow people to partake in this (currently) legal activity up to them?  Certainly an argument can be made that these anti-smoking laws are more geared towards protecting non-smokers rather than smokers, and this is certainly a legitimate argument.

However, if this was the most important basis for this law, and it definitely seems like it is, can’t this same rationale be applied to everything?  For instance, drinking alcohol is known to impair judgment and reduce inhibition.  Alcohol related deaths and injuries are in the hundreds of thousands each year.  Would that then be cause to ban alcohol from being served in bars?  Or how about cars?  Even when a person is not impaired there are still thousands of vehicle-related deaths and injuries every year.  Should we start limiting where cars can be driven, too?

Now I realize that some of you will immediately dismiss my examples as straw man arguments and I’ll be the first to concede that they are not entirely free of this description.  After all, public intoxication and drunk driving is restricted and driving a car requires passing tests and obtaining a license.  These safeguards are to ensure and/or reduce the likelihood that both people partaking and around those partaking in these substances or activities don’t get hurt.  It’s with this rationale that these laws were passed and accepted.  And it’s also with this logic that has allowed smoking in public to be banned, too.

My only question then is at what point will all this regulation be enough?  When will the government and public finally believe that they have regulated smokers enough?

The answer to this question under the current rationale employed by legislators is unclear.  Theoretically, when it comes to the safety of people in these areas, the laws can just keep coming.  Now I’m not saying that this is entirely a bad thing, after all people will likely become safer and safer if this trend continues.  However, (not to sound too much like Glenn Beck) what will all this mean to our own personal freedoms?

Before I end this post, when I originally set out to write this blog I wanted to explore the idea of whether New York City smokers could challenge the city’s new smoking ban in court by claiming to be a protected class of people.  Long story short, the answer is no because I don’t think any court would ever buy into that kind of insane argument, especially considering what is considered to be a protected class of people currently.  It’d be like trying to enter Mountain Dew into a wine competition.