Browse > Home / US Politics / Land of the Free????

| Subcribe via RSS



Land of the Free????

February 4th, 2011 Posted in US Politics by

I always thought of America as the place where personal choice and individual freedom where held in high esteem. Where informed discussion was preferred to berating and banning. Where politeness won out over prohibition. Where they chose discourse over directives.

Well that was then and this is now. In New York anyway. The very epitomy of the Land of the Free got that bit more Soviet today when Michael Bloomberg -Mayor of New York - extended the ban on smoking to  all of city’s 14 miles of beaches, marinas and boardwalks and some 1700 parks (including Central Park) as well as many”other” public places such as  Times Square.

“This summer, New Yorkers who go to our parks and beaches for some fresh air and fun will be able to breathe even cleaner air and sit on a beach not littered with cigarette butts,”said Mr Bloomberg. “Breathe even cleaner air” (I love the “even” in that sentence) – that’s if you can see the air for the car fumes of course… (no they lost the congestion charge battle some time ago).

Still, the few tourists they will have left following the introduction don’t have to be too concerned just yet.. It has also been announced the smoking ban will be self-enforced, with residents rather than police warning others not to smoke in public places. And should an over eager policeman decide he will fine you, a delightfully named “quality-of-life summon” will be handed down to a violator of the smoking ban, similar to what the city does for public urination (!) with a fine of about $50. But no “on-the-spot” fines here as the fear of corruption is too great! Go figure…..

So where can you smoke in New York? City sidewalks (obviously) and private businesses where smoking is presently allowed, e.g. rooftop bars and private apartments of course – though watch this space as many want to see a ban on smoking in private residences introduced here too. What will it be I wonder? Secret surveillance cameras in their bathrooms? or just good old ratting on neighbours.

There is much controversy about this ban as you might expect. Over half the city say they are against it, and the phone-ins across the city are awash with people asking why ban smoking in public parks (where there is ample space to get away from the smoke) but allow it on the pavements where people are squeezed in six to a dozen.

Well, welcome to the world of soviet planning folks…no rhyme nor reason…

It has been suggested that this ban is more about the cost of cleaning up the cigarette butts than it is about the “cleaner air”.  And they may be right. In 2010, New York taxpayers worked until April 23, ranking it 3rd highest in the nation, 2 weeks after the national Tax Freedom Day (April 9). …Who knows….

8 Responses to “Land of the Free????”

  1. harleyrider1978 Says:

    Heres a time line starting in 1900,dont be surprised to see the same thing playing out today nearly 100 years later.

    1901: REGULATION: Strong anti-cigarette activity in 43 of the 45 states. “Only Wyoming and Louisiana had paid no attention to the cigarette controversy, while the other forty-three states either already had anti-cigarette laws on the books or were considering new or tougher anti-cigarette laws, or were the scenes of heavy anti- cigarette activity” (Dillow, 1981:10).

    1904: New York: A judge sends a woman is sent to jail for 30 days for smoking in front of her children.

    1904: New York City. A woman is arrested for smoking a cigarette in an automobile. “You can’t do that on Fifth Avenue,” the arresting officer says.

    1907: Business owners are refusing to hire smokers. On August 8, the New York Times writes: “Business … is doing what all the anti-cigarette specialists could not do.”

    1917: SMOKEFREE: Tobacco control laws have fallen, including smoking bans in numerous cities, and the states of Arkansas, Iowa, Idaho and Tennessee.

    1937: hitler institutes laws against smoking.This one you can google.

    America will be free again and so shall the world!


  2. harleyrider1978 Says:

    They have created a fear that is based on nothing’’
    World-renowned pulmonologist, president of the prestigious Research Institute Necker for the last decade, Professor Philippe Even, now retired, tells us that he’s convinced of the absence of harm from passive smoking. A shocking interview.

    What do the studies on passive smoking tell us?

    PHILIPPE EVEN. There are about a hundred studies on the issue. First surprise: 40% of them claim a total absence of harmful effects of passive smoking on health. The remaining 60% estimate that the cancer risk is multiplied by 0.02 for the most optimistic and by 0.15 for the more pessimistic … compared to a risk multiplied by 10 or 20 for active smoking! It is therefore negligible. Clearly, the harm is either nonexistent, or it is extremely low.

    It is an indisputable scientific fact. Anti-tobacco associations report 3 000-6 000 deaths per year in France …

    I am curious to know their sources. No study has ever produced such a result.

    Many experts argue that passive smoking is also responsible for cardiovascular disease and other asthma attacks. Not you?

    They don’t base it on any solid scientific evidence. Take the case of cardiovascular diseases: the four main causes are obesity, high cholesterol, hypertension and diabetes. To determine whether passive smoking is an aggravating factor, there should be a study on people who have none of these four symptoms. But this was never done. Regarding chronic bronchitis, although the role of active smoking is undeniable, that of passive smoking is yet to be proven. For asthma, it is indeed a contributing factor … but not greater than pollen!

    The purpose of the ban on smoking in public places, however, was to protect non-smokers. It was thus based on nothing?

    Absolutely nothing! The psychosis began with the publication of a report by the IARC, International Agency for Research on Cancer, which depends on the WHO (Editor’s note: World Health Organization). The report released in 2002 says it is now proven that passive smoking carries serious health risks, but without showing the evidence. Where are the data? What was the methodology? It’s everything but a scientific approach. It was creating fear that is not based on anything.

    Why would anti-tobacco organizations wave a threat that does not exist?

    The anti-smoking campaigns and higher cigarette prices having failed, they had to find a new way to lower the number of smokers. By waving the threat of passive smoking, they found a tool that really works: social pressure. In good faith, non-smokers felt in danger and started to stand up against smokers. As a result, passive smoking has become a public health problem, paving the way for the Evin Law and the decree banning smoking in public places. The cause may be good, but I do not think it is good to legislate on a lie. And the worst part is that it does not work: since the entry into force of the decree, cigarette sales are rising again.

    Why not speak up earlier?

    As a civil servant, dean of the largest medical faculty in France, I was held to confidentiality. If I had deviated from official positions, I would have had to pay the consequences. Today, I am a free man.

    Le Parisien


  3. harleyrider1978 Says:

    For the antismokers that are able to spurt the standard inflammatory rhetoric with ease, you appear to be unaware of where your brainwashing originated. What we are currently seeing – smoking bans indoors and outdoors, employment discrimination, etc. – was planned over 30 years ago (see the Godber Blueprint http://www.rampant-antismoking.com ). The Godber Blueprint is a continuation of eugenics-driven antismoking of early-1900s USA and Nazi Germany. The antismokers were declaring SHS “harm” in the mid-1970s, long before even the first flawed study (by an antismoker – Hirayama in 1981) on SHS. Numerous organizations (including the Office of the Surgeon General) were committed to a SmokeFree World (Eugenics ideology) well prior to “evidence”. It is this plan that has been driving “studies” and “conclusions” over the last 30 years, i.e., propaganda. The primary antismoking goal is the eradication of tobacco use; concocted “dangers” such as SHS are simply a contorted means to a delusional goal. Unfortunately, the dangerous eugenics ideology is alive and “well”.


  4. marbee Says:

    The ban is all about control! It’s a jihad against a large segment of the population. Read the DeWeese Report on “Sustainable Development”, here is an excerpt:
    And one of the most destructive tools they use to force it on us is something called the “precautionary principle.” That means any activities that might threaten human health or the environment should be stopped, even if no clear cause and effect relationship has been established – and even if the potential threat’s largely theoretical. That makes it easy for any activist group to issue warnings by news release or questionable report and
    have those warnings quickly turned into public policy, just in case. Many are now finding non- elected regional governments and governing councils enforcing policy and regulations. Most decisions are now being made behind the scenes in non- elected “sustainability councils” armed with truckloads of federal regulations, guidelines, and grant money.
    In other words, Socialism.
    Or perhaps this is paving the way for Sharia law instead?


  5. chas Says:

    One ex-smoking New Yorker said that although he hates standing at a bus stop near somebody smoking, he could so no problem with people smoking in parks and beeches because the smoke quickly dispersed.


  6. db Says:

    “One ex-smoking New Yorker said that although he hates standing at a bus stop near somebody smoking, he could so no problem with people smoking in parks and beeches because the smoke quickly dispersed.”

    As it does at a bus stop….indeed in all outdoor spaces. Besides, how is ETS more dangerous in parks and on beaches? The truth is, of course, that it is harmless in any environment.

    Where will all this end? Certainly not if/when they bully smokers into total submission – they are simply the guinea pigs for a whole lot more. Why are people so blind and ignorant not to see that ALL freedoms are gradually being eroded?


  7. clif e Says:

    Land of the free, the west stopped being free when governments was allowed to dictate to people how they must socialise in privately owned places “pubs and clubs”, and using a legal product as a reason to enforce thier law on everyone, the smoking ban was the last straw.


  8. Michael J. McFadden Says:

    1) This will be a law so widely ignored that it will simply build disrespect for law in general.

    2) There has never yet been a single scientific study showing any degree of actual harm to people from the levels and duration of smoke exposure that would be encountered at a beach or park.

    This is a law purely designed to do what Bloomberg pledged last year: to make smoking as difficult, unpleasant and expensive as possible to socially engineer smokers out of our lives. It’s simply taking the theory of training rats with electric shocks and transferring it to controlling people. That’s NOT what America is supposed to be about. New Yorkers are NOT rats.

    Michael J. McFadden,
    Author of “Dissecting Antismokers’ Brains”


Leave a Reply



  • RSS Elsewhere on Lib Dem Blogs…