ripple wrote:
This is simply a publicity grab. Jersey City has many public safety and quality of life issues, and this isn't one of the more important ones. Let the police focus on getting the drivers under control.

Yvonne wrote:
First, I am not a smoker, or even a former smoker, I bring up the budget because this council said nothing when the Fulop mailed out the first half of 2014. The administration needs the council's approval. When I brought this up two weeks ago, the Acting Business Administrator said it was estimated bills. Under the Faulkner Act, only the council can approve the spending of a budget included estimated budgets. So I want to council to do its job and not worry about things outside its job.

nyrgravey9 wrote:
No, I get that. And I agree we as the citizens need to keep hammering away for one. But it doesn't mean, in the interim, we can't address other, admittedly less important, aspects.

Quote:

WhoElseCouldIBe wrote:
Quote:

nyrgravey9 wrote:
Once again, the "we can't walk and chew gum at the same time" argument.

Multi tasking, people!

Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
We are banning smoking in parks and requiring sick days for employers, the city is doing everything except produce a budget for 2014. Then that it is difficult to do if you sent out the first six months with the built in 8% tax crease. You can't cut if the spending if the money is half spent.

They aren't multi-tasking (addressing the budget). That's the point.

Vigilante wrote:
Then you won't mind when I smoke in the children's playground?

WhoElseCouldIBe wrote:
Quote:

nyrgravey9 wrote:
Once again, the "we can't walk and chew gum at the same time" argument.

Multi tasking, people!

Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
We are banning smoking in parks and requiring sick days for employers, the city is doing everything except produce a budget for 2014. Then that it is difficult to do if you sent out the first six months with the built in 8% tax crease. You can't cut if the spending if the money is half spent.

They aren't multi-tasking (addressing the budget). That's the point.

nyrgravey9 wrote:
I have the right to fart next to your face if I want to. There's no documented cases of that causing anyone cancer or ill health. I won't be inhibiting any of your rights by doing so, and it's no against any laws I'm aware of.

nyrgravey9 wrote:
Once again, the "we can't walk and chew gum at the same time" argument.

Multi tasking, people!

Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
We are banning smoking in parks and requiring sick days for employers, the city is doing everything except produce a budget for 2014. Then that it is difficult to do if you sent out the first six months with the built in 8% tax crease. You can't cut if the spending if the money is half spent.

Yvonne wrote:
We are banning smoking in parks and requiring sick days for employers, the city is doing everything except produce a budget for 2014. Then that it is difficult to do if you sent out the first six months with the built in 8% tax crease. You can't cut if the spending if the money is half spent.

Frank_M wrote:
Quote:

nyrgravey9 wrote:
There's a BIG difference between smoking and all the things you mentioned. Someone smelling bad doesn't affect my health (might make me nauseous hahah). Someone eating junk food doesn't affect my health. Someone else's smoking does. Now, the debate about smoking in an open air space definitely has wiggle room, but you have to acknowledge the following first:

Smoking causes cancer. Period. Second smoke causes cancer. Period. Cite all the research you want that proves it's not 100% link, but any idiot with an IQ higher than celery knows it to be true.

Yes, the increased risk of developing lung cancer and other health problems from smoking has been well documented, but in the case of smoking outdoors and magnitude of the threat to others, there isn?t just wiggle room, there are millions of cubic feet of air and extremely high air-change rates to go with it. Further, a non-smoking person would be exposed to this diluted smoke only under very specific circumstances, and only for a very short duration. In fact, why prohibit smoking in places where people are usually further away from each other?like in a park?instead of on the sidewalk where we?re confined to a smaller area?

The only realistically potential benefit I see in this kind of prohibition is the reduction of peoples? exposure to the habit of smoking, not smoke itself. Likewise, Michael Bloomberg?s proposed soft-drink ban might have found its success through a reduction in the public?s exposure to the act of over-consumption, not just by denying people a really big cola. I still think both efforts are out of place in a supposedly free country. Heck, they're even out of place in so called western European "nanny states," where people simply make better health decisions on their own.

Frank_M wrote:
Quote:

nyrgravey9 wrote:
There's a BIG difference between smoking and all the things you mentioned. Someone smelling bad doesn't affect my health (might make me nauseous hahah). Someone eating junk food doesn't affect my health. Someone else's smoking does. Now, the debate about smoking in an open air space definitely has wiggle room, but you have to acknowledge the following first:

Smoking causes cancer. Period. Second smoke causes cancer. Period. Cite all the research you want that proves it's not 100% link, but any idiot with an IQ higher than celery knows it to be true.

Yes, the increased risk of developing lung cancer and other health problems from smoking has been well documented, but in the case of smoking outdoors and magnitude of the threat to others, there isn?t just wiggle room, there are millions of cubic feet of air and extremely high air-change rates to go with it. Further, a non-smoking person would be exposed to this diluted smoke only under very specific circumstances, and only for a very short duration. In fact, why prohibit smoking in places where people are usually further away from each other?like in a park?instead of on the sidewalk where we?re confined to a smaller area?

The only realistically potential benefit I see in this kind of prohibition is the reduction of peoples? exposure to the habit of smoking, not smoke itself. Likewise, Michael Bloomberg?s proposed soft-drink ban might have found its success through a reduction in the public?s exposure to the act of over-consumption, not just by denying people a really big cola. I still think both efforts are out of place in a supposedly free country. Heck, they're even out of place in so called western European "nanny states," where people simply make better health decisions on their own.

nyrgravey9 wrote:
There's a BIG difference between smoking and all the things you mentioned. Someone smelling bad doesn't affect my health (might make me nauseous hahah). Someone eating junk food doesn't affect my health. Someone else's smoking does. Now, the debate about smoking in an open air space definitely has wiggle room, but you have to acknowledge the following first:

Smoking causes cancer. Period. Second smoke causes cancer. Period. Cite all the research you want that proves it's not 100% link, but any idiot with an IQ higher than celery knows it to be true.

ripple wrote:
This is simply a publicity grab. Jersey City has many public safety and quality of life issues, and this isn't one of the more important ones. Let the police focus on getting the drivers under control.

Frank_M wrote:
The suggested magnitude of the fines, and particularly their escalating severity, seems disproportionate. A potential thousand dollar fine for smoking outdoors in a park?where the most significant things a smoker might affect are the hypersensitivies of the easily offended?is simply unfair. That?s basically hitting somebody with a fine for smelling bad. Legislating away unpopular behavior that has been on nothing but a steady decline for years, looks to me like an easy marketing stunt.

Perhaps we could be a healthier city if there were prohibitions related to the consumption, distribution, or sale of food that isn?t particularly nutritious, but public opinion hasn?t turned against that particular vice in the numbers required to eagerly dismiss its impact on our civil liberties. But we hate smoking, so who cares?

fat-ass-bike wrote:
I think its a stupid idea considering its a public area and its still legal to smoke ... I'd be for a ban near picnic tables / BBQ spots and children's playground areas.
....