Sections

>

Up in smoke! Beach-goers protest the city’s ban on smoking in parks

The Brooklyn Paper
Share on TwitterTweet
Share on Facebook
Subscribe

Get our stories in your inbox, free.

Like The Brooklyn Paper on Facebook.

Beach-goers didn’t waste any time blowing smoke in the face of the city’s recently enacted ban on public puffing, as dozens lit up along the Boardwalk in protest during the beach’s opening day.

The “Smoke in the Park Event,” held on Saturday near Brighton Sixth Steet, flouted Mayor Bloomberg’s Smoke-Free Air Act, which passed in February and went into effect on May 23.

No one was ticketed during the rally, though demonstrators risked a $50 fine with their defiance of the new law that bans lighting up in city-run parks and beaches along with other open spaces like the Riegelmann Boardwalk in Coney Island and the Brooklyn Heights Promenade.

“When the law is an ass, it’s our duty to revolt,” said protest organizer Audrey Silk, founder of the Citizens Lobbying Against Smoker Harassment.

Silk and her fellow protesters, which inluded members from as far away as Massachusetts, chanted and held signs like “Tobacco Control is Out of Control.” Some even performed smoking stunts, such as inhaling a cigar, cigarette and pipe for a tobacco hat-trick.

The protest took place just two days after city officials kicked off summer in Coney Island with a visit from Health Department officials who claim the new rules will saves lives. “[The new rule] is going to be great for people’s health,” city Health Commissioner Thomas Farley told NY1 on Thursday. “People won’t be exposed to second-hand smoke. It’ll be great for children who won’t be watching smokers and learning how to smoke.”

Bloomberg has been pushing the law, highlighting the dangers of secondhand smoke, namely that even brief exposure to outdoor cigarette smoke can lead to more-frequent asthma attacks in children with the condition, and respiratory ailments in healthy adults.

City data claim that 7,500 New Yorkers die each year from cigarette smoke, and more than half of non-smokers have elevated levels of a nicotine by-product in their blood.

“The science is clear: prolonged exposure to secondhand smoke — whether you’re indoors or out — hurts your health,” said Mayor Bloomberg.

But Marlboro men and women across the borough say that the ban violates their civil liberties.

“I’m not that worried about getting a ticket,” said Kristen Hess, who leisurely puffed her cigarette on the beach.

The Parks Department issued 300 verbal warnings — but only one ticket — to smokers over the weekend.

Today’s news:
Share on TwitterTweet
Share on Facebook
Subscribe

Get our stories in your inbox, free.

Like The Brooklyn Paper on Facebook.

Reader Feedback

Chicken Underwear from Park Slope says:
The tobacco companies are brilliant. They have been able to get the consumption of their product associated with "self expression" and "freedom". All it is is an addiction, an addiction to a know poison.
June 1, 2011, 10:55 am
Or from Yellow Hook says:
If the tobacco companies had any stones, they would stop selling their product in NY, and make a public announcement that they have ceased doing so.

The politicans would whole like stuck pigs at the thought of the lost revenue.
June 1, 2011, 12:01 pm
Or from Yellow Hook says:
And they would howl too.
June 1, 2011, 12:02 pm
Chicken Underwear from Park Slope says:
Or,
Companies don't have stones. Only mindless greed.
June 1, 2011, 12:13 pm
Cynthia from Clinton Hill says:
It looks really ridiculous protesters smoking multiple cigars ,cigerttes all at once. well let them get Cancer.
June 2, 2011, 10:47 am
Lefty One Eye from Rikers Islands says:
According to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), most of the City’s air pollution comes from its streets. The majority of this pollution is coughed out of tailpipes. But a bevy of sources, from power plants and refineries to boilers, auto repair shops, diesel generators, and landfills, add to the collective fog. Finally, unregulated shipping and airline industries in the area pollute massively, according to scientists at the EPA and the DEC.

Most of New York’s hotspots are the result of massive infrastructure projects, like the Bruckner, whose ill health effects mattered little when built. In the South Bronx, highways and diesel truck traffic take a heavy toll on neighborhood health. In Queens, power plants, airports and highways concentrate pollution overhead. In Brooklyn’s Sunset Park and Williamsburg, residents inhale the fumes from the heavily used freeways nearby.

Among other pollutants, New Yorkers are inhaling ozone and particulate matter (PM), which cause the most damage to health. According to the EPA, ozone causes respiratory irritation, reduces air intake and creates shallow breathing. It can aggravate asthma and inflame and damage the lining of the lungs. It may worsen emphysema and bronchitis, as well as reduce the immune system’s fight against lung infection. PM can irritate airways and cause coughing and difficulty breathing. It decreases lung function, aggravates asthma and can cause chronic bronchitis. It can also cause irregular heartbeats and nonfatal heart attacks, and it can bring on premature death in people with heart or lung disease.

“People can die of a heart attack from air pollution and never cough once,” says Doctor William Beckett, a professor of environmental medicine at the University of Rochester.

The American Lung Association, which grades locations according to air quality, gave Manhattan, Queens and the Bronx an F in its annual State of the Air report. Brooklyn and Staten Island faired nominally better with Cs. The study reported that 1.4 million New Yorkers with cardiovascular disease live with unhealthy levels of particulate pollution, and 460,000 adults and 160,000 children with asthma in NYC are exposed year-round to high particulate pollution.

In Brooklyn’s Sunset Park and Williamsburg, residents inhale the fumes from the heavily used freeways nearby. ( So lets ban tobacco.)
June 3, 2011, 4:31 pm
Michael J. McFadden from Ex-Park Sloper says:
I was just doing some research over at the CDC and American Associaion of Poison Control Centers site and found some interesting statistics:

98% of "tobacco poisonings" occur at home.

Of 8,000 cases in 2008 there were ZERO deaths

Compared with tobacco product ingestions, mosquito bites were 800% as likely to cause outcomes in the "moderate to major" medical range as reported to the centers.

Banning behaviors like smoking purely on the honest basis of annoyance is one thing: if people want the police to start interfering with our lives simply because little things we do might annoy enough other people then that's the sort of society they want to live in.

But trying to justify it with health arguments based on lies is a completely different story. To see the kind of lies that are used to promote acceptance of these sorts of bans, read "The Lies Behind The Smoking Bans" at:

http://kuneman.smokersclub.com/PASAN/StilettoGenv5h.pdf

Try to print it out for reading and sharing if you can since it's really designed for quick printed reading in dimly-lit bars and such. Seeing it online it looks a bit bombastic. It's openly one-sided, but its facts are accurate and their presentation is honest.

Michael J. McFadden,
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
June 3, 2011, 9:37 pm
Chicken Underwear from Park Slope says:
I would trust this site.

http://no-smoke.org/document.php?id=212

They are not trying to justify their addiction.

September 2009

The 2006 U.S. Surgeon General's Report, "The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Secondhand Smoke," has concluded that there is no safe level of exposure to secondhand smoke and that, on average, children are exposed to more secondhand smoke than adults. Children are significantly affected by secondhand smoke. Children's bodies are still developing, and exposure to the poisons in secondhand smoke puts them at risk of severe respiratory diseases and can hinder the growth of their lungs. Secondhand smoke is a known cause of low birth weight, Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS), asthma, bronchitis, pneumonia, middle ear infection, and other diseases.1

Although levels of secondhand smoke exposure declined between 1988-1994 and 1999-2004 in the general population overall, children were the sub-group with the least rate of decline.2

Low Birth Weight

Secondhand smoke is a known preventable cause of low birth weight, which contributes to infant mortality and health complications into adulthood. Secondhand smoke exposure reduces the birth weight of infants of nonsmoking mothers and contributes to additional reductions in birth weight among babies of smoking mothers.3

Nonsmoking pregnant women who are exposed to secondhand smoke tend to give birth to infants who have a reduced mean birth weight of 33g or more. Secondhand smoke exposure also increases the risk of a birth weight below 2,500g by 22 percent.4
Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS)

Maternal smoking is the strongest risk factor leading to SIDS.5

Infants who die from SIDS tend to have higher concentrations of nicotine in their lungs than do control children, regardless of whether smoking is reported.6
Cognitive Impairments

Secondhand smoke exposure impairs a child's ability to learn. It is neurotoxic even at extremely low levels. More than 21.9 million children are estimated to be at risk of reading deficits because of secondhand smoke. Higher levels of exposure to secondhand smoke are also associated with greater deficits in math and visuospatial reasoning.7

The offspring of mothers who smoke one pack of cigarettes per day during pregnancy have an IQ score that is, on average, 2.87 points lower than children born to nonsmoking mothers.8
Behavioral Problems

Children born to women nonsmokers who are exposed to secondhand smoke during pregnancy and to women who smoked during pregnancy are more likely to suffer from Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and conduct disorder.9, 10

Girls are exposed to higher rates of secondhand smoke than boys, but boys have greater problems with hyperactivity, aggression, depression, and other behavioral problems.11
Respiratory Problems

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has reported that secondhand smoke exposure increases the risk of lower respiratory tract infections such as bronchitis and pneumonia. The EPA estimates that between 150,000 and 300,000 annual cases of lower respiratory tract infections in infants and young children up to 18 months of age are attributable to secondhand smoke exposure. Of these cases, between 7,500 and 15,000 result in hospitalization.12

Infants whose mothers smoke are 50 percent more likely to be hospitalized with a respiratory infection during their first year when compared to infants with nonsmoking mothers. Infants whose mothers smoke in the same room have a 56 percent higher risk of being hospitalized compared to infants whose mothers smoke in a separate room. There is a 73 percent higher risk if mothers smoke while holding their infants and a 95 percent higher risk if mothers smoke while feeding their infants.13

Early exposure to cigarette smoke is a likely significant independent risk factor for subsequent respiratory disease. It is likely that in utero damage is compounded by increased susceptibility to the effects of continued postnatal secondhand smoke exposure.14
Asthma

Asthma attacks are perhaps the most well-known health effect of secondhand smoke exposure among children. Secondhand smoke exposure increases the frequency of episodes and the severity of symptoms in asthmatic children. The EPA estimates that 200,000 to 1,000,000 asthmatic children have their condition worsened by exposure to secondhand smoke.15

Secondhand smoke exposure is associated with increased respiratory-related school absenteeism among children, especially those with asthma.16

Maternal and grand maternal smoking may increase the risk of childhood asthma. Relative to children of never-smokers, children whose mothers smoked throughout the pregnancy have an elevated risk of asthma in the first five years of life. Children whose mothers quit smoking prior to the pregnancy show no increased risk.17

Secondhand smoke exposure causes children who already have asthma to experience more frequent and severe attacks.18

Maternal smoking, in utero and later, is significantly related to lifetime wheezing in offspring.19
Repercussions on Adult Health

Not only does in utero and childhood secondhand smoke exposure cause decreased lung function and asthma in children, but such exposure is also responsible for poor lung function and respiratory disease in adults. Men who report postnatal secondhand smoke exposure and women who report prenatal exposure are more likely to have respiratory problems as adults.20, 21

Secondhand tobacco smoke exposure raises adolescents' risk of metabolic syndrome - a disorder associated with excessive belly fat that increases one's chances of heart disease, stroke, and type II diabetes.22

The level of secondhand smoke a child is exposed to is directly proportional to the likelihood of the child becoming a smoker as an adolescent or an adult.23

Moderate exposure to tobacco smoke is associated with decreased elasticity of the abdominal aorta in healthy 11-year-old children. Altered aortic elasticity is an early marker of atherosclerosis.24

SHS exposure in motor vehicles may be associated with nicotine dependence symptoms among young never-smokers.25

Women exposed to six or more hours of secondhand smoke a day as children and as adults have a 68 percent greater chance of having difficulty conceiving and suffering more miscarriages.26

There is an increased risk of failed embryo implantation among women reporting current secondhand tobacco smoke exposure.27

In subjects hospitalized because of early wheezing, prenatal and postnatal secondhand smoke exposure is a risk factor for asthma in early adulthood. The connection between prenatal smoke exposure and asthma appears to be mediated via the development of bronchial hyper-responsiveness. Smoke exposure in infancy is associated with an increased risk of active smoking in early adult age, which in turn, is linked to current asthma.28

The adverse effects of postnatal smoking on development of airway growth may persist into early adulthood.29
May be reprinted with appropriate attribution to the American Nonsmokers' Rights Foundation,© 2009.

REFERENCES

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke: A Report of the Surgeon General. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health, 2006.
Schober, S.E.; Zhang, C.; Brody, D.J.; Marano, C., "Disparities in secondhand smoke exposure - United States, 1988-1994 and 1999-2004," Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 57(27): 744-747, July 11, 2008.
Dejmek, J.; Solansky, I.; Podrazilova, K.; Sram, R., "The exposure of nonsmoking and smoking mothers to environmental tobacco smoke during different gestational phases and fetal growth," Environmental Health Perspectives 110(6): 601-606, June 2002.
Leonardi-Bee, J.A.; Smyth, A.R.; Britton, J.; Coleman, T., "Environmental tobacco smoke on fetal health: systematic review and meta-analysis," Archives of Disease in Childhood, Fetal and Neonatal Edition [Epub ahead of print], January 24, 2008
Woodward, A. and Laugesen M., "How many deaths are caused by secondhand cigarette smoke?" Tobacco Control, 10: 383 - 388, December 2001.
McMartin, K.I.; Platt, M.S.; Hackman, R.; Klein, J.; Smialek, J.E.; Vigorito, R.; Koren, G., "Lung tissue concentrations of nicotine in sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS)," Journal of Pediatrics 140(2): 205-209, February 2002.
Yolton, K. et al., "Exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke and Cognitive Abilities of U.S. Children and Adolescents," Environmental Health Perspectives, 113(1): 98-103.
Batty, G.D.; Der, G.; Deary, I.J., "Effect of maternal smoking during pregnancy on offspring's cognitive ability: empirical evidence for complete confounding in the US National Longitudinal Survey of Youth," Pediatrics 118(3): 943-950, September 2006.
Button, T.M.M.; Thapar, A.; and McGuffin, P., "Relationship between antisocial behavior, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder and maternal prenatal smoking," British Journal of Psychiatry (2005), 187, 155-160.
Potera, C., "Secondhand behavioral problems," Environmental Health Perspectives 115(10): A492, October 2007.
Yolton, K.; Khoury, J.; Hornung, R.; Dietrich, K.; Succop, P.; Lanphear, B., "Environmental tobacco smoke exposure and child behaviors," Journal of Developmental & Behavioral Pediatrics 29(6):450-457, December 2008.
[n.a.], "Fact Sheet: Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking," U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, April 2004.
Blizzard, L.; Ponsonby, A.; Dwyer, T.; Venn, A.; Cochrane, J.A., "Parental smoking and infant respiratory infection: how important is not smoking in the same room with the baby?" American Journal of Public Health 93(3): 482-488, March 2003.
Prescott, S.L., "Effects of early cigarette smoke exposure on early immune development and respiratory disease," Paediatric Respiratory Reviews 9(1): 3-10, March 2008.
[n.a.], "Fact Sheet: Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking," Environmental Protection Agency, April 2004.
Gilliland, F.D.; Berhane, K.; Islam, T.; Wenten, M.; Rappaport,E.; Avol, E.; Gauderman, W.J.; McConnell, R.; Peters, J.M., "Environmental tobacco smoke and absenteeism related to respiratory illness in schoolchildren," American Journal of Epidemiology 157(1): 861-869, May 15, 2003.
Yu-Fhen, Li. et al., "Maternal and Grandmaternal Smoking Pattern Are Associated With Early Childhood Asthma," Chest, 127(4): 1232, 2005.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke: A Report of the Surgeon General. Children are Hurt by Secondhand Smoke. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health, 2006.
Raherison, C.; Penard-Morand, C.; Moreau, D.; Caillaud, D.; Charpin, D.; Kopfersmitt, C.; Lavaud, F.; Taytard, A.; Annesi-maesano, I., "In utero and childhood exposure to parental tobacco smoke, and allergies in schoolchildren," Respiratory Medicine [epub ahead of print], May 28, 2006.
Svanes, C.; Omenaas, E.; Jarvis, D.; Chinn, S.; Gulsvik, A.; Burney, P., "Parental smoking in childhood and adult obstructive lung disease: results from the European Community Respiratory Health Survey," Thorax 59(4): 295-302, April 1, 2004.
Skorge, T.D., et. al., "The Adult Incidence of Asthma and Respiratory Symptoms by Passive Smoking In Utero or in Childhood," American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, Vol. 172, pp. 61-66, April 2005.
Weitzman, M., et. al, "Tobacco Smoke Exposure Is Associated With the Metabolic Syndrome in Adolescents," Circulation 2005, doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.104.520650.
Becklake, M.R.; Ghezzo, H.; Ernst, P., "Childhood predictors of smoking in adolescence: a follow-up study of Montreal schoolchildren," CMAJ 173(4): 377-379, August 16, 2005.
Kallio, K.; Jokinen, E.; Hamalainen, M.; Saarinen, M.; Volanen, I.; Kaitosaari, T.; Viikari, J.; Ronnemaa, T.; Simell, O.; Raitakari, O.T., "Decreased aortic elasticity in healthy 11-year-old children exposed to tobacco smoke," Pediatrics 123(2): e267-e273, February 2009.
Belanger, M.; O'Loughlin, J.; Okoli, C.T.C.; McGrath, J.J.; Setia, M.; Guyon, L.; Gervais, A., "Nicotine dependence symptoms among young never-smokers exposed to secondhand tobacco smoke," Addictive Behaviors [Epub ahead of print], July 23, 2008.
Secondhand smoke raises odds of fertility problems in women," Science Daily, December 5, 2008.
Meeker, J.D.; Missmer, S.A.; Vitonis, A.F.; Cramer, D.W.; Hauser, R., "Risk of spontaneous abortion in women with childhood exposure to parental cigarette smoke," American Journal of Epidemiology 166(5): 571-575, September 1, 2007.
Goksor, E.; Amark, M.; Alm, B.; Gustafsson, P.M.; Wennergren, G., "The impact of pre- and post-natal smoke exposure on future asthma and bronchial hyperresponsiveness," Acta Paediatrica [Epub ahead of print], May 10, 2007.
Hayatbakhsh, M.R.; Sadasivam, S.; Mamun, A.A.; Najman, J.M.; O'Callaghan, M.J., "Maternal smoking during and after pregnancy and lung function in early adulthood: a prospective study," Thorax [Epub ahead of print], June 11, 2009.
Americans for Nonsmokers' Rights
American Nonsmokers' Rights Foundation
©2011
Last updated on: Nov 20, 2009
June 4, 2011, 12:19 pm
MichaelJMcFadden from Ex-ParkSloper says:
Chicken, unlike the site and information I referred you to, which is completely independent and unfunded, the site you referred readers to is highly dependent upon grants that wold stop flowing in an instant the moment they deviated from the party line.

You'll note they list a generalized source, the SGR 2009, that is by its nature impossible to refute effectively since it depends for its authority upon thousands of small individual parts: its studies. However, I *have* been able to effectively call its validity into question by picking a half dozen or so of the high profile studies it depends on and which have made enough headlines that people are familiar with them, and clearly show how weak they are in the reference I cited.

If you are able to offer specific substantive criticisms of anything at that site:

http://kuneman.smokersclub.com/PASAN/StilettoGenv5h.pdf

please do so. It should be easy: it's only about 7,000 words as opposed to the several hundred thousand in the SGR.

Alternatively, if you want to argue that I've "cherry-picked" the studies to criticize (And I address that possibility at my site.) then pick two or three of what you yourself consider to be the STRONGEST studies available for general people to read online in the medical journals that show any harm to people from outdoor smoking and cite them. Just your two or three BEST ... and then be ready to defend them.

There's no fairer proposition I could offer, and I'm happy to offer it because NO SUCH STUDIES EXIST ... as I'm sure you'll find out. The bans are based on a motivation of social engineering: making smoking, as Mayor Bloomberg has committed the city to, "as difficult and expensive as possible" in an attempt to "shock the rats" into the "proper" behavior patterns.

You might like being treated like nothing more than a rat. Some of the rest of us don't.

- MJM
June 4, 2011, 11:33 pm
herefreeman says:
I would trust this site.

http://no-smoke.org/document.php?id=212

Trust nothing of this site. Pure propaganda.
June 5, 2011, 2:14 am
Chicken Underwear from Park Slope says:
What ever.

All the studies are probably faulted

Why would you go to so much effort to justify such a discussing habit in public.

Why don't you find the data that shows public masturbation is harmless and pubic masterbaters are being unjustly persecuted for their habit.
June 5, 2011, 6:04 pm
Michael J. McFadden from Ex-Park Sloper says:
Why go to the effort Chicken? Simple: I don't like it when people use lies to control and hurt other people.

- MJM
June 6, 2011, 4:06 am
Left One Eye from Rikers Island says:
Chicken Underware is one of those sheeple who needs protection because he / she is not capable of thinking for him/ her self. Which goes to show you that all the exhaust fumes has affected the people of New Yorks ability to think. Sad so very sad.
June 6, 2011, 4:24 am
Chicken Underwear from Park Slope says:
I could say the same thing about you, Left One Eye and Michael J. McFadden. Choose your data to fit your wants.
June 6, 2011, 4:41 am
Left One Eye from Rikers says:
My data comes from The American Lung Association. Are you saying they are wrong ?
June 6, 2011, 5:24 am
Chicken Underwear from Park Slope says:
Yes http://www.lungusa.org/stop-smoking/about-smoking/health-effects/secondhand-smoke.html

from the American Lung Association.

"Secondhand smoke is a serious health hazard causing close to 50,000 deaths per year. It can cause or exacerbate a wide range of adverse health effects, including lung cancer, respiratory infections, and asthma."

"Data" can be used to justify anything you want.
June 6, 2011, 6:19 am
Chicken Underwear from Park Slope says:
Forget about "data"

Smoking is a carcinogenic addiction that profits the tobacco industry.

I honestly don't want my children to see the people who can't control themselves long enough to do it in private.

That is why I compare it to masturbation.
June 6, 2011, 6:22 am
Left One Eye from Rikers says:
Oh so its all about your children. But your ok with them seeing all the Obese people and fell thats ok and normal. ?
You need to get a handle on reality.
June 6, 2011, 1:07 pm
Chicken Underwear from Park Slolpe says:
No not normal either.

It is not about MY kids. It is about all children.

Your reality is pathetic.
June 6, 2011, 3:33 pm
Left One Eye from Rikers says:
Its not about kids at all, its about control. Ask a Jewish person who lived in Nazi German.
June 6, 2011, 3:49 pm
Chicken Underwear from Park Slope says:
Then you are under the control of the multinational corporations that profit from you addiction.

I am not.
June 6, 2011, 3:55 pm
Hitler from Bensonhurst says:
Godwin was right.
June 6, 2011, 4:45 pm
Lefty One Eye from Rikers says:
And your not ? Sure you are.!
You should be ashamed of your're self for exploiting chilidren to forge ahead with big Pharma's agenda to contorl people.
June 6, 2011, 4:47 pm
Chicken Underwear from Park Slope says:
Lefty,

You are funny.
June 6, 2011, 8:35 pm
Michael J. McFadden from Ex-Park Sloper says:
Chicken you said, "I could say the same thing about you, Left One Eye and Michael J. McFadden. Choose your data to fit your wants."

Fine Chicken. Choose and defend a single freely available study showing harm from outdoor tobacco smoke.

NOTE: I am letting YOU choose the specific study so you can't come back and say I've chosen it to fit my wants. Remember though, we're talking about a STUDY: not a statement, general report, advocacy fact sheet, etc etc. but an actual single scientific study that I can read and criticize and that YOU feel is the best that's out there and the easiest to defend.

As Dirty Harry would say.... "Go Ahead...."

;>
MJM
June 6, 2011, 11:45 pm
Michael J. McFadden from Ex-Park Sloper says:
btw Chicken, just curious: where in Park Slope are you?
June 6, 2011, 11:45 pm
Chicken Underwear from The Politically Correct Part of Park Slope says:
This was the first on on the giant list above. Is this a Study?

The 2006 U.S. Surgeon General's Report, "The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Secondhand Smoke," has concluded that there is no safe level of exposure to secondhand smoke and that, on average, children are exposed to more secondhand smoke than adults. Children are significantly affected by secondhand smoke. Children's bodies are still developing, and exposure to the poisons in secondhand smoke puts them at risk of severe respiratory diseases and can hinder the growth of their lungs. Secondhand smoke is a known cause of low birth weight, Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS), asthma, bronchitis, pneumonia, middle ear infection, and other diseases.1

1. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke: A Report of the Surgeon General. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health, 2006.
June 7, 2011, 4:41 am
Michael J. McFadden from Ex-Park Sloper says:
No Chicken. That is not a study. That is a general report. Note what I asked for in my post:

"Remember though, we're talking about a STUDY: not a statement, general report, advocacy fact sheet, etc etc. but an actual single scientific study that I can read and criticize and that YOU feel is the best that's out there and the easiest to defend."

If I simply picked something out of a 700 page report and criticized it, you would accuse me of "choosing my data." The idea is that I'm leaving it up to YOU to choose YOUR best data.

Now if you want to look in that report, and find a study in there that you feel clearly shows harm to people from outdoor tobacco smoke exposure, THAT would be great! And I'll very happily accept your choice and look at it.

- MJM
June 7, 2011, 6:21 am
CU from Park Slope says:
Like this

http://archpedi.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/165/4/332

have fun.

But if it is ok you you to smoke in a park, it should be ok for others to masturbate.

Why not.
June 7, 2011, 6:48 am
Michael J. McFadden from Ex-Park Sloper says:
CU, yes indeed, that is a study! However it has nothing to do with the sorts of exposure experienced outdoors, nor is it freely available for public examination. It's sloppy technique to try to critique scientific research purely on the basis of an abstract. Please find one dealing with what would be typical outdoor exposure levels in parks or on beaches and such that is available for reading.

As for the smoking/masturbating question, it's a red herring. There have been thousands of parks over the last 500 years or so in America. Smoking has been allowed and accepted by people without any unhappiness, objection, or any other difficulty throughout those 500 years in those thousands of parks.

How many parks and for how many years have people in this country opened up for happy acceptance of public masturbation? Obviously to equate the two is silly.

Say there was a beachfront town that banned dog-walking on its beaches last year and this year some dog-owners brought a bill to City Council to allow dogs on the beaches again. If someone stood up and said, "If it is ok for you to walk your dogs on the beach then it should be ok for people to sit around publicly masturbating on the beach."

Wouldn't that be silly?

- MJM
June 7, 2011, 9:41 am
Chicken UNderwear from Park Slope says:
Dog walking is not a carcinogenic addiction.

Is this a study.

http://www.marketwire.com/press-release/New-Study-on-Outdoor-Second-Hand-Smoke-in-Ottawa-1309489.htm
June 7, 2011, 12:55 pm
Left One Eye from Rikers says:
Hey Chicken Underwear now if you didnt have an agenda then why are you only going after one cause of lung cancer.? After all its all about the children isnt it.?
liar liar pants on fire.!
1 Smoking
.2 Radon gas
.3 Asbestos
.4 Viruses
.5 Particulate matter
Now come on lets get serious here. You shouldnt be singleing out one group when there a many different casue of lung cancer. Whereas Radon Gas is a very close 2nd behind smoking. Its everywhere so why dont you support a mandate to install radon gas monitors all over the city, in hotels, resturants, apartments, builds (public and private) you get my drift. Why dont the sheeple you are supporting even mention it ?? Or You !
June 7, 2011, 1:57 pm
Chicken Underwear from Park Slope says:
Because smoking ONLY benefits the stock holders of the tobacco companies.

There is no reason people have to smoke.

The tobacco industry did a great job convincing you it is your right to smoke.
June 7, 2011, 4:49 pm
Lefty One Eye from Rickers says:
Ding Dong anyone there at Chicken Underwears house.?
The only reason why people smoke is because it their choice to use a legal product. Doesnt matter what said product is as long as its legal.
And you are saying that the people funding these smoking bans dont profit from them ? How uninformed are you ?
The Non Smoking cartel has convinced you that you can dictate how and when and where and what people do with their lives.
Wait I have an answer, why dont we just ship all the people you dont like off to a concentration camp.
Now dont you want to address the Radon Gas problem ? Or dont you know about that yet !
June 7, 2011, 5:05 pm
Chicken Underwear from Park Slope says:
I don't really care anymore.

Go smoke a cigarette and make believe you are blowing it in my face.
June 7, 2011, 5:10 pm
Yo Mamma says:
Lefty,

Do you ever wish you never had that first cigarette? Do you still have a choice.
June 7, 2011, 6:26 pm
Michael J. McFadden from Ex-Park Sloper says:
Hello Chicken! Actually, that's a news article based upon a press release put out by advocates about some measurements they made. Sort of a "third-hand pseudo-study." Proper studies are in medical journals and have been given at least a minimum of fact checking and review by other researchers.

If you base your beliefs and opinions on stories like this it's sort of like reading a story about an Al-Qaida press release describing how Bin Laden is currently catching a tan in the Bahamas while sipping a Marguerita and enjoying the wacky news stories about his death and then believing it as fact. Seriously. And this is exactly why you, and many others with opinions similar to yours, hold those opinions.

HOWEVER... let's pretend for a moment that it WAS a proper study and is accurately described. They give two measurements: peak readings and what they call an "average" reading.

A peak reading is pretty meaningless: it's basically what a little sniffer-meter records for a second or so when a plume of smoke just happens to catch the right drift of air and blow directly into it. If you were in a room breathing that concentration CONSTANTLY -- yeah, then it would be bad for you, but not a momentary "peak" for a second.

It's kind of like having a cup of coffee at 160 degrees and taking a tiny little sip from it: you'll enjoy it and your health won't be damaged at all. BUT... if I immersed you in a cannibal's kettle at 160 degrees for 24 hours you'd be soup. Heck, you'd be dead as a boiled potato in under five minutes! So that's why you should ignore the "peak readings" in stuff like this: they're a propaganda tool meant to fool you.

Continued....
June 7, 2011, 8:45 pm
Michael J. McFadden from Ex-Park Sloper says:
.... Continued ...

The second reading in the story is called an "average" reading, but it's actually a reading taken over ten minutes or so while there was "continuous smoking at an adjacent table" (Note they don't mention how many inches away that was nor how many smokers were crammed at the table nor the fact that the wind was blowing "just right.)

They got a reading of 80ppm and then tried to compare it to the EPA standards. There's one BIG problem with that: The EPA **VERY** explicitly states in its guidelines that its table is meaningless unless averaged over a 24 hour period (like that sip of coffee thing again.) And the EPA also says that if you don't have readings for part of that 24 hours that your reading HAS to be averaged with the rest.

Now the background reading was 10ppm.... quite healthy. Averaging that 10 minute reading of 80 with 1430 minutes of 10 gives us a total average EPA reading of ... 10.5 which is still absolutely within the healthy range of being under 50ppm.

If you'd like to get a better idea of how they can rig studies like this read my piece on the Klepeis outdoor smoke study that made big headlines about two years ago at:

http://wispofsmoke.net/satire.txt

Go ahead and read it right now: it's not long and I think you'll enjoy it.

Now do you start to get a better idea why I say you've been lied to and made to worry over nothing? Then think about the effects this sort of "research by press release" has on smokers and their friends and families. Think about the divorces that have probably taken place as one spouse tried to "protect their children" from the other spouse's insistence on smoking a cigarette in the garden at night. Think about the hurts, and the bad feelings, and the fights, and the discriminations, and even the hatreds that develop out of these things.

And then you'll begin to get an idea why I put so much energy into fighting them.

Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
June 7, 2011, 9:03 pm
Chicken Underwear from Park Slope says:
Wow Michael

I was just imagining how the world would be if you were to use your powers for good instead of evil.

I base my beliefs and opinions of the FACT that if a person is sitting 5 or 10 feet from me in a restaurant or a park their cigarette smoke will ruin my RIGHT to enjoy my meal or a sunny afternoon.
June 8, 2011, 6:29 am
Lefty One Eye from Rikers says:
Yo Mamma
No I dont regret not starting to smoke, I rather enjoy it expecially now. It keeps the lunatic at a safe distance now.
Yes I still have a choice, since its a legal product sold in every store in AMERICA. Which allows the state goverment to rake in million per year on taxing the legal product. You would be on the hook for the exra tax revenue if I didnt smoke, and we all know how cheap you non smokers are dont we.
So until the Non Smoking cartel come to their senses I will have to deal with their KKK mentality. Hence: It was No Blacks Allowed or as it is now No Smoking Allowed. By order of the KKK
June 8, 2011, 9:06 am
Michael J. McFadden from Ex-Park Sloper says:
Chicken wrote, "I base my beliefs and opinions of the FACT that if a person is sitting 5 or 10 feet from me in a restaurant or a park their cigarette smoke will ruin my RIGHT to enjoy my meal or a sunny afternoon."

Well that's just fine Chicken. As long as you don't try to justify it on the basis of citing studies that don't actually exist. My point is simple, singular, and clear here: there are NO studies showing real harm to people from normal exposures to outdoor smoke. If people want to start passing all sorts of laws dealing with annoyances and then pay the extra taxes to pay for enforcing such laws and dealing with their consequences that's a different argument. I think the city and the world will be a sadder place when we start getting these sorts of laws, but if that's what people want then I guess that's what they'll get.

btw... I most definitely "use (my) powers for good instead of evil." I've seen the results of what giving too much power to the State results in, and it's most definitely evil in the long run.

- MJM
June 9, 2011, 1:29 am
Chicken Underwear from Park Slope says:
No MJM, you are using your powers to protect the profits the tobacco corporations form the State. You could be saving lives.
June 9, 2011, 6:09 am
Michael J. McFadden from Ex-Park Sloper says:
Chicken, the tobacco companies make a profit of about 50 cents per pack. The state/fed/local governments make a profit of close to $4 a pack: that's 800% what the TCs make. - MJM
June 9, 2011, 7:17 am
Chicken Underwear from Park Slope says:
and how much does it cost Uncle Sam to pay for the health care cost of the uninsured smokers?.....

The State is saving lives. (and your money).
June 9, 2011, 8:11 am
Lefty One Eye from Rikers says:
80% of the Obese are NON SMOKERS.!

Cost of obesity approaching $300 billion a year !

http://www.usatoday.com/yourlife/health/medical/2011-01-12-obesity-costs-300-bilion_N.htm
June 10, 2011, 4:50 am
Michael J. McFadden from Ex-Park Sloper says:
Chicken, actually it costs Uncle Sam far less in terms of overall life health care than smokers pay in extra taxes. Smokers are actually subsidizing YOUR health care in the long run since they supposedly die several years younger on the average and don't rack up the hyper-expensive geriatric health care bills. And recent research indicates it's the same for the overweight (as per Lefty's excellent link), except that the overweight aren't contributing an extra to $60,000,000,000.00 a year in taxes.

Think I'm exaggerating? Read "Taxes, Social Costs, and the MSA" at:

http://pasan.thetruthisalie.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=7

and if you have any specific substantive criticisms of anything inside it please feel free to point them out here.

I'm afraid you're left with really only two arguments:

1) You don't like the scent of smoke.

and

2) You believe the government should come into our private lives and dictate how we live "for our own good."

I don't believe either of them justify the intrusiveness of the ban laws and the damage they've caused to lives, livelihoods, and the general social fabric.

- MJM
June 10, 2011, 5:44 am
Chicken Underweear from Park Slope says:
Lefty, We are on the same page now.

Fighting obesity is an even harder battle. Everybody has to eat.

I am very close to a person who quit smoking and gained over 100 pounds.
June 10, 2011, 5:47 am
Lefty One Eye from Riker says:
Chicken Underweear said : Lefty we are on the same page now.
Well if you and I are on the same page then you would agree there should be an Obese People Ban .
No Obese people in the parks , beaches , resturants, public buildings and so forth same as smokers. After all we dont want the young people to get the idea its ok to be Obese do we.?
June 10, 2011, 10:28 am
Chicken Underwear from Park Slope says:
It is much more complicated than that.

Beginning with people have to eat, nobody has to smoke.
June 10, 2011, 8:12 pm
Left One Eye from Rikers says:
Chicken Underwear true people do have to eat. But why do Non Smokers have to eat so much.? I mean look at you people, most of you are over weight and you critize someone for smoking.? Most of you Non Smokes need to step back and take a look in the mirror.!?
If God didnt want people to smoke then was it put on this earth ?
I mean come on 80% of all air pollution is created by you non smokers. Are Non Smokers Hypocrites, I think so.!
June 11, 2011, 3:35 am
Chicken Underwear from Park Slope says:
God put heroin on earth too

20% is a lot of pollution that can be removed. (I honestly don't think it would be event that much)

Most people eat too much, smokers and non-smokers. But, often when people stop smoking they gain a lot of weight. It is about psychology.
June 11, 2011, 6:22 am
Lefty One Eye from Rikers says:
Yes it is about Psychology and you have swallowed the bait hook , line and sinker.
20% of what pollution ?
June 11, 2011, 7:44 am
Lefty One Eye from Rikers says:
God didnt put herion on earth, its man made. But tobacco is all natural.
June 11, 2011, 7:46 am
Chicken Underwear from Park Slope says:
I thought god put everything on earth.

You are really rationalizing your addiction.
June 11, 2011, 10:39 am
Lefty One Eye from Riker says:
Dont play stupid..
God put the poppy on earth, the man figured out how to extract from it to make herion.
Now tobacco can grown , hung to dry then smoked.
Your really rationalizing your addiction to control people by praying on people who use a legal prodcut.
June 11, 2011, 2:56 pm
Chicken Underwear from Park Slope says:
Lefy

I am not playing stupid. I am an atheist and have really no idea what god made.

But I do know that Opium has been around from many thousands of years. It is PHYSICALLY ADDICTING, just like tobacco.

I am not addicted to advising smokers they are killing themselves.

Just because tobacco is legal does not make it any better than heroin. I could sit next to a junkie shooting up on the Q train and it wont give me cancer.
June 11, 2011, 3:35 pm
Michael J. McFadden from Ex-Park Sloper says:
Chicken, Lefty meant that since nonsmokers make up 80% of the population that therefore they also create 80% of the total pollution. The pollution from smoking is something like one one thousandth of a percent of total air pollution.

Also: you could sit next to someone smoking on the Q train and it won't give you cancer either unless you sit there for a very very long time. Even if you believe in the EPA Report (which was thrown out on its poor scientific merits in a federal court, though the case was overturned on jurisdictional technicality later on.) you would have to sit there in the Q train with the smoker for 8 hours a day every day it would take 40,000 train-riding-years to produce on average one single lung cancer.

I don't think you have too much to worry about.

- MJM
June 11, 2011, 7:40 pm
Chicken Underwear from Park Slope says:
MJM

I don't have to read any reports or studies to know that if I sit next to someone who is smoking I get a headache.

Why should I have to get up an move?
June 11, 2011, 9:41 pm
Lefty One Eye from Rickers says:
Chicken Underwear: I dont have any problem with atheist. I dont know what God didnt and did make Im just going by what they tell us.? Hint Hint Get the point.!

You know if you want to be bullheaded and stand your ground thats your business. But you dont make much sense to me, I thought it was about your health, not your attitude. So go ahead and sit there next to a smoker and complaine about a headache, I dont care.

Herion and Opium is not the same so why did you switch horses in the middle of the stream ?
June 12, 2011, 2:03 am
Michael J. McFadden from Ex-Park Sloper says:
Chicken, you weren't talking about "getting a headache." You were talking about getting cancer. I'd say the two things afre vey different. The first may be true for occaionally being around smokers for you. It may be physiological or it may be psychosomatic. Given your earlier comments about "stinks" and such there's a reasonably good chance that it's psychosomatic and that your headaches are not actually caused by the smokers, but by the Antismokers.

And if you understand psychology, physiology, and psychophysiology you'll understand that what I've just said is completely true -- and there's no way for you to ever really know it unless you undergo a sincere and deep-rooted change in your beliefs and attitudes about smoking and smokers.

How can I be so sure, aside from reading studies and stuff? Simply: because I went through the same thing with regard to occasional brushes with gasoline odor at gas stations when I was in my radical pro-bicycle-activist years.

Why should you have to get up and move? You shouldn't. On the Q-train smoking isn't allowed and the smoker is in the wrong. HOWEVER... if you were on a train where smoking WAS allowed then either the smoker should have asked you if you minded them smoking before they sat down (in which case you'd be in the right to be offended) or you should have asked them if they were going to be smoking before YOU sat down (in which case you'd be wrong to be offended.)

- MJM
June 12, 2011, 3:26 am
Chicken Underwear from Park Slope says:
Lefty, I am pointing out that heroin, opium and tobacco are all the same to me, one happens to be legal (and yes, taxed) but they are all physically addiction.

MJM, I don't know if I have cancer, but I do know that tobacco smoke gives me a headache. No, I have not convinced myself that this smoke give me a headache because I am an anti smoking activist. It gave me a headache and nausea back in the '60s when family members will smoke in my home. Back when the tobacco industry convinced the public that smoking was healthy.

BTW, last week on that 100 degree day my kids were in the playground and a elderly man lit a cigarette two benches away. I took a big breath (figuratively, because I wanted to steady my nerves for a potential confrontation) and politely said "Sir, I am not sure if you know, but smoking is non allowed here." He immediately put it out and we spent the next half an hour talking. I turned out he had flown in the day before from Ireland to see his grandchildren. He thought it was a great idea, "Parks are for fresh air and all the things that come with it, not this filthy habit."
June 12, 2011, 6:38 am
Lefty One Eye from Rikers says:
Well Chicken their are a lot of things with physical addictions. Cars are physical addiction and pollutes the air and cause cancer. Where is your out cry to ban cars in the city.? None yet, I know your just waiting for that band wagon to rool around arent you, so you can jump on that one.
You're not really breathing fresh air in the park.! You have just been trained to think that if you ban smoking your breathing fresh air. Your just riding your favorite band wagon presently. Hitler was the master of propaganda and old bloomy has picked up on that and you sheeple are following along guite well.
June 12, 2011, 11:25 pm
Chicken Underwear from Park Slope says:
Cars are not physically addicting.

Hitler was the master of propaganda and old the tobacco industry has picked up on that and you sheeple are following along guite well.

You have been convinced to associate tobacco use with personal freedom.
June 13, 2011, 2:28 am
Lefty One Eye from Rickers says:
Cars are not physical addictions .. lol. What planet do you live on.?

When I buy tobacco or grow I get something for my money. Im not forced to buy tobacco.. I buy it because I want too. I have quit before for many years and I smoke now becasue I like it and want too. No matter what the Nazi's in Ny think.
June 13, 2011, 1:42 pm
Lefty One Eye from Rikers says:
Joseph Goebbels was Adolph Hitler's Propaganda Minister in Nazi Germany. He exerted totalitarian control over the media, arts, and information in Germany. In that position, he perfected the "Big Lie" technique of propaganda which is based on the principle that a lie, if audacious enough and repeated enough times, will be believed by the masses. That is exactly why the vast majority in this country believe second-hand smoke is a danger to non-smokers
June 13, 2011, 1:48 pm
Chicken Underwear from Park Slope says:
Lefty

I don't think you know what a physical addiction is. You should because you a clearly addicted to tobacco.

At this point I am glad to say that if I don't want to interact with you (and smokers like you, nothing personal) all I have to do is go to a park.

I am sure you can say the same about me. You can just sit in your car and smoke and you wont have to be with people like me.
June 13, 2011, 2:06 pm
Lefty One Eye from Rikers says:
I guess you dont know either.
No I will sit in the park and smoke all I want.! Not much you will do about it too.! Because I dont care about your stupid park smoking ban, and I wont abide by it. Not as long as I pay taxes for the up keep of said parks. End of story.
June 13, 2011, 4:49 pm
Chicken Underwear from Park Slope says:
Lefty

I guess it is save to assume you don't really spent much time in parks.
June 13, 2011, 8:24 pm
Chicken Underwear from Park Slope says:
Lefty and MJM

You would probably like the parks here

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QDv4sYwjO0

Do what every you want.
June 14, 2011, 6:33 am

Enter your comment below

By submitting this comment, you agree to the following terms:

You agree that you, and not BrooklynPaper.com or its affiliates, are fully responsible for the content that you post. You agree not to post any abusive, obscene, vulgar, slanderous, hateful, threatening or sexually-oriented material or any material that may violate applicable law; doing so may lead to the removal of your post and to your being permanently banned from posting to the site. You grant to BrooklynPaper.com the royalty-free, irrevocable, perpetual and fully sublicensable license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform and display such content in whole or in part world-wide and to incorporate it in other works in any form, media or technology now known or later developed.

First name
Last name
Your neighborhood
Email address
Daytime phone

Your letter must be signed and include all of the information requested above. (Only your name and neighborhood are published with the letter.) Letters should be as brief as possible; while they may discuss any topic of interest to our readers, priority will be given to letters that relate to stories covered by The Brooklyn Paper.

Letters will be edited at the sole discretion of the editor, may be published in whole or part in any media, and upon publication become the property of The Brooklyn Paper. The earlier in the week you send your letter, the better.

Don’t miss out!

Stay in touch with the stories people are talking about in your neighborhood:

Optional: Help us tailor our newsletters to you!