Cultural Capital

Reflections on books and the arts from the New Statesman culture desk

Fuming mad in New York

Some thoughts on smoking as the outdoor ban is extended in New York to beaches and parks.

By Yo Zushi Published 04 February 2011 14:04

One evening in November 1492, as the wintry chill descended on a stretch of North American coastline, Christopher Columbus welcomed back two exhausted crewmen aboard his ship, the Santa Maria. Luis de Torres and Rodrigo de Jerrez had been sent ahead months earlier on a fool's errand: to search for China in the deep forests of Cuba. On their journeys, the Spanish scouts had witnessed natives "drinking" the smoke emanating from the end of "a musket formed of paper". De Jerrez had been curious enough to partake in this obscure ritual and, in doing so, became the first European to light up, cough and insist to sceptical friends that it was a pleasurable experience, honest. When he returned to his coastal home town of Ayamonte, he was swiftly sent to jail by the Spanish Inquisition; witnesses were so alarmed by the satanic clouds billowing from the corners of his mouth that a seven-year sentence was deemed necessary.

So began the white western world's troubled relationship with the nicotiana tabacum, bane of health-care professionals and tutting parents who insist upon sunning their children in the beer garden of the Prince George on Saturday afternoons (despite knowing that it is commonly used as a smoking area, as the stacked ashtrays suggest). In the Beatles song "I'm So Tired", John Lennon places the blame for cigarette addiction on Queen Elizabeth's goombah, Sir Walter Raleigh, who is dismissed as a "stupid get". It is, however, a curse that has deeper roots in America than in Britain.

Europeans may have "discovered" (or claimed) it when they "discovered" (or wreaked genocidal havoc on) the New World but the practice can be traced back as far as 5000BC, when it was used as part of ritual practices by ancient civilisations across North and South America. The plant has existed in its present form for millions of years: the oldest fossilised specimen, which dates back to the Pleistocene era, was unearthed in the Maranon river basin in north-eastern Peru last year.

The arguments against the evil habit are powerful and largely correct -- in November, a World Health Organisation study found that 600,000 deaths are caused each year by passive smoking, of which 167,000 are children under the age of 15. Smoking reduces your life expectancy by eight to ten years; each puff of smoke contains 60 substances known to cause cancer. More than five million people die every year from smoking-related illnesses, which, in Britain alone, cost £5bn in public spending -- about 6 per cent of the total NHS budget.

This week, councillors in New York State approved an extension of its public-smoking restrictions, prohibiting the yellow of tooth from puffing away on beaches, in parks and even in Times Square. In March 2003, the state introduced its controversial ban in the city's 20,000 bars, clubs and and restaurants, overcoming resistance from anxious bar owners and the 1.3 million local smokers for whom they catered. Yet this latest extension of the law, passed by 36 votes to 12, seems to me to be an excessive move that will only encourage the anti-ban lobby.

According to the BBC, the new rules make it "an offence to smoke in any of the city's 1,700 parks and along 14 miles of coastline". The passive-smoking argument wielded so convincingly in 2003 cannot be applied to outdoor spaces; this gives the impression that the extension is driven by cosmetic, rather than health, concerns. Mayor Michael Bloomberg said, after the vote, "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." If litter is the problem, surely strengthening litter laws should be enough? Smokers have rights and should be allowed to damage themselves if they want to: the state shouldn't be given more powers over people engaging in legal activities that harm no one but themselves.

The western history of ciggies started with de Jerrez's persecution. In this light, perhaps this invasive development isn't so surprising. Now, off for a smoke...

PS. Apologies for the Daily Mail-esque headline.

More from Yo Zushi

25 comments

Sat, 2011-02-05 08:56 — Benedict (not verified)

gene says "That harleyrider guy's been kicked off so many message boards for his boilerplate BS, ..."

Evidence for the above:

Why does harleyrider1978 keep spamming this forum?

http://www.topix.com/forum/health/smoking/T2TUM9GOSLLVJ2SSJ

Tue, 2011-02-08 10:29 — mitchy

Nothing wrong with my grammar, Bucky-boy. I wondered how long it would take you :-)
Nothing to say on dubbya's 'election' then?

Mon, 2011-02-07 12:02 — mitchy

Agreed, this is hardly a free country for the reasons you point out Buckskins, but then your own electoral system is hardly free and democratic is it? You guys got a fuckwit for a president - twice - and didnt really elect him, or did you?
So, while our politians may be corrupt, largely unelected gobshites, at least they can string a fucking sentence together.

Sun, 2011-02-06 14:13 — Phil Johnson (not verified)

Mayor Bloomberg is a complete asshole for introducing this! How can this stand up in a court of law when we are talking about outside areas-where smokers are supposed to be. The other question that springs to mind is this: just how much Big Pharma money is finding its way into Bloombergs pockets?

Fri, 2011-02-04 15:31 — Charles (not verified)

The majority of studies show that second hand smoke causes little or no harm to others in enclosed areas, and completely harmless in open areas.
The New York police cannot issue on the spot fines because of corruption, so any tourist is unlikely to have to pay any fine.

Fri, 2011-02-04 15:46 — Dave C (not verified)

I think the evidence for banning outdoor smoking on health grounds (passive smoking) is weak.

However, all too often you go to a lovely sandy beach and find you're walking on other people's dog-ends.

So a ban might be justified on the ground of littering.

Fri, 2011-02-04 16:13 — harleyrider1978 (not verified)

’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

Fri, 2011-02-04 16:15 — harleyrider1978 (not verified)

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.

Sat, 2011-02-05 17:01 — F Wilson (not verified)

Choice is a wonderful thing in a Free Country.

Fri, 2011-02-04 17:04 — F Wilson (not verified)

The WHO could not prove that passive smoke was a danger,so where did they get that figure of 600,000 from,not one person has died as a direct result of passive smoke,fact,but it seems anti tobacco,anti choice has managed to infringe even more on peoples civil liberties,so you cannot walk around an open park with a Lit cigarette but you can with a Loaded Gun. Only in America

Fri, 2011-02-04 17:56 — harleyrider1978 (not verified)

B.S. Study: 600,000 People Die Worldwide From Secondhand Smoke Every Year

http://grendelreport.posterous.com/bs-study-600000-people-die-worldwide-...

Green Hell Blog
How Environmentalists Plan to Control Your Life and What You Can Do to Stop Them
http://greenhellblog.com/2010/12/12/surgeon-general-jumps-the-shark/

Anti-Smoking Lie of the Year

http://reason.com/blog/2010/12/29/anti-smoking-lie-of-the-year#commentco...

Sun, 2011-02-06 20:56 — Dave Atherton

@Benedict and Gene,

The reason Harley Rider is not kicked off UK forums is that the UK has this vague idea in free speech and democracy, unlike pharmaceutically funded junk scientists from the USA with major conflicts of interest. Most of who do not declare it.

Shame on you corporate parasites.

Mon, 2011-02-07 19:14 — gene (not verified)

more libel from the harleyrider spammer. what a scumbag, paid or not.

Fri, 2011-02-04 18:14 — louisceline (not verified)

Considering the claims that secondhand smoke is so harmful and the expanding laws making smoking evermore socially unacceptable you wonder why they don't ban tobacco outright. They don't because they depend on the taxes the sale of cigarettes provide. The excessive tax (in some states equaling $3-$5 per pack) make up billions of dollars that the States rely on in their budgets to fund such items as school systems, road repair projects, health care not just for smokers but non-smokers who tend to live longer with various illnesses thus ironically costing more in the long run. For this extra contribution to the benefit of all they're forced to pay, they can't even sit down in even a deserted area of a park and enjoy a smoke.

Fri, 2011-02-04 20:12 — Brittany B. (not verified)

Lawmakers fought tooth and nail to pass the "no smoking in bars or restaurants" law, and succeeded. They fought to pass the "no smoking at public parks or beaches" law, and succeeded. What about the, "no smoking in the car with babies, toddlers, or children"?, or the, "no smoking in the house with babies, toddlers or children"? Too often do I see parents at stop lights, or in parking lots with young children kicking in the backseat, while they light up and puff away at a cigarette; filling the small compartment that is their vehicle with smoke.
Bloomberg said, "New Yorkers who go to our parks and beaches for some fresh air and fun will be able to breathe even cleaner air". What about the ones who don't have a voice? The ones who grow up with numerous health issues because Mayor Bloomberg and the lawmakers thought it was more important to ban smoking outdoors than to put an end to parents who smoke in the vehicle with their small children, or in their homes with no ventilation.

Fri, 2011-02-04 21:23 — swatantra nandanwar

About ime the smoking ban was extended. Don't they realise the harm they're doing to the ozone layer and its effect on global warming. And todays reports of an increase in breast cancer rates should make everyone stop and think.

Fri, 2011-02-04 22:30 — Adam (not verified)

Laws like this only breed a culture of contempt and disrespect for the law. I've been to Central Park before, and I have seen people drinking and using illegal drugs with impunity. If the city can't enforce the current laws against a small number of miscreants and vegabonds, how do they expect to enforce the new smoking law against a much larger group of smokers from respectable society? I have seen first hand the effect of outdoor second-hand smoke laws where I live, Ottawa, whose transit company, OC Transpo, banned smoking upon all their property. What a joke! People still smoke, more so now than before even, as though smokers were trying to make a point, and with all the ashtray tops removed from the garbage cans, cigarette butts were omnipresent. When transit cops roll by, the smokers will conceal their smoke under their palm or behind a garbage can or newspaper box, and without fail, avoid detection. When approached by an anti-smoker and smugly reminded of the smoking ban, a smoker will retort with a barrage of obscenities and challenge the neurotic control freak to either physical combat, or to call the transit cops, knowing that they will come after the smoke has been finished. Enjoy less civil relations with your neighbour! Thank god we can smoke at our parks and beaches!

Wed, 2011-04-06 01:52 — gene (not verified)

>>The reason Harley Rider is not kicked off UK forums is that the UK has this vague idea in free speech and democracy

So opines harley's fellow spammer, the holier-than-thou Atherton.

Sat, 2011-02-05 05:30 — gene (not verified)

That harleyrider guy's been kicked off so many message boards for his boilerplate BS, it leaves him more time to spam the unprotected ones, like the New Statesman's.

Sat, 2011-02-05 05:42 — harleyrider1978 (not verified)

yep ol genes been making a living selling lies and deciet while drawing a paycheck from the robert woods johnson foundation for years.....johnson and johnson big pharma the guys who make nicorette and the patches.....I suppose we could say ol gens theyre top salesman.....

Rendez-vous with . . . Gene Borio
Webmaster of www.tobacco.org
New York , NY , USA
geneb@tobacco.org

By Philippe Boucher

I funded my own activities out of my computer work and savings for 10 years. It got rough. I would receive small contributions from terrific people with no more to spare than I had. I well remember my first significant donation of $250 from the wonderful folks at Americans for Non-Smokers' Rights! I had to turn down a couple of major contributions from the industry. When I was on the brink of having to abandon TBBS in 1999, Tac chipped in hugely to support the work. In 2000 the ALF picked up support, and now we are to receive funding from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

http://www.tobacco.org/resources/rendezvous/borio.html

yep right from genes own mouth he admits getting funding from the robert woods johnson foundation

and on his own site too! tobacco.org

want the rest of the skinny on the RWJF grants and tobacco control..........

Return to: PHARMACEUTICAL MULTINATIONALS: BUYING GOVERNMENTS, SELLING ANTISMOKING

List of Organizations, Institutions, Companies & Groups

Funded by Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Grants & Contracts

http://www.forces.org/evidence/money/listorg.htm

Why tobacco.org is moving toward a subscription service
Author: Tac

For the past several years, tobacco.org has been funded by several of the major players in the tobacco control movement, most recently by TTAC, which is funded by the American Legacy Foundation, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, and the American Cancer Society. We've been grateful for the funding we've received over the past several years.

However, funding through TTAC ended in June. We received transitional funding from RWJ and Legacy, but with it came the requirement that tobacco.org become a self-supporting subscription service.

If you work for an organization that does tobacco control or public health, please plan to contribute for the news service (both web and email), so this service can continue!

Thanks!

Tac
http://www.tobacco.org/resources/general/subscription_plan.html

Sat, 2011-02-05 07:18 — Adam (not verified)

I commend you harleyrider1978, I too have been deeply concerned about the growing expansion of smoking prohibitions. If the powers that be succeed in this social engineering, they will be emboldened to seek new crusades against other "undesirable" behaviour. These tyrants who rule over us for our supposed good are the worse, for they will never cease in their quest to subjugate us since they act with a clear conscious.