By Joanna Fantozzi & Allison Volpe

Recently, the City Council addressed the issue of raising the smoking age from 18 to 21. New York State is following suit with Assembly Member Linda Rosenthal’s bill that would make it illegal for those under 21 to buy cigarettes. The bill bans suppliers and stores from selling any tobacco products to under-age youths. Each year in New York, according to the Assembly Member, 53,000 people under the age of 18 become regular smokers. As a former smoker herself, Rosenthal wants to try and nip young nicotine habits in the bud.

“From a personal standpoint I started smoking when I was 17 and I smoked for almost 20 years,” said Rosenthal. “I went through the whole get addicted when you’re younger thing. You also don’t realize how badly you feel until you stop smoking for awhile, its so hard to quit.”

We took to the streets on the Upper
West Side to find out what local residents think of the push to keep cigarettes out of the hands of teenagers.

Neal Bloom, 42, Tribeca
“I’m completely for it. I have two kids of my own, and I’d be really disappointed if either of them became smokers. It is just so terrible for your health, and I don’t think young people fully understand that. So I think raising the age would be very helpful.”

Robert Ferrara, 20, Upper West Side
“I think it’s ridiculous. I have every right to be able to smoke a pack of cigarettes. It’s ridiculous enough that the drinking age is 21. People my age are allowed to get married and fight in wars, yet we can’t drink and shouldn’t be able to smoke? It doesn’t make sense.”

Erin Earey, 28, East Village
“I mean, if kids really want to smoke, they’re going to find a way to get their hands on cigarettes regardless. I’d be for it though. My brother has been smoking since he was 14, and I really wish he didn’t. It does worry me.”

Jenny Son, 24, Lower East Side
“I’m all for it. Too many young people smoke and are destroying their health so early. I don’t think 18 year olds realize what a serious decision they’re making when smoking. Three years may not seem like a lot of time, but I think a college freshman is more susceptible to start smoking than someone who is about to graduate.”

Joseph Awgul, 35, Upper East Side
“I honestly don’t care either way. I think most kids smoke when they’re a teenager in high school or in college, and then just stop when they get older. I don’t see it as a pressing issue.”

NADLER, CUOMO ATTACK DELAY IN SANDY AID
The House of Representatives’ failure to vote on a $60 billion Hurricane Sandy disaster aid bill last week prompted a number of angry responses by local elected officials representing the storm-ravaged city.

“This is a betrayal of the millions of Americans who are struggling after Sandy and a trivialization of the loss of more than 100 American lives,” said Congressman Jerrold Nadler. “Not taking up the $60 billion Sandy funding bill will mean that many Americans could remain homeless, the rebuilding of homes and businesses across the Northeast will be delayed, and the coastal infrastructure of the region will remain damaged and vulnerable to the next storm.”

He noted that agencies including the Metropolitan Transportation Authority and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers could not proceed with major repairs until funding is secured.

Local governors were similarly incensed. “This failure to come to the aid of Americans following a severe and devastating natural disaster is unprecedented,” Gov. Andrew Cuomo said in a joint statement with New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie. “The fact that days continue to go by while people suffer, families are out of their homes, and men and women remain jobless and struggling during these harsh winter months is a dereliction of duty.”

Mayor Michael Bloomberg expressed more patience about the delay. “You know, democracy is something that takes a while to come together and to get the results,” he said. “As long as it turns out that we get the monies that we think are appropriate for the federal government to send to a part of the country that’s had a major natural disaster, all’s well that ends well.”

The House cast a preliminary vote to direct funds to the National Flood Insurance Program on Friday, and has scheduled to vote on the remaining aid on Jan. 15, the first day of legislative business from the new 113th Congress.

FIRE FATALITIES DROP TO LOWEST NUMBER EVER
Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Fire Commissioner Salvatore Cassano announced last week that 2012 saw the fewest civilian fire deaths in New York City history. Fifty-eight people died in blazes, four fewer than the former record low of 62 deaths in 2010, and a 12 percent decline from the 66 deaths in 2011. It was the seventh consecutive year that fire-related deaths have numbered under 100, which has occurred only 12 times since the city began keeping records in 1916.

The top two causes of fire-related deaths last year were accidental electrical fires and smoking. Forty-three percent of those killed in a blaze were over the age of 70, and 79 percent of the fatal fires struck where there were no working smoke detectors.

Bloomberg and Cassano also announced that FDNY’s Emergency Medical Service set a new record last year for fastest average ambulance response time: The new record, 6:30, is down one second from 2011’s previous record.

“With a record low number of murders and shootings and the fewest fire deaths in our city’s history, 2012 was a historic year for public safety,” Bloomberg said. “The FDNY has consistently improved fire safety over the past decade and has continued to drive response times to historic lows. These achievements and the efforts by our firefighters, EMTs and paramedics to save lives—while putting theirs on the line—is the reason fewer New Yorkers died as a result of fire in 2012 than ever before.”

POLITICAL MEMORABILIA SHOW TO HOST ED POTTER AWARD
The American Political Items Collectors’ Big Apple Ed Potter Chapter is sponsoring its 25th annual Political Collectors Show on Sunday, Feb. 3. The show will run from 9 a.m. to 2 p.m. at the Sixth Street Community Synagogue, 325 E. Sixth St., and will feature over 10,000 political items for sale, including buttons, posters, mugs, bandannas, watches and clothing that cover the presidencies of George Washington to Barack Obama, as well as a special exhibition of political memorabilia from the 2012 election.

The show will also include the presentation of the fourth annual Ed Potter Memorial Awards, named after the political memorabilia collector, which are given to those involved in the political process who have used political items and artifacts in their campaigns. This year’s recipients are New York State Assemblyman and City Councilman Adam Clayton Powell and Manhattan Media’s own CEO and mayoral hopeful Tom Allon.

Admission is $3 for adults and free for children under 16. For more information, call 212-764-6330.

I quit smoking in May 2002 and was diagnosed with first-stage emphysema in May 2004. I asked my doctor what the next step was to get rid of the disease; he said there was no known cure for emphysema and the most important thing I could do was not return to smoking. He also said that second-hand smoke exposure was just as dangerous to me as smoking my own cigarettes, and to avoid it in the same manner.

I was very fortunate to live in a smoke-free dwelling. My landlord at that time was a New York City fireman, and was completely opposed to anyone smoking in his four-unit home. In 2009, New York City fire marshals determined that 556 fires had been caused by careless smoking, so in the lease agreement that I—and the three other renters—signed was an addendum about the no smoking policy. I have since moved into a three-family house that also has a smoke-free policy in the lease.

At this time, most New Yorkers living in multiple dwellings are not as fortunate as I am. There is no safe level of second-hand smoke exposure for anyone. Even people who have never smoked a cigarette themselves are exposed to low levels of second-hand smoke and can have the same lung abnormalities seen in smokers.

In our city, 200,000 children are exposed to second-hand smoke in their own homes. I feel that smoke-free housing is vitally important—and according to a recent survey commissioned by the city, 64 percent of New Yorkers agree, saying they want to live in smoke-free housing. In fact, in another recent poll done by the Coalition for a Smoke-free City, 58 percent of New Yorkers questioned said they would shell out more money to live in a smoke-free environment.
I applaud the new legislation being proposed by Mayor Michael Bloomberg and his administration, which would require building owners and managers to disclose their buildings’ smoking policies. It is designed for informational purposes only and would not specifically state whether buildings should or should not allow smoking. The requirement would afford potential tenants and buyers, including the 86 percent of non-smoking New Yorkers, to make an informed decision regarding this issue.

It is also a great fit for New York State’s Real Property Law, which states that every tenant has the right to be free of “dangerous, hazardous or detrimental” conditions. It will not affect exiting leases, but renewal leases will be required to include the information about the property’s policy on smoking. In addition, all tenants will be informed of their building’s smoking policy once the new policy goes into effect.

Since quitting smoking 10 years ago, I have devoted my life to helping others quit, as well as advocating for policies that curb the public’s exposure to secondhand smoke. I feel that this policy makes good sense on countless levels. I urge you to support this policy, which will help improve the health and well-being of all New Yorkers.

Adam Steiner is the SmokeFree project counselor at The Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual & Transgender Community Center in New York City.

By Courtney M. Holbrook

A slim, pale woman puffs away on a cigarette. A cloud of smoke rises from perfect red lips beneath a sign—“Marlboro Menthols, $10.75.”

A bright window advertises candy, snack food and soda brands. Wrapped around the display in bright green foil, white block letters read “KOOLS, KOOLS, KOOLS.” In the corner, a mint-green box of KOOLS lies next to the Snickers bars.

A long white cigarette pops out against a black background. With a high-tech look and clean colors, it could pass as an advertisement for an Apple product. Beneath the cigarette, large block letters scream out the message “SMOKELESS CIGARETTES.”

These advertisements show up on bodegas across the street from a children’s playground on the Lower East Side. Head down the street, and a customer can walk past Emma Lazarus High School and MS 131.

Take a walk through Chinatown, and make an attempt to buy cigarettes. Although it may not apply to every bodega, it is still possible to purchase cigarettes without receiving an ID check from the man or woman behind the counter.

Despite the increasingly severe crackdown on smoking in New York City, anti-smoking activists are concerned that kids in Lower Manhattan neighborhoods are still lighting up and getting hooked.

“Young people want to fit in and feel cool,” said Adam Steiner, a SmokeFree Project counselor at the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual & Transgender Community Center in the West Village. “At a young age, kids are extremely vulnerable to the messages all over the place. And when it comes to smoking, they’re seeing these messages in stores right near their schools.”

According to Steiner, approximately 17,000 high school students in New York City smoke. Steiner says this high figure is due to the alliance between convenience stores and tobacco companies.

“Go to a Rite Aid or a bodega, and you’ll see the massive power walls of cigarettes,” Steiner said. “These power walls are displayed right in front of the candy bars. Why are they not under the counter? Kids shouldn’t see these products as normal things on sale.”

Such ads and displays are meant to be highly visible, but they are not illegal, however. As long as cigarettes are kept behind the counter, bodegas and convenience stores have every right to display them as they choose, according to the Department of Consumer Affairs.

“I am not doing anything illegal by selling my cigarettes to customers who are over 18,” said one bodega owner in the Lower East Side, who would only give his first name, Mohammad. “I ask for ID, I give them what they want. I don’t do anything illegal.”

The problem of legality may restrict customer complaints about tobacco advertising. If parents or other concerned community members have problems with the way bodegas are promoting their products, they can contact their community boards. These boards, in turn, contact the Department of Consumer Affairs or the District Attorney’s Office.

Community Board No. 2 encompasses Greenwich Village, NoHo, SoHo, Little Italy, Chinatown, Hudson Square and Gansevoort Market. Bob Gormley, the district manager for Community Board No. 2, said they would have a problem with any youth-targeted advertising— f they were receiving complaints.

“We have not had a single complaint from anyone about the tobacco products or the advertisements in bodegas in our area,” Gormley said. “Obviously, if we did, we could contact the appropriate agencies.”

Gormley said that although it is “clear that tobacco kills, we haven’t heard anything from families or teachers complaining about their kids being sold or pressured to buy tobacco products from convenience stores.”

Marie Myman, a 22-year-old barista at Momofuku Milk Bar, grew up on the Lower East Side and started smoking when she was 12. Myman does not see her old smoking habits as the result of advertisements at convenience stores.

“I started smoking because I wanted to fit in with my older friends,” Myman said. “I thought smoking was cool because the older kids were doing it. We definitely weren’t looking to the posters on bodegas for signs that it was OK.”

However, Danny McGoldrick, vice president of research for the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids, insists that the “unholy alliance” with convenience stores has allowed tobacco companies to continue targeting youth.

“Since tobacco advertising is banned in most major media outlets today, tobacco companies have stepped up their game in marketing through convenience stores,” McGoldrick said. “[Tobacco companies] spend almost $10 billion a year to push their products in convenience stores and other retail areas … that’s more than 90 percent of their budget.”

The alliance between convenience stores and tobacco companies comes together with printed advertisements and point-of-sale marketing. According to the 2012 Surgeon General’s report released by the federal government, children tend to be more price-sensitive than adults; through point-of-sale marketing, tobacco companies and convenience stores offer price discounts and coupons that may encourage new smokers. These incentives also tend to occur in lower-income areas, where prices may be more of a concern.

“We know point-of-sale is where the vast majority of tobacco advertisement occurs,” McGoldrick said. “By making tobacco more affordable and accessible, [tobacco companies] have made it normal.”

The sense of “normalcy” that surrounds tobacco advertisements in convenience stores is the primary risk for children. From the time “you can walk into a bodega, you’re exposed to cigarettes. They’re everyday, and that is insidious … you may not realize what’s driving a kid to try that first cigarette, because it’s just a part of everyday life,” Steiner noted.

According to McGoldrick and Steiner, tobacco companies use their money to pressure convenience stores to display cigarettes in an open, positive way. Concerned parents may not even notice these advertisements. When approached about this topic, most bodega owners refused to comment.

Right now, the way to fight back lies in two corner —politics and economics. In the same way children are drawn to cigarettes through discounts, various anti-smoking groups recommend even greater price increases for cigarettes in New York City. The Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids also recommends that steps be taken to force tobacco companies to advertise in black and white text; by taking away colorful images, they hope to reduce the appeal for children.

“On a statewide level, we need to invest more of our budget into anti-smoking programs in schools, where so many anti-smoking initiatives may stop after elementary school,” McGoldrick said. “Right now, tobacco companies outspend states. … If we can get states to dedicate 15 percent of their budget toward tobacco prevention, we could really see changes.”

Steiner noted the real fight must take place before children begin smoking. Once they have started, the difficulty moves beyond the first problem of addiction, and toward legal problems.

“It’s beyond the fact that quitting smoking is so difficult,” Steiner said. “As someone who helps people quit, I can’t work with those under 18. I can’t offer them nicotine replacements, because they’re under 18 and it’s illegal to smoke and illegal to use products with nicotine that help you quit. So, it becomes incredibly difficult to help.”

For now, the convenience stores of Lower Manhattan continue to plaster cigarette advertisements on glass walls and behind counters stacked with bright boxes of tobacco products. But those in the anti-smoking community hope that someday those power walls will cease to exist, and tobacco companies will lose their supply of new customers.

“Kids may want to be cool and, at that age, they also think they’re indestructible,” Steiner said. “For that reason, we need to spread the awareness of what is going on. People need to know that the advertisements they see in their local bodega can be extremely dangerous.”

Their selfishness literally seeps through the vents into our apartments.

Oh, sure, I believe people have a legal right to smoke in their homes—if they keep their smoke within the confines of their apartments.

That rarely happens. So let’s think about a great big new in-the-apartment smoking ban. At least in my building.

Granted, I’m cranky. My clothes smell like I’ve been clubbing in the 1980s. Is there a vent in my closet that I don’t know about? Beyond my space, I noticed a few minutes ago while in the laundry room that the odor there shifts from that Tide smell to the building workers’ cigarettes.

There will be no cessation in the smoking debate in this town. Mayor Michael Bloomberg recently unveiled the latest front in what amounts to his administrative war. He wants city apartment buildings officially to go on record as to whether smoking is permitted in all indoor and outdoor locations, including—here’s the fun part—inside apartments.

Some smokers are horrified their mayor is reaching into their apartments. Not me. I’m thrilled that rude behavior hostile to my health is finally up for debate. These days, I like the idea of a building where nobody is smoking, not even the scuzzy-looking people by the front door. Those folks always seem like they walked out of The Grapes of Wrath. These untouchables seem so displaced that I almost feel sorry for them. Almost.

Mostly, these days, I feel sorry for me. Cause I cannot even figure out where the smoke is coming from. Granted, I’m not alone. The building management sent out an announcement last month about the issue. “Many neighbors have voiced concerns over the smoke that comes through the vents, doorways and windows of neighbors who smoke cigarettes,” the flier said. “Secondhand smoke is extremely dangerous for asthmatics, the elderly and especially young children.”

Oh, asthma. Did I mention I was diagnosed with asthma after a couple of years in my building? Anyway, the building flier had three tips for residents: Smoke outside of the building; use a “smokeless ashtray,” something I’m skeptical about, especially since the jerks in my building are not buying them; or “quit—that’s the healthiest option for everyone.”

Critics, citing Bloomberg’s no-smoking policy in restaurants and bars and now parks, say he’s creating a nanny state. All I know is that I like breathing again. The mayor deserves credit for being largely ahead of his time on these issues. It only takes a visit to a city without these policies for a non-smoker to appreciate Nanny Bloomberg anew.

I get that there is another side to this issue, but there’s so much smoke in my apartment that I cannot see it clearly.

Oh, and not to sound old-fashioned, I’m not thrilled with the marijuana smoke, either. Or, more specifically, the incense on my floor that’s doing a lame-ass job of covering up the marijuana smoke.

Sorry, smokers, but at least I admit to the ugly stuff in the recesses of my mind. Earlier today I was walking on West 38th Street. Strolling behind a smoker in an ugly jacket (he evidently spends his dough on cigs and not clothes) as the awful smell wafted back toward my nostrils and lungs, I actually began to wonder whether even that awful little moment should be legal. Why should this dude be able to smoke on a busy sidewalk? I want fresh air, or the nearest possible approximation offered in this big town.

This is real life, not an episode of Mad Men.

Christopher Moore is a writer living in Manhattan. He’s available by email at ccmnj@aol.com and also on Twitter
(@cmoorenyc).

By Rosemary Kalikow

“Don’t you want to be alive to dance at my wedding someday?” asked my 18-year-old son, Brett.

My husband and I were up in Cambridge for the first parents’ college weekend. Brett was apparently majoring in Jewish guilt at Harvard. “How can a mother possibly reply to that question?” I thought as I reluctantly snuffed out the cigarette I was smoking. It’s not that I hadn’t tried quitting before. I had, in fact, stopped smoking when I was pregnant with Brett, but ran to buy a pack of cigarettes the day I returned from the hospital. Twice I’d attended a “smoke enders” course at the 92nd Street Y. I’d get down to smoking two to three cigarettes a day (from a full pack), but then I’d have a bad day at work and start puffing away. I’d gone to see a hypnotist. I can’t say whether I was put into a trance or not, but when I left his office I couldn’t wait to light up. I tried Nicorette gum, then started smoking cigarettes along with the gum. The nicotine patch was also a bust.

Quite truthfully, I never stopped because I really didn’t want to give up smoking. For 30 years, cigarettes were my best friends. They calmed me when I was anxious. They enabled me to overcome my desire to snack, thus helping me stay thin. They were my comrades when I chatted on the phone. They were my companions when I went for a walk. They remained my best date in a social cocktail setting.

Then my favorite newscaster, Peter Jennings, announced to the world that he was diagnosed with lung cancer from smoking, and died soon thereafter. How could that be? He was so vibrant and strong. Then my son challenged me to stay alive for his wedding. This was throwing down the gauntlet, especially since Brett hadn’t even started dating a girl yet. I might have to wait years for that wedding to materialize.

As a final effort, I got acupuncture. Not a traditional Chinese technician, but rather a Jewish doctor named Naomi Rabinowitz. It seemed like an interesting combination of Eastern meets Western philosophy. Each session, I lay down on a table while she stuck needles into various parts of my body, including my head. “This really isn’t painful,” I would think to myself, as she turned out the lights and I slumbered for the next half hour. I was glad, however, when the needles were removed and I got Chinese herbs to take away my withdrawal symptoms.

During those six weeks, I did not have my usual withdrawal jitters, nicotine cravings or weight gain. I did quit smoking all cigarettes.

It’s been four years now without even a puff, yet I still walk by a newsstand and get such a yearning. I know that if I have even one cigarette I’ll be hooked again, so I completely stay away from this evil addictive weed.

My son is now 22 and a college grad. To my great joy, he has not only started dating but has fallen in love with a fabulous young lady. They’ve been a couple for two years now. I wonder if this might be the one. I can’t help but ruminate, how many more years will it be before they want to get married? There isn’t even a remote chance that I’ll pick up another cigarette until I reach that milestone. Then I’ll have to ask myself, “Don’t you want to stick around for grandchildren?” 

–
Rosemary Kalikow was a talk show producer at ABC and Court TV Network for 25 years. She is currently working as a freelance writer in New York.

A: Radon and asbestos are causes, too. Radon is an invisible, odorless and radioactive gas that occurs naturally in soil and rocks. Asbestos has been used for fireproofing, electrical insulation, building materials, brake linings and chemical filters.

But cigarette smoking is the number one cause of lung cancer. Before cigarette smoking became popular in the early part of the 20th century, doctors rarely saw patients with lung cancer. Nearly 90 percent of people with lung cancer developed it because they smoked cigarettes.

The good news is that smoking is not as popular as it used to be. In 1965, about 42 percent of all adults smoked, but by 1997, only 25 percent did. Also, there has been a sharp drop in lung cancer deaths among men, mainly because fewer men are smoking.

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death in men and women in the United States. It occurs most often between the ages of 55 and 65.

Common symptoms of lung cancer include: a persistent cough that worsens, constant chest pain, coughing up blood, shortness of breath, wheezing or hoarseness, repeated problems with pneumonia or bronchitis, swelling of the neck and face, loss of appetite or weight loss and fatigue.

If you have any of these symptoms, it is important to check with a doctor immediately. If tests show that you have cancer, you should make treatment decisions as soon as possible. Studies show that early treatment leads to better outcomes.

The standard treatments for lung cancer are surgery to remove a tumor, chemotherapy with anti-cancer drugs, radiation to kill cancer cells and photodynamic therapy, a newer technique that uses a laser with a chemical to kill cancer cells.

There are two major types of lung cancer: non-small cell lung cancer and small cell lung cancer. Each type of lung cancer grows and spreads in different ways, and each is treated differently.

Non-small cell lung cancer is more common than small cell lung cancer. Doctors treat patients with non-small cell lung cancer in several ways. Surgery is a common treatment. Cryosurgery, a treatment that freezes and destroys cancer tissue, may be used to control symptoms in the later stages of non-small cell lung cancer. Doctors may also use radiation therapy and chemotherapy to slow the progress of the disease and to manage symptoms.

Small cell lung cancer grows more quickly and is more likely to spread to other organs in the body. In many cases, cancer cells have already spread to other parts of the body when the disease is diagnosed. In order to reach cancer cells throughout the body, doctors almost always use chemotherapy.

Treatment for small cell lung cancer may also include radiation therapy aimed at the tumor in the lung or tumors in other parts of the body, such as in the brain. Surgery is part of the treatment plan for a small number of patients with small cell lung cancer.

Some patients with small cell lung cancer have radiation therapy to the brain even though no cancer is found there. This treatment is given to prevent tumors from forming in the brain.

–
If you have a question, please write to fred@healthygeezer.com.

The fact that New York City air is already polluted is not an argument against a ban. A high crime rate is not an argument for committing more crimes. And just because studies haven’t yet shown bodily harm from secondhand smoke outdoors doesn’t mean that no harm is being done. Any smoke is harmful for living things. When I walk behind a smoker I am getting a pretty concentrated dose of smoke from the cigarette, even if the smoker is not inhaling.

Health issues aside, don’t non-smokers have a right to breathe smoke-free air outside? When I go to a park I am trying to enjoy nature and the outdoors. That does not include the pervasive odor of burning tobacco.

Richard Epro
West 44th Street

—-
To the Editor:
Thank you, Ms. Colvin, for including me in your well-balanced report (“No Ifs, Ands or Butts,” Sept. 24).

Included in the article is the repeat of the declaration by the Department of Health that “the smoking rate dropped from 21.5 percent in 2002 to 15.8 percent in 2008.”

The alleged results are used to justify anti-smoker policies by boasting a decline in the number of smokers. Except my organization has refuted the validity of these figures year after year—this one being no different.

The methodology employed—telephone survey—to obtain these statistics is wholly unreliable. When the targets of a crusade reeking of intolerance have been so vilified and persecuted, they will lie to authorities when asked, “Do you Smoke?” The respondents’ fear of being truthful is undoubtedly cemented when the survey begins with, “I am calling for the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene. We’re conducting an important study to improve the health and health care of New Yorkers.”

A prime example was recently handed to us by none other than the Department of Health itself. By its own unpublicized admission, information the department announced to the public was subsequently found to be neither accurate nor unquestionable. In a study conducted by the department in 2004 and released this past April, researchers used a more reliable method—blood tests—and found that the smoking prevalence that year was 23.3 percent, not 18.4 percent, as originally announced in 2005 for the same year. The study concedes blood measurements are “presumably reflecting a more accurate assessment than is possible with self-reported smoking status captured via telephone survey.” Their original claim was off by 27 percent. It’s likely higher than that due to other flaws in this study’s methodology.

Not one of the yearly results for the total number of current smokers, and thus the subsequent comparative differentials, is a reliable conclusion. The entire historical account is a house of cards.

To be clear, my organization neither encourages nor discourages smoking. What we’re advocating against is propaganda manufactured to drive the zealots’ agenda. Government misleading the public for the sake of imposing its will on them is offensive. It’s infuriating how the department is allowed to get away with crowing figures to the media that, oops, turn out to be wrong and offer no correction in any public statement.

Audrey Silk
Founder, NYC C.L.A.S.H. (Citizens Lobbying Against Smoker Harassment)

Letters have been edited for clarity, style and brevity.

In 2003, New York City implemented in a smoking ban in all restaurants and bars, severing the sacred bond between nicotine and liquor and forcing the 17 percent of New Yorkers who classify themselves as smokers to take their habits to the curb.

Now City Health Commissioner Thomas Farley has proposed a ban on lighting up in the city’s more than 1,700 parks and recreation facilities, and on its 14 miles of beaches, meaning that even the great outdoors would be closed to those with a nicotine habit.

After the city banned smoking in indoor commercial spaces, the smoking rate dropped from 21.5 percent in 2002 to 15.8 percent in 2008.

“We don’t think children, parents, when they’re standing at soccer games, should have to be breathing in smoke from the person next to them,” Farley told reporters after unveiling the city’s new plan earlier this month. “We don’t think our children should have to be watching someone smoke.”

The mayor’s response to the commissioner’s proposal, however, was unusually tepid, and it seems unlikely that a full-fledged ban will gain traction with a mayoral election gathering steam.

But the wheels are now in motion. Across the country, cities have been taking steps that bring them closer and closer to an outright ban on smoking in nearly every corner but the home. Smoking may be legal, but local governments are learning that one of the best ways to choke the habit is not by telling people not to smoke, but by making it nearly impossible for them to do so.

“This is almost a prohibitionist crusade now,” said Christopher Snowdo, one of the leading experts on the anti-smoking movement and author of Velvet Glove, Iron Fist: A History of Anti-Smoking.

Like hard-core pornography he said, “We are getting very, very close to it being prohibited without it being illegal.”

And city smokers are feeling the burn.

“This is the new and improved bigotry,” said Audrey Silk, founder of Citizens Lobbying Against Smoker Harassment (C.L.A.S.H.), the city’s most prominent group protecting smokers’ rights.

California has been the leader in the nation’s bid to stamp out smokers entirely. In numerous cities throughout the state, smoking is prohibited not only in parks and on beaches, but in personal vehicles and on major public streets. The city of Belmont banned smoking in apartment buildings and condos; Berkley outlawed it on sidewalks.

Other states have been following California’s clean-air lead. Some 30 states have now banned smoking in all work places, including restaurants and bars, said Dr. Kenneth E. Warner, co-author of Tobacco Control Policy and dean of the School of Public Health at the University of Michigan. He predicts that in the next five years, almost all states will move to the smoke-free column.

Bloomberg, himself a heavy smoker for years, has long spearheaded the war against tobacco in New York and has personally donated hundreds of millions of dollars over the years to fund anti-smoking research and programs.

To the surprise of many, the mayor backed down from the commissioner’s beach and park proposal almost immediately. Over the past week, he has acknowledged both the minimal health risk associated with second-hand smoke outdoors, as well as pointed out practical concerns with enforcing a full-fledged ban in parks when police have bigger fires to fight.

“The real issue is if you’re sitting in the middle of Sheep Meadow and you’re the only one there, are you doing any damage to anybody other than killing yourself? Probably not,” the mayor said, raising eyebrows among supporters.

Mayoral spokesman Jason Post reiterated that Bloomberg’s office supports the idea of a full-fledged ban in parks and on beaches, but officials “have to study what is practical.”

For now, the mayor has suggested a partial ban in certain sections of city parks instead of banning smoking entirely. But make no mistake. The mayor’s opinion of smoking is just as hard-lined as it has always been.

“This city is not walking away from our commitment to make it as difficult and expensive [for] smokers [as] we possibly can,” the mayor assured.

Anti-smoking experts point out that Bloomberg’s words mark a crucial shift in rhetoric away from warning of the dangers of second-hand smoke—which has been at the heart of the non-smokers’ rights movement for decades—and toward an open admission that smokers are no longer welcome to pollute the city.

“Over the last couple of days, Bloomberg is specifically saying this isn’t about second-hand smoking, it’s not about health,” Snowdo said. “This is about, ‘I don’t like smoking and I will make life as difficult as possible for smokers.’”

Smokers like Silk say they feel the battle has shifted from an attack on smoking to an outright assault on smokers themselves.

“Smoke-free society is a misnomer. It’s smoker-free society,” she said. “We’re the new second-class citizens.”

She said this shift is optimized by the mayor’s “savior complex,” shared by non-smokers who feel themselves superior. While accepting an anti-smoking award in Berlin last year, for instance, Bloomberg said, “It’s relatively easy to stop, and once you stop, you’re going to feel so much superior to those who do smoke that there’s instant gratification,” the Daily News reported.

Part of this is necessity. Unlike in enclosed spaces like bars and restaurants, there is no scientific evidence to prove that smokers in outdoor public areas cause harm to anyone but themselves. This makes it near impossible to argue that banning smoking in parks and on beaches is a matter of public health.

“We don’t have the data today to demonstrate that outdoor smoking causes a significant health hazard,” Dr. Warner said.

If these policies are going to move forward now, he said, it’s going to be cloaked in the language of social change, not protecting people from second-hand smoke.

But some worry that this change in rhetoric will open the door to a fierce backlash from smokers and civil libertarians alike, whose arguments have long paled in comparison to disturbing images of blackened lungs, gaunt cancer patients in hospital gowns and air tubes hosed through holes in throats. These new bans take the crusade one step too far, they warn. Already, online message boards are peppered with vitriol, and newspaper editorials are complaining of one more extension of the city’s “nanny state.”

“It’s not about health anymore,” Silk said. “It’s about imposing their will on others on the ‘correct’ way to behave.”

Even anti-smoking advocates worry that the paternalistic move could do more harm than good.

“It just crosses a line to me,” said Dr. Peter D. Jacobson, director of the Center for Law, Ethics, and Health at the University of Michigan School of Public Health and author of The Political Evolution of Anti-Smoking Legislation.

If the city goes forward with the proposal, he warned, officials run the risk of not only alienating smokers but also undermining support for more important pubic health initiatives.

“There’s a point at which people don’t want the government telling them how to behave. That’s a huge cost,” he said, especially when the health benefit is “negligible.”

New York is not the first city outside of California to extend its ban to outdoor public spaces. In 2007, Chicago banned smoking in its playgrounds and beaches. In Delaware’s Lewes City, smoking is banned in parks and playgrounds. Even the Pentagon has recently discussed the possibility of banning smoking in the military.

In those cities, as in New York, the new laws have been embraced relatively painlessly. Despite rabble-rousers at the time who threatened of massive public outcry and stinging losses in sales, few protested once the 2002 bar and restaurant legislation came into effect. Since the city passed legislation making smoking in indoor commercial spaces illegal, New York’s smoking rate has dropped from 21.5 percent in 2002 to 15.8 percent in 2008.

That mirrors the trend throughout the country. Smoking rates have been shrinking dramatically in every age group, with people consuming less and taking it up less often, said John Pierce, who leads the Cancer Prevention and Control Program at the University of California, San Diego’s School of Medicine. In California, the smoking rate among young people is down to just 8 percent, he noted.

“Definitely smoking’s on its way out,” Pierce said.

While Bloomberg may not be brandishing his guns this time around, others say he may have already won the battle.

“What Bloomberg has done is he’s won on the principle that it is OK to ban smoking in some outdoor areas,” Snowdo said, referring to the mayor’s partial-ban proposal.

And once smoking is banned from some outdoor public spaces, he added, it won’t take much to extend that ban, first throughout parks, and then to other outdoor places like sidewalks and streets. It’s a very small step toward banning smoking everywhere.

So is this the beginning of the end of smoking in the city?

“The question people are starting to raise is, ‘Are you just trying to make smoking outlawed, like marijuana?’” Pierce said. While no one is willing to “go there,” he added, “They seem to be going there without actually making it illegal.”

But Silk and her legions still plan to continue fighting Bloomberg’s mission to snuff out cigarettes.

“Tobacco is still legal,” she said.

And as long as it is, she’ll continue to take a drag.

The Benefits of an Outdoor Ban

What makes a ban on smoking in outdoor public places so hard to swallow for so many is that there is no scientific proof that smokers who puff in parks, on street corners or on beaches are harming anyone but themselves. While there is little doubt that inhaling the deadly carcinogens released when cigarettes burn is harmful to non-smokers’ health, most experts agree that, when smoked outdoors, the concentrations are too low to negatively affect the average passerby.

“There’s no safe level of second-hand smoke,” said John Pierce, who leads the Cancer Prevention and Control Program at the University of California, San Diego’s School of Medicine. But, he said, unless you have asthma or are highly sensitive to tobacco smoke, “For the majority of people, the risk [outdoors] is going to be small.”

And while the smell may be bothersome to others, if you’re waking through the park or lounging on the beach, it’s usually not all that taxing to move upwind of an insistent chimney.

Moreover, New York’s air quality is lousy, even without cigarettes burning. The city’s air is among the most polluted in the nation, thanks, in part, to its high density and traffic congestion. In Manhattan, there are so many carcinogenic chemicals in the air that residents face an elevated risk of developing cancer, according to an Environmental Protection Agency report released earlier this year.

But smoking cessation expert Dr. Daniel Seidman of the Columbia University Medical Center said that banning smoking in parks and on beaches would be beneficial to one group of residents: smokers who are trying to quit. Being exposed to other smokers can be enough to trigger a relapse in someone who is trying to kick the habit, he said, and not seeing others smoking in public can help reduce the temptation.

“Just as smoking is contagious, so is quitting,” he said.

A Global War on Smoking

The nation’s first state to ban smoking in most public spaces was Minnesota, whose Clean Indoor Air Act, passed in 1975, was the first to require non-smoking sections in restaurants. In 2007, the Freedom to Breathe Act was passed, which banned smoking completely in all state bars and restaurants.

But California has been the nation’s leader in the war against cigarettes for more than a decade. It imposed a statewide ban on smoking in enclosed workplaces in 1995 and numerous cities there have introduced bans that limit smoking outdoors as well as in.

In Los Angeles and San Diego, smoking is prohibited in parks and on beaches. In the city of Calabases, which is reported to have the strictest smoking laws in the nation, smoking has been banned since 2006 in most indoor and outdoor public spaces, except for a handful of designated smoking areas. In Belmont, smoking is illegal in all outdoor spaces, as well as in apartment and condominium complexes; in Berkeley, it is banned on all commercial sidewalks.

In 2007, Chicago banned smoking on beaches and in playgrounds, though it is still allowed in many parks.

In 2004, the Republic of Ireland became the first country to implement a nation-wide smoking ban in the workplace, including in bars and restaurants. In July, the country outlawed in-store tobacco advertising and displays. It was also the first country to ban smoking within three meters of a public building.

Selling and smoking tobacco in public were banned in Bhutan in 2004 and 2005, making it the only country to have officially outlawed the habit. However, in July, the sales ban was lifted in favor of taxation.

Smoking in indoor workplaces is banned in every province and territory in Canada. In many provinces, retailers must keep also tobacco products hidden from site. In January, Ontario made it illegal to smoke in any vehicle containing children.

China’s Guangzhou and Jiangmen provinces have banned smoking in indoor public places, including restaurants, schools and supermarkets. In Hong Kong, smoking was banned on beaches and in most outdoor public recreational areas, including many playgrounds.

In certain parts of Tokyo and Kyoto Japan, it is illegal to smoke on city streets.

Who would have thought? In 1997, France banned smoking in most public places, including cafés, bars, nightclubs, stations and museums. Smoking rooms are allowed but are tightly regulated.

In 2005, Italy enacted a nation-wide smoking ban that prohibits smoking in indoor public places, including restaurants and bars. Special smoking rooms are permitted but rare.