Michael Pollak wrote:
> That might be interesting. But so far all he seems to have
> proven, contrary to his thesis, is how easy it is to break these
> laws in New York without consequences. Finding a half dozen
> misuses of the nuisance law over a six month period in a city
> with 40,000 cops and 15 million midday inhabitants is as hard
> as finding litter. Pretending it makes a case for anything is
> weak minded bad faith.
>
> The only one of these laws Bloomberg is responsible for is
> the one you highlight, the one against smoking in bars.
> (Bloomberg isn't responsible for the law against smoking in
> restaurants, btw -- we got that, like the law against sitting on
> two subways seats and the revived campaign against
> loitering, from the real czar of nuisance laws, Il Rudy.) Now,
> I have a lot of sympathy for people who are outraged by that
> law. But breaking it and bitching abusively doesn't make you
> a campaigner. It makes you just one more New York smoker
> in the wintertime. When Hitchens gets himself arrested and
> goes to trial and makes himself a cause celebre, then I'll
> pay attention. This is just an easy gimmick for filling a column.
> And not an original or timely one.
Fair enough, but there is, as you recognize, a good deal of outrage over these smoking bans. I think many should be repealed, at the very least those affecting bars and clubs (often because they either serve meals or are connected to a place that does).
As I said in my post, it's not the scapegoating of Bloomberg that interested me, though that does appear to be Hitchen's primary aim. Call me easily amused, but it was refreshing to find someone, anyone even remotely associated with the left to be writing against smoking bans.
-- Shane, non-smoker
________________________________________________________________ The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand! Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER! Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!