.

Sound Off: Do You Agree With Smoking Ban on LIRR Platforms?

New law bans smokers from lighting up on train platforms.

A new state law banning smoking on Long Island Rail Road platforms went into effect on Sunday.  

For now, violators will only face a warning from authorities, but down the road, those who light up on the platform could be slapped with a $50 fine and up to 30 days in jail, according to reports

Smoking was already prohibited on trains and indoor areas at LIRR stations, but the new law extends the ban to outdoor areas, including platforms, ticketing and boarding areas, officials said. 

"It is important that commuters are not unwillingly subject to the dangers of second-hand smoke while waiting on train platforms," Gov. Andrew Cuomo said in a statement when he signed the bill into law in August.  

Opponents of the law say there's no evidence that exposure to cigarette smoke outdoors causes any harm. Some smokers on rails have already turned their noses up to the new law.  

“They’re already hiking up our prices," Devin Meehan, 25, told the New York Post. "I’m still going to smoke.”

What's your take? Are you in favor of the new law? Vote in the poll below and share your thoughts in the comments. 

Al 17 November 17, 2011 at 02:19 PM
I am not a smoker but this is just too far. I can understand restricting smoking in outdoor stadiums as you have a designated seat you paid for but on a open waiting platform? People are free to move about, both smokers and non smokers. This may be one of the most government restricted LEGAL activities ever.
Tre November 17, 2011 at 04:23 PM
Smokers for the most part are very inconsiderate of everyone else. No one needs to smell or inhale their cigarette smoke. I just think it needs to be enforced since most do not follow the rules
Al 17 November 17, 2011 at 04:43 PM
"Smokers for the most part are very inconsiderate of everyone else". Wow. Don't you think that statement is a bit unfair? Thats like saying for the most part the people that want this law enforced are a bunch of whiners who just like to complain. Now obviously thats not true as I'm sure there a myriad of reasons those folks have for wanting the law enforced but using a blanket statement on an entire group of people without any real proof or facts is wrong. It also makes for a weak arguement.
Vito November 17, 2011 at 04:47 PM
Good thoughts Big Joe!
Kristi Johnsen June 07, 2012 at 01:09 PM
The information below has been copied from the cancer.org website: Tobacco smoke contains more than 7,000 chemical compounds. More than 250 of these chemicals are known to be harmful, and at least 69 are known to cause cancer. The information below has been copied from the quitesmoking.com website: Children face a higher risk than adults of the negative effects of secondhand smoke. Not only is a child's body still developing physically, but their breathing rate is faster than that of adults. Adults breathe in and out approximately 14 to 18 times a minute, where newborns can breathe as many as 60 times a minute. Up until a child is about 5 years old, the respiratory rate is quite fast; usually between 20 and 60 breaths per minute. When the air is tainted with cigarette smoke, young, developing lungs receive a higher concentration of inhaled toxins than do older lungs and think about it young children have less control over their surroundings than the rest of us. Babies can't move to another room because the air is smoky. They depend on us to provide them with clean air to breathe. Secondhand smoke has been proven to kill non-smokers, to me we need to ban smoking in all public places, and in apartment building, co-op's building, and anywhere else that people can breathe in secondhand smoke!

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »