HERE is a story about Casey Stengel and a smoking pipe, from the days when he was a ballplayer, some 90 years ago.Posted on 12/02/2003 5:01:05 AM PST by sarcasm
HERE is a story about Casey Stengel and a smoking pipe, from the days when he was a ballplayer, some 90 years ago.
He was on a train one day. Clenched in his teeth was a pipe — unlighted. The conductor came along and told him that smoking was not permitted. Stengel protested that he wasn't smoking.
"You've got a pipe in your mouth," the conductor said.
Stengel replied, "I've got shoes on my feet, but I'm not walking."
The reason for dredging up this yarn is what it says about a latter-day New York City law.
If it is possible to wear shoes yet not be walking, can you have an ashtray but not be smoking? The answer, obviously, is yes. But under the city's antismoking law, that means nothing.
As some New Yorkers have learned the hard way, the mere existence of an ashtray in a place where smoking is prohibited can lead to a summons. It doesn't matter if the ashtray is stored well away from public areas. It doesn't matter if it is used as a decoration, or to hold paper clips or M & M's. No ashtrays are allowed, period.
The reason is simple, said Sandra Mullin, a spokeswoman for the city's Department of Health and Mental Hygiene. The presence of an ashtray might be taken by some people as an invitation to light up.
"Not having ashtrays and putting up no-smoking signs are two of the strongest ways to discourage smoking and to let people know what the current law is," Ms. Mullin said.
Since May 1, when the Health Department began to enforce the law in earnest, about 2,300 summonses have been issued, she said. A little more than 200 were for ashtray violations.
These are hardly huge numbers. Still, some of the summonses are enough to make one scratch his head and invoke the Stengel Corollary about shoes and walking.
In Brooklyn Heights, a video-store owner got a ticket for an ashtray that he says he used only to help a customer who walked in with a lighted cigarette in her hand. She had to put it out in something, no?
A more prominent New Yorker, Graydon Carter, the editor of Vanity Fair, received a summons because of ashtrays in his Times Square office. Inspectors, who had gone there on a complaint about smoking, found no one puffing away. But they did spot the ashtrays. That was enough.
"I keep them around to remind me of my youth," Mr. Carter said in an e-mail message yesterday after being asked about the incident. "They had not been used and did not have cigarette butts in them when we were fined."
One more thing: "Any city that allows you to keep a loaded gun in your office but not an ashtray," he said, "is one with its priorities seriously out of whack."
Many feel the same way at the Players, the theater-themed club on Gramercy Park South. As first reported in The New York Post the other day, health officials, acting on an anonymous tip, insisted last week on inspecting the office of the club's executive director, John Martello.
They found no one smoking. But — shades of Eliot Ness on the trail of rum runners from Canada — they came upon three ashtrays on a shelf behind a desk.
THEY were there just to get them out of the way," Mr. Martello said yesterday. "We had to get them out of the public eye. They were collected. Who thinks about throwing them out?"
"I think what I was most appalled about," he said, "was the constitutionality of them being able to come in and search my office. Unlike the police, they don't need a search warrant. They just walked in on an anonymous tip."
Ms. Mullin acknowledged that "there is some discretion offered to our inspectors."
"If we do see stacks of ashtrays," she said, "it is tantamount to the potential that people are permitting smoking."
But to Richard E. Farley, a lawyer who is advising the Players, the real issue is "Where does this end?"
"Can these people show up," Mr. Farley said, "and disrupt your law firm, your psychiatrist's office, your religious meeting, on the pretext that you're violating this provision of the smoking law?"
It is possible, in the opinion of those challenging this strict application of the no-ashtray rule, to be overzealous in pursuing virtue. One doesn't always get the desired results.
Another Caseyism comes to mind, this one from the 1950's, when Stengel was the manager nonpareil of the Yankees.
"Look at him," he said of a ballplayer. "He doesn't drink, he doesn't smoke, he doesn't chew and he doesn't stay out late.
"And he still can't hit."
So in Texas, you are actually able to give up one of your primary constitutional protections merely by being engaged in a legal business?
I remember once looking at a lease for a place of business I was thinking of renting. The lease stated that the lessee agreed to give up "all constituional" rights by signing. My attorney said not to worry, that you couldn't give up your constitutional rights.
Perhaps he was wrong, and the Constitution is all a mirage these days
This may seem like an insignificant matter, but this goes way beyond smoking or anti-smokers.
I shudder at the thought of "anonymity" when the results can lose you your freedom and eventually your home and property.
Look at the chain of protections, and your right to face your accuser is a moderating influence on the abuse of the justice system.
I would want to keep a list of the agents also.
The only thing necessary for an evil society to survive, is an endless supply of evil agents.
Hmmm. I'm not at all a scholar on this kind of stuff. But I think I'm not too comfortable with this whole idea of "implied consent." It seems un American to me, and at least in spirit contrary to the doctrine of innocent until proven guilty. It all seems totalitarian in spirit.
Unfortunately, the way these smoking bans are written, you are wrong. The burden of proof is on you, not on the accuser.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.