New Jersey on the verge of passing a statewide smoking ban

A bill to ban indoor smoking in New Jersey easily cleared a key Assembly committee yesterday despite impassioned pleas from restaurant and bar owners who fear it will snuff out their business.

Sponsors of the controversial bill, which passed the state Senate last month, said they expect it to gain final approval in the full Assembly Monday, and acting Gov. Richard Codey vowed to sign it into law.

The measure would prohibit people from lighting up in most indoor places, including restaurants, bars, bowling alleys, catering halls, private clubs and bingo parlors. However, it would allow smoking on casino gaming floors -- a big compromise Codey said was needed to get support for the bill.

.......

Under the act, smoking would be permitted only in the gambling areas of Atlantic City's 13 casinos, a fifth of hotel rooms, and in cigar bars or lounges that began operations before the end of 2004.



http://www.nj.com/statehouse/ledger/index.ssf?/base/news-0/1136529207144140.xml&coll=1

about how smoking bans affect resturants and bars?

but anecdotal evidence from New York shows that restaurant/bar sales actually went up after the smoking ban was enacted.

What's the relevance of the effect on business? If you say there is one, then you either agree with the recent eminent domain case which justified seizure of private property for another private enterprise on the basis of improved business, or your thinking is inconsistent.

I don't get the connection....

I don't mean that economic effects are irrelevant in any discussion about restaurant smoking policies. If I owned a restaurant or bar, I'd be interested in this information. I was addressing only the legitimacy of laws banning smoking at privately owned restaurants or bars.

The connection is that the legitimacy of a rule should not be determined by its purported economic effects. Otherwise we have a command economy.

Otherwise, really tough environmental laws would be enacted and enforced, but the only reason that isn't happening is for fear that it will hurt the economy. Ditto for most tax laws.

I see no evidence that economics are ignored when making laws at all...

I went to a bar in NY a couple of years ago to get a meal. It was next to a truck stop. I noticed something different about this bar that I couldn't put my finger on until it dawned on me.. NO SMOKING!! It was GREAT!! Clean and enjoyable!! Just what I wanted.

And as a trucker, I've noticed other states that have bans on smoking too and its great to visit these places..

And where smoking is allowed, I cannot stand to be in some truck stops because the smell and the air is just too nasty..

How's that for a study!!

We went out to eat, and my mom asked for seating in the non-smoking section. The hostess said, "oh, it's all non-smoking." Mom thought that was interesting, and a pleasant surprise. She had no idea New York had passed a law like this, and thought it was the best idea since sliced bread.

Of course, Kentucky will be the 51st state to implement a no indoor smoking law. That place is so back-asswards, I'm sometimes embarrassed to admit I was born there. It's gotten worse; now Gov. Fletcher has announced he wants to play a round of "let's teach ID in science class" during his State of the Commonwealth address. What a bozo; when will Kentuckians get tired of these idiots?

i would go out 2 times a week instead of once every two weeks.

friggin PA....

... nor will I go to restaurants that still have smoking sections -- the smoke blows over into the non-smoking section, and it's disgusting.

I'd rather stay home and make tuna salad. But if PA passed a smoking ban, I'd be out all the time. I'd love to go hear some jazz without having my clothes and lungs ruined!

enforce it in some of the bars around my town hell when Prohibition was enacted any one involved with it was run out on a rail.

+ id say at least 80% of the people in the bars ive walked into are smoking so that law wont be getting to much air under its wings around here hehe :)

FL passed a similar bill a few years ago and our restaurants are still filled to capacity.

I'm in favor of nonsmoking & smoke-friendly establishments. For instance, a family restaurant would be nonsmoking, but a bar would allow smoking. People can vote with their feet. Something for everyone.

Treating smokers like social lepers is not the way to go. We're supposed to have freedom of choice in America, & that includes the right to make choices that others might not like, like smoking. Yes, it's an unhealthy habit, but there will always be people who indulge in unhealthy habits. You can't save people from themselves.

Total smoking bans are a sign of creeping fascism. The nanny state in action.

I'm in favor of nonsmoking & smoke-friendly establishments. A family restaurant could be nonsmoking, while a bar could allow smoking. People can patronize any place they choose. Something for everyone.

Smoking is an unhealthy habit, but treating smokers like social lepers isn't the way to go. We're supposed to have freedom of choice in America, & that includes the freedom to choose things that aren't necessarily good for you. You can't save people from themselves.

Total smoking bans are a sign of creeping fascism. They're an example of the nanny state in action.

Our bars and restaraunts are much busier, they are coming over the river instead of going where they used to...

Smoking ban hits taverns in the wallet
Clients cross bridge into Hood River
Source: White Salmon (WA) Enterprise, 2005-12-24
Author: Jesse Burkhardt


However, owners of some taverns and restaurants in the area are paying a price for the new law, and they want people to be aware of what's happening. "Our traffic immediately dropped off after Dec. 8. Our most recent weekend was down 50 percent from what we usually do," said Donna Zitur, owner of the Elkhorn Bar & Grill in downtown White Salmon. "This has had a big impact. I don't think anybody who voted for this measure meant for it to hurt local business." Zitur said the impact was especially severe for businesses in southern Klickitat County, because customers can opt to cross into Oregon, where there is no sweeping ban on smoking. "The Washington/Oregon border is one of our biggest problems. We have the sales tax, and now this smoking thing," Zitur said. "People can go over to Hood River, and there is nothing we can do about it." The Logs Tavern in BZ Corner also has felt the impact. "This law is telling people to stay at home," said Logs owner Ramona Halverson. "And with higher gasoline prices, it's another reason not to go anywhere. We're the most impoverished county in the state. I don't know how many more hits we can take."
http://www.whitesalmonenterprise.com/

On edit - The thing that really worries me is now they are all driving back to Van. after drinking, which they would have done before, but they were closer to home then. yea

In fact, people at the microbrewery last night at the DU meetup who were kicking it out front, having a smoke- like the idea. None of us smoke our houses, either.

:waves at "viva: :hi:

Seems to me the pro-indoor smoking crowd are a bunch of whiners....

Becky and her friends learned all about Abramoff and DU. :)

I've talked to smoker friends who have seen crowds over in Portland, everybody who wants a drink and a smoke in Vancouver and the surrounding area (population approx. 400,000) seems to be heading over to Oregon. Some taverns and bars are on the verge of closing. It hurts to have something illegal over here that is quite legal just fifteen minutes away.

I'm a lifelong nonsmoker, and a year ago, I would have been inclined to vote for the ban. But, I spent the first six months of this year in Utah, and I see first hand how the "we know what's best for you" mentality can be used to control "undesirables". If the idiots in Olympia had not cancelled my registration (when I moved back to WA, they thought my registration in Vancouver was a duplicate of the one in Grays Harbor County), I would have voted against the ban.

Banning smoking in restaurants is one thing, people bring their kids in there. Banning it in adults-only establishments, where people have freedom of choice whether to walk in or not, is something else.

Must stop serving any thing that may get customers fat.
or cause health problems down the road i don't want to pay for there medical bills so lets nip that in the bud right now. + if they are already large they may fall over on me and hurt me from eating the wrong foods so that impacts my life not to mention many other things that could happen when they are around.

and lets not just stop at the restaurants supermarkets are problems as well design and layout putting problem foods up front. and candy we should really have limits on it and children under the age of 10 should not be allowed to have it to much sugar you know leads the way to obesity.

Theres so many other problems out there we can just fix if we start to limit what people do.
I'm sure after this one is solved we can get to work on the one like mentioned above and others.

Tobacco smoke is all bad and is forced on workers and patrons.

There difference you assert is nonexistent. We were focusing on the "bad" foods (not food in general), making an analogous argument that if you allow smoking to be banned in private businesses on the basis of the health-preferences of the majority of the people, you should also be prepared to allow fats or sugars or anthing else the public may eventually, by a majority, deem "bad" to be banned or regulated in these private businesses. Furthermore, tobacco smoke is NOT forced on workers or patrons. These workers you speak of choose to work at establishments that allow smoking. Same with the patrons.

Employees have a right to work in a safe environment.

(Am now waiting for the "progressive" statement of: "they can get a job somewhere else)

If you and I are eating at the same restaurant and you're two tables away eating fatty foods, it doesn't affect me one bit. If you're smoking, I'm breathing your second-hand smoke. I'm not absorbing your fried chicken vicariously.

I think I understand what you're trying to say, but your argument isn't logical.

First off, you're definitely right that there is a fundamental difference between fatty foods and smoking. My analogy is wrong, for the reason you assert.

I try to get around this difference in post #126, but it is definitely awkward.

In any case, I don't think second-hand smoke should be an issue at a restaurant UNLESS you are seated at a non-smoking table. In that case, I am on your side.

NT!

The carcinogens come from cooking animal fat. As you sit in your "smoke free" restaurant, think of all the delicious cancer you are breathing in from them frying up animal fat.

NT!

"Carcinogens are produced when animal meats are cooked at high temperatures, whether fried, roasted, broiled, or grilled," she says. "Vegetables, on the other hand, benefit from high-temperature cooking.""

http://www.healthatoz.com/healthatoz/Atoz/hl/nutr/food/alert01242002.jsp


"HCAs, a family of mutagenic and cancer-causing compounds, are produced during the cooking of many animal products, including chicken, beef, pork, and fish. In January of 2005, the federal government officially added HCAs to its list of known carcinogens.1"

http://www.cancerproject.org/media/news/fiveworstfoodsreport.php

"Heterocyclic Amines
HCA, a family of mutagenic compounds, are produced during the cooking process of many animal products, including chicken, beef, pork, and fish. Even meat that is cooked under normal grilling, frying, or oven-broiling produces large quantities of these mutagens.6,7,8 The longer and hotter the meat is cooked, the more these compounds form. In some studies, grilled chicken has formed higher concentrations of these cancer-causing substances than other types of cooked meat.9 "

http://www.americancancersocietypromotesdisease.org/connection.html


There are a few to get ya started.

NT!

I thought the risk was from eating the cooked product, not breathing the air.
:shrug:

Now those nonstick pans on the other hand..

And, one diner isn't constantly;y shoving his butter sauce down the throat of a waitress.

That's the difference.

Go ahead and smoke yourself to death in your own space, but keep those noxious fumes far away from me or my kids, thanks.

Honestly, how many bars are also attached to a restaurant? I LOVE being able to go out to eat here in CT and not even have to worry about it anymore.

Bars here put up a big hue and cry, too. Turns out, it hasn't been a problem.

Why should anyone, adult or child, have to risk their health for someone else's habit?

--"Go ahead and smoke yourself to death in your own space"
That's what I was trying to do, but, for some reason, people like you do not recognize my space. I own my restaurant, not you.


--"keep those noxious fumes far away from me or my kids"
How about keeping yourself and your kids away from those noxious fumes?

--"You getting fat isn't going to kill me"
I agree. But your regulating my liberties in such a haphazard manner, if carried throughout society consistently, would render me something much worse than dead: libertyless.

sorry. If you want to smoke there, then make it your private club.

Any public space should not allow smoking. I should not have to limit MY activities based on your bad habits.

Keep it to yourself.

Why do some smokers have such a hard time seeing that this particular addiction is not limited to themselves? When you smoke, you spew those noxious, dangerous fumes into the air -- air which we all must breathe. Why do you think that smoking is connected to your liberty?

You have an addiction problem. I'm very sorry for you. I have loved ones with the same problem. I think it's awful that this addiction is treated so casually by the pushers (that is, tobacco cos.). I think it's a damn shame that it is so very hard to break.

But your liberty is not affected here. Unless you think your liberty is also seriously affected when you are prohibited from shooting off a machine gun into a lobby full of people? Please.

We have a new smoking ban here, in restaurants, not bars yet. The definition is based on how much space is devoted to the bar so some restaurnats expanded their bars so they could still allow smoking and get around the ban. Anyway, the pro-smoking crowd was furious about the city council passing this ban so they got up a petition to put it on the ballot. Well, guess what, it passed OVERWHELMINGLY (something like 80% of the voters voted for the ban). So my guess is most people want these bans if they are put to a vote. I think smokers really need to realize that clean air for workers as well as the public trumps their right to smoke. For many years, they had their own way on this and non smokers were forced to put up with it. Now the tide has turned. I think cities and states have a right to regulate what goes on in restaurants and bars. If they can impose health codes for food quality, they can certainly regulate air quality.

"If they can impose health codes for food quality"

Exactly. If banning smoking is an unacceptable invasion of "liberty", I suppose health inspectors are too. Perhaps restauranteurs ought to be able to serve whatever food they like, spoiled or not?

Some restaurants do serve spoiled foods (sort of), but they notify you first, to remove any issues of deceit. You can order raw oysters, which are somewhat dangerous to eat, but as long as the restaurant informs you of that fact, there is no issue. Same with ordering rare steaks.

If a restaurant wants to advertise "spoilt milk that'll make ya sick," good luck to them. If they want to serve spoiled milk when I think I'm getting good milk, then I have a problem and am glad the health inspectors are there.

quite clearly:

"Filled with noxious fumes"

And then it's ok?

I live in NYC, and it's only really legal to smoke in your home or on the street.

I was just playing the part of an owner of a restaurant that allows smoking to make a point. My viewpoint is not affected in any way by my actual smoking preference.

You demand that it's your restaurant, then demand that people stay away from it if they don't like being forced to inhale dangerous smoke by the selfish who can't step outside for three minutes.

You have liberties, but NOT to endanger other people. That is anathema to liberal thought.

My father worked for years in the Tinners Union, working in ventilation, heating, and air conditioning. He said that if the proper ventilation would be installed, you couldn't tell if the person next to you was smoking. These units are more expensive, but it seems that if a business wants to allow a legal activity on their premises, it should be allowed. Increase the regulation if it's truly a safety issue. However, it's not a safety issue, it's non smokers wanting to tell smokers they shouldn't smoke.

That being said, I am a smoker who lives near Minneapolis. I like going to the bars where you can't smoke, I don't end up smoking as much and it's fun chatting with other smokers. I just think it's a matter of personal freedoms, and I don't like seeing limitations of personal freedoms being made. Of course, in Minnesota, we have county bans, not state wide bans. Economically, this has had a huge effect on bars, people go to smoking counties.

the wheel of a car or truck that a healthy, non-fat, non-smoking individual.

By that logic, all overweight people should not be allowed to drive or operate heavy machinery.

:crazy:

And speaking of fat dangerously fat children, I saw a kid in Target today looking for his Mother (who was huge) and this kid was WAY over a hundred pounds and I guarantee from the way he spoke not even 10.

Teach people to live healthy lives and they become healthy. But if you think that stopping smoking in bars and restaurants is bad, ask why they stopped it in hospitals in NJ years ago and just maybe you'll figure it out.

--"But your being fat doesn't make me fat"
Actually, it might. Suppose the majority of Americans craved, despite the disastrous effects to their health, fat and unhealthy foods. (This should take little imagination.) How would a free-market respond? Probably by supplying more of those fat and unhealthy foods, perhaps, in some cases, to the exclusion of non-fat and healthy foods. (Think fast-food joints.) If I insist on eating here, as you insist on patronizing smoking establishments, then I will get fat.

The flaw in your logic is that you assume that you have the right to patronize any establishment without suffering smoke-related health detriments, while I do not have the right to eat at any restaurant without suffering fat-related health detriments. This assumption, however, is tantamount to assuming your conclusion. No wonder you so easily distinguish between fat and smoke; you assume the difference!

YOU being fat does not in and of itself make me fat. YOU smoking in and of itself in the same airspace makes me sick.

End of your round about way of tryng to defend what is no longer a right but an excuse to enjoin us in your personally unhealthy habits.

YOU smoking does not in and of itself make me sick. YOU eating fat in and of itself while forcing me to eat it to does make me fat.

Your reliance on including the asymmetrical phrase "in the same airspace" in the smoking sentence proves my point.

by making different choices from the menu.

That smoke goes where it will, whether one chooses to breathe it in or not.

smoking, you could easily choose to avoid those smoking establishments.

Would we segregate everyone into smoking or non?

And would we have rules about how clearly that was marked?

I've spent too many dinners in the supposed "non-smoking" section of a restaurant, when the smokers sit at the next table.

If establishments were strictly segregated and marked, I suppose I could live with that. I doubt very much the all-smoking estb. would be sustainable, however.

Well, perhaps we are in agreement after all.

I think restaurants should clearly state their smoking policy up-front and enforce it. In any case, you definitely have a right to ask them beforehand, and if they break their promise your contractual rights are breached.

You DO have the right to not encounter smoke at a restaurant if you are in a non-smoking section. Period. Heck, I have that right and am glad I do. (I don't smoke and think it's a horrible habit. I just don't feel violated if I go into a smoking bar and encounter smoke. I may be pissed off that there aren't more non-smoking bars, but I don't feel violated.)

=====

As to the staff, the same argument applies to them as the argument regarding patrons. To make an analogy, if I get a job at Hooters and then hate wearing a skimpy outfit and having patrons stare pervertedly at me, are my rights violated? After all, the concomitants of the job are no secret.

in practice, what happens is that all restaurants try to "have it all". They set aside a few seating areas and call them "non-smoking". If they're in the same room, setting them aside does very little good. It's not like the smoke stays put, you know?

I would say if any smoking is present, the establishment would have to name itself a "smoking" establishment, period. Buyer beware. And I'd guess the place couldn't sustain a business like that. But perhaps you have information on that.

But it could be negative to you. They could fall on you or your kid you may be stuck next to a fat person On a plane and that could cause you discomfort or injury and looking at fat people gets me ill puts me right off food every thing. So since it effects me I'm sure it will effect many others down the road like this as the problem gets more prevalent in the years to come.

You see its not so much the food that is the problem Its the people that have open access to it so we can limit there access by heavily taxing the foods that cause it.

On other fronts
We can do more studies to see how there size effects driving, walking, work, health care( I bet they have been done most likely), it could also effect family and children instilling bad eating habits and what not so it may not get you fat but they could pass that on to people around them.

If the taxation doesn't work we will have to go after them more aggressively by passing some laws first national height to weight ratios should be put into law sating you have to be a certain weight to maintain your health and not cause any of the problems mentioned above then along with any national id we have at the time there medical data could be put on it and that will have the foods they are allowed when they go out to eat.
I mean we don't want any of the normal people not begging able to eat what they want if they follow dietary guidelines and exercises regularly what so they scan there card and they can pick from what is prescribed to them on the menu, we can keep them in there own special section so they wont be tempted with all the other foods in the restauran. This also can be done in supermarkets or anywere.

So if we do this now get a head start on limiting bad things people do you wont be ill , I wont be ill
we will all be safe I mean were would we be with out safety heck we may die one day we cant have that.

Fat people may FALL on you?????

Looking at fat people makes you ill and you can't eat?

Sounds to me like your particular brand of illness exists between your ears.

can do it!

Smoking has a DIRECT impact on others my being over or under a certain weight does not. Smole right into your grave for all I care just do it in your own home or outside please.

It has a direct impact on me fat people make me ill if i see them I cant eat gets me sick to the stomach.Lots of Studies haven't been done but I'm sure weight related injury's could be way up there.

And thats so true about not limiting what people can do I mean Look at free speech zones were still allowed to protest just in the right place.

When you drink I don't drink.
When you eat fat I don't eat fat.

See the difference? There is this little thing called "smoke" that is a tangible biproduct of smoking that can be seen and smelt by others.

Please stop the stupid comparisons.

After the statewide ban in MA. Some towns decided to outlaw smoking in any vehical.
Can taking away the kids be far behind. And if they ever completly get rid of smoking what will they come for next?

That would be horibul! :)

n/t

... or words to that effect.

:blush:

--p!

No worries.

After they ban smoking in every restaurant in the country they'll come after fatty foods!

Then sugary drinks!

Then hair care products!

Don't you see the slippery slope staring you in the face! Wake up!!

I kid. One more step towards the inevitable end - everywhere - of smoking in public places where groups of people congregate. Good on New Jersey.

If you get caught with a lit cigarette in a bar, it's about $275.

doobie the same as factory made cigs?

I assume that you could get charged with simple possession plus smoking indoors for sparking up a hooter in a bar.

You can now join us in praying for a mild WINTER, in more ways than one.

I've never seen a January so damn warm. Forecast for today is 44 and (maybe) rain. Yuck.

Tomorrow: 44 and sunny.
Friday: 46 and rain.
Saturday: 39 and wintry mix (double yuck).

This is in central New York, about 40 miles east of Syracuse, where it usually snows to the tune of ten FEET a year.

:eyes:
rocknation

That is what they all say without doing any investigation at all. Where such laws exist and have existed for several years business has actually increased....Only 22% of the population smokes. Now the other 78% can actually enjoy a night out occasionally. All of America will be smoke free indoors in the fairly near future. The percentages dictate it...

Gosh, there's that at least, huh?

Why would a smoking ban be considered a boon for restaurants/bars, but not casinos?

people with addictive personalities usually have multiple addictions.

I say let em smoke...in the alleys, under the over passes, behind the dumpsters, all the usual places
junkies hide.

Msongs
www.msongs.com/political-shirts.htm

I like to go out and support my local bars-and have a beer-and don't go as much b/c I don't like the smoke. Regarding restaurants, I've generally thought that the smoking/non smoking sections was working at resturants. I tend to not like laws that govern behavior of people, like I was opposed to seatbelt laws and in favor of education. In retrospect, I was wrong. This law is likely sensible also in the long run. As soon as it passes, I'll visit my local pub!

Why do you allow smoking at YOUR local pub, if you are so opposed to smoking? Or is it SOMEBODY ELSE's pub, which just happens to be near you.

Cryans in South Orange. They host lots of democratic events and are very supportive of the town.

I am a smoker's worst nightmare, an avowed ex-smoker. From my now white teeth to clean smelling house to daily changes which hopefully will keep me from dying from anything but a bus or runaway train, YOU are just bloody rubbish.

I stopped going to eat breakfast every Sunday morning in this little diner BECAUSE they are too small to have a non-smoking area but without the balls to make it non-smoking (if you can't give up a cigarette for 30-45 minutes, just shoot yourself now, seriously).

It is the same reason we ban huffing inhalants from spray cans, drinking till 21, driving till you are 17, and try to enact laws to improve our health. Times have changed, and WE outnumber YOU 3 to 1 so take it outside or quit, you have no other choice.

Big tobacco doesn't rule here any longer.

and to lump me in with that scumbag is ignorant at best.

You caught my hyperbole.

Your liberty ends where my nose begins. Thus, you do NOT have a right to smoke around non-smokers. It's just rubbish.

I'm about as libertarian as anyone here, but I am not one of those libertarians who believe other people's well-being doesn't matter when you do stuff.

I got my habit with my eyes wide open and quit the same way. Somehow, I figure that adults can make their own decisions. But as long as totalitarians are content to crush the will of those they disagree with (just another form of fundamentalism) then there will always be folks who think well of bad ideas, like the great leap forward.

"if you can't give up a cigarette for 30-45 minutes, just shoot yourself now, seriously"

There are dozens of other behaviors that are regulated in public, like sex, drugs, drinking, being loud/annoying, fighting, and so on, but it's smoking that gets people all worked up because their addiction has been socially acceptable for so long. Would junkies fight so hard to shoot up at the breakfast table at Denny's, and equate the lack of said "right" with Hitler's totalitarianism?

Just try not to inhale on the way home from the gin mill.

And how old is that picture and is it really NJ? And the site of steam on a winter morning springs from tens of thousands of smokestacks Nationwide.

I live 2 miles from NJ. Inhaling some of the worst air in North America daily.
Any serious look at air quality in relation to health focuses on industrial and automobile pollution.
Personally I couldn't care less if people smoke in NJ bars or not.
It's just tiresome to see these initiatives billed as if the government gives a damn about our health.
This law costs nothing and looks good to the voters. Reducing auto and industrial emissions is much more essential,
but is not achievable because the politicians don't want to wrangle with Dow and Union Carbide.
As for the picture, I don't know where it is. Just an example of an industrial landscape pulled from Encarta.
This photo of NJ was my first choice, but would not directly link to my post:

has been closed about twenty years now.

And the air from the rust belt coal burning power plant has caused NJ more grief than our own now small industry. We led the way in the fight to reduce the amount of sulfur in coal these power plans use, and don't tell me the air in Philadelphia and it's suburbs is better than over the river. Or that Fort Lee and Northern Bergen County have ANY repeat ANY industry at all. On top of that Manhattan and Staten Island creates it's own horrendous pollution daily.

Throw your stones elsewhere. You want to take shots at NJ, look in your own back yard first.

And the photo lies. Remove it or find the credits. I hate it when people jump on the band wagon who are clueless.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

should smoking in public spaces (a very good thing) NOT be done because other very good things are not being done?

How does that relate?

If you wanted to say: great, air is a little cleaner now, let's get behind pushing for tougher auto emissions changes, that would make sense.

Should we just throw our hands up and give over on air quality? Is it really all or nothing?

It really is the Garden State. The part everyone makes fun is is basically an industrial annex of NYC. I grew up in South Jersey, a land of green, dairy farms, salt marches, crabbers, and miles of field and cows. Most of NJ is like this. It is a BEAUTIFUL state. Please quit being so ignorant.

Central Jersey here, but I love no place better than the whole Jersey shore.

NJ has it all -- mountains to oceans, lakes, rivers, farms... Northeastern NJ has indeed become nothing more than an offshoot of NYC.

Unfortunately, the turnpike (which is indeed incredibly ugly) is all many see or know of the state.

I couldn't possibly know anything about the area. I've only lived here for 45 years.
The air quality in NYC is much worse than NJ even with our smoking ban.
One thing I've learned....after 5 years, 2,864 posts and money donated...is that, rather than to "quit being so ignorant", it's sometimes best just to quit.
Peace,
SOS

Because the majority of NJ is not like that. What you wrote is very, very stereotypical of all of the bad NJ jokes that people make who know nothing about NJ.

I honestly have no idea what the "quit being ignorant means," and am giving you the benefit of the doubt.

Here in Athens, GA we had three coffee houses in the downtown area. Over time, all three decided to go completely non-smoking (this was before the statewide ban). A few months later, a fourth coffee house opened up that specifically catered to smokers (and advertised as such). Shortly after this, Athens-Clarke County passed a ban that prohibited smoking in any business (this ban is more restrictive than the statewide Georgia ban). So, can a smoking ban advocate please explain to me what is so bad about allowing an establishment to choose to allow smoking, when there are three other non-smoking alternatives within a square mile?

...the anti-smoking folks will tell you that it's to protect the workers. But then if you ask them what initiatives they have ever sponsored or supported top protect workers from VOCs, they'll fall silent. Because it's all about moralism and getting back at a few smokers that have pissed them off.

They don't have a good answer as to why they don't allow exceptions for an advanced HVAC technical solution, either.

Just hate. That's all they feed on.

who have a say in choosing how they want to share their air space, nothing more. Ask a restaurant to put in high quality air filtration or vertical filtration to remove second hand smoke they will tell you it's too expensive. Tell them 3 out of 4 of us don't chose to sit with those who do smoke and they cry they'll lose business.

If they felt they could have solved this to everyone's satisfaction, they should have partnered with the HVAC industry years ago and come up with a viable solution to stop the future from devouring their businesses.

They all screamed woe is me when the BAC went to .08 yet I haven't hear of mass sale of liquor licenses anywhere in my state or any other.

Sure, people who don't smoke have a say in this matter, but people who do smoke also have a say. If there is a market for non-smoking bars, clubs, restaurant, etc, then there will be non-smoking establishments. I have no problem with this. But why does it bother non-smokers so much that there might be (and is) a market for businesses that cater specifically to smokers?

I also have a sneaking suspicion that it would not matter to you if an establishment had a high level air filtration system or not.

But my question remains, can those who smoke last 30-45 minutes, or is going outside or not lighting up when the inevitable urge to light up that Missy Foo Slim in the middle of your egg drop soup too critical to consider the rest of us?

Smokers have had more than 25 years to determine how best to figure out smoking in the general public. As so many who've tried to quit smoking know, they failed miserably. Tell the children whose parents are causalities in this war of so-called rights that your Missy Foo Slim was more important than one more day here.

Let there be smoking establishments and let there be non-smoking establishments! So now I assume you will be contacting your representative to tell them that you are against a government mandated ban.

Nice waving of the bloody shirt there at the end of your post by the way.

I am an ex-smoker. One who doesn't hesitate to tell those of you that tell me I should or should do anything after doing what you consider to be a right for too many years while my health and those around me when to hell in a hand basket.

If you don't like to see the bloody shit, resist the temptation to light up in my imediate presence indoors. I am sure you'd love it if I went on a fried cabbage and brussles sprouts with pork and beans on the side eating binge and decided to sit next to you while you eat and fart in your general direction? And all I'd bring to the table is methane.

Especially the one titled: "Let there be smoking establishments I don't care".

Bravo. You are an ex-smoker. So therefore, you can tell others what they should or shouldn't do, but they can not tell you what you should or shouldn't do...at least that is what I got out of your post. As for the methane inspired story, if I was bothered, I would ask to be moved. See how wonderful and simple it is? But I guess I could take a page out of your book and call for a ban on all public farting.

...from the vitriol of your rhetoric.

I suppose I shouldn't even bother to point out that we're not necessarily talking about restaurants here; that some establishments (casinos, mainly) have made that "costly investment" in HVAC systems; that even if it is extremely costly, they should have the right to do so if they choose, but what you advocate would prevent them from it; that an HVAC system capable of removing smoke would also have major health benefits to workers and customers by removing VOCs and probably should be required by law anyway; or that I personally have next to no stake in the whole argument since my pack of cigarettes never leaves my front (outdoor) porch.

So if you want to make progress, instead of just standing out here and yelling, propose an initiative that raises minimum indoor air standards. Then me and my fellow smokers will shut up, and heck we'll probably even sign your petition, even though most establishments will choose to ban smoking in order to meet those standards.

But if your goal is just to make a large segment of the population angry at you, and to feed the Limbaugh "nanny state" hatred among conservatives, then go ahead and do exactly what you're up to.

You've had 25 YEARS to clean up your act so that we who do not smoke can co-exist. At this late date, I will do nothing more than applaud the decision as a great step when it is signed.

If you choose to smoke on your own front porch, feel free to do so. If you feel you must smoke in public, go to Atlantic City and gamble your money too. Both are a huge loss, but if you WANT to do something as destructive as smoking tobacco in limited public spaces and force your opinion upon a larger majority, it won't work.

And to be yet another to throw the hyperbole ball (regarding Limpballs) at me is just fucking wrong. Join my list of ignored. This is about the quality of life that we as non-smokers choose not to join you in.

To think for one split second that this is the end of the world as we know it while a dullard resides in the People's House, his minions sap every freedom from the Constitution because THEY CAN, and you choose this one split second on a Liberal board to deem all those who disagree with you as being enjoined with our enemies, you may go to hell.

The Republicans squeal for the freedom of the smokers while the tax money they charge goes not toward the care of them as they die from the destructive effects, but to further their own agenda of rising debt, ever growing government, and sending our best and brightest to die in wars they conduct off hand. Is that what this is really about? The freedom of being wrong or the free choice of making the right decision to affect the lives of many?

Choose, I've made my choice, and it is one of better health for all.

Big tobacco no longer rules here. And never will again.

stay the fuck out!

is my hate of breathing noxious cigarette fumes.

I have no hate for smokers. Pity, perhaps.

The answer to your question is no, and if someone claims otherwise, they're wrong.

How do you react when some corporate asshole responds to allegations of asbestos and PCB exposure in his company's plants with, "well, our employees choose to work here..."? Hmm?

Smokers try to make the same arguments they made when they were ORDERED they had to wear seat belts, free will, right to die, etc. Now you have to wear a seat belt because you were to stupid not to realize that it saved you from yourselves.

So...you are in the business of saving people from themselves? Is that what this is really about? What a grand Solomon-like wisdom you must posses.

So, to continue with your chosen analogy, what about those who are exempt from seatbelt laws because they own an antique car? I guess they are just too stupid for their own good. We must ban those antique cars! We must save them from themselves! They will thank us later.

ie. second-hand smoke.

And please, nobody tell me that I'm free to avoid environments that allow smoking. Why should I - to preserve my health - have to avoid a large swath of indoor public places?

You're right, the .01% of the population who own truly antique cars don't have to wear seatbelts, so why should the rest of us? It's about the freedom to spend the rest of my life as a quadriplegic or on life support at taxpayer expense! Thank you got framing this argument to me in such a way that my internal nanny has been forever muted!

/sarcasm

I don't recall making the argument that because antique car owners don't have to wear seat belts, no one has to wear them. Nice try anyways...:smoke:

n/t

So, what you advocate, ultimately, is a total ban on smoking.

In any case, the state can rule more appropriately over seat-belt laws than smoking-in-restaurant laws. The former apply on public roads, the latter on private property. I do agree, however, that, aside from jurisdictional considerations, the arguments are similar: the "stupid" people consistently try to minimize state regulation of citizens' free-will, right to die (make decisions harmful to oneself--how I'd put it). I agree that smoking cigarettes and not wearing a seatbelt are "dumb" decisions in general, although there may be cases where they'd make sense. But take away the right to make the "dumb" decisions, and we may find ourselves without the right to make the "smart" ones.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I understand you don't want to inhale other people's smoke. Fine. Don't go to establishments that allow smoking.

But why the necessity to ban smoking even in places where owners, employees, and customers are fine with it?

Why the need to impose this health fascism on people who don't want it?

Let me guess....they don't have to work there.

If a person is concerned about second hand smoke (which is a killer, you must agree) then they need to find a smoke-free place of employment? Isn't that "fascism" by smokers?

There will be plenty of non-smoking establishments for those barmen or waitrons to work at.

People deciding to take or not take a job weigh any number of factors.

Allowing a bar owner to allow smoking in his establishment and allowing potential workers to choose if they want to take the risks associated with the job is not "fascism by smokers." Nobody is forcing anybody to do anything, unlike the total smoking ban.

for those people to work at?

You don't know that. What nonsense.

EDIT: you said "Nobody is forcing anybody to do anything, unlike the total smoking ban."
More nonsense. A smoking ban forces people NOT to do something.

I thought that because militant non-smokers are such a huge majority some businesses just might want to address their needs. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe it's just a loudmouthed minority trying to impose its will.

As for the nonsense about being forced, you're full of shit. There is force involved, and it doesn't really matter whether one is forced to do something or forced not to do something. You are attempting to coerce others into doing what you would prefer.

All those fat-asses eating all that nasty food. Yuck. It makes me wanna puke. Plus, they keep jacking up the health care with their fat-ass diseases andf their fat-ass heart attacks. Fat fuckers can't control themselves and their eating, so they should be regulated.

and it's the greatest thing that could have happened.

Even the smokers I know now agree that it's a good thing.

People aren't allowed to scatter other harmful substances around public places, why on earth should they be allowed to do it in the case of smoke?

So, I have to live in the bush in hand-woven garments and never burn any fossil fuels before I can be critical of second hand smoke?

That's the crux of your argument.

Polution from automobiles does cause disease, without a doubt. The truth is that second hand smoke is more enclosed and concentrated, and prolonged exposure to it is obviously more harmful than our outdoor air.

...which has yet to be denied, but pretty much is in every one of these types of threads, I ask: since cigarette smoke is known to be FAR more harmful than marijuana smoke, can I conclude that you would have no problem with someone at the next table enjoying a nice honey blunt while you munch on your food?

Just looking for some consistency in the argument.

That's the nice thing about free choice, which this law obliterates.

of the majority of people who wish to attend and/or work at any public place
free from the health hazard of 2nd hand smoke.

What if there are no smoke-free options for workers or consumers? What's your answer to that?
They're free not to work then, I guess?

What if I want to scatter asbestos fibers everyplace I go? Should I be free to do that? Oh..those bloody fascists won't let me scatter my asbestos, the horror!!! :)

No one has the RIGHT to negatively impact the health of another citizen.

Cover mental health as well?

I suppose, if actual damage is shown (such as mercury poisoning causing mental disorders), the statement indeed applies.

And then there is the fact that mental abuse is acknowledged as a motivator in criminal cases.

But if you're asking in an attempt to parse the answer into something that supports the "mental abuse" against smokers by those not willing to be physically harmed by their unwanted smoke, I'd avoid that route, as it's pretty much laughable.

Not just caused by substances Mental scars cant been seen you know and effect people more then physical things Take unwanted stress for example thats caused by other people and manifests it self physically in some cases and it negatively effects citizens you know things of that nature.
But smokers shouldn't be able to claim mental abuse at all on that one we know there wrong so why should they complain I haven't looked at the second hand smoke statistics in a while you wouldn't happen to have them at hand? or a good link to them.

But your right any thing that harms others or harms them self should be limited and in some cases out right baned from public use.

I am fully in support of disallowing people from endangering their children's health via their addiction, since kids have no choice in the matter.

But if the parents want to make accommodations in their home so that kids are not exposed, I think that's reasonable, too.

You can't argue that non-smokers are in the majority (which is true), and then claim that there might not be any smoke-free alternatives for workers in a given town. Regardless of smoking bans, there are office buildings, factories, coffee houses, movie theaters, supermarkets, restaurants, and yes even bars and clubs that elect to be non-smoking venues precisely because there is a market(for lack of a better word) for them. As I smoker, I understand and respect the owner's decision to run their business as they see fit. Accordingly, I do not go into those businesses and bitch about not being able to smoke or ignore the rules and light up anyway. What I don't understand is why non-smokers do not extend equal courtesy to smokers or owners of establishments who cater to smokers.
Non-smokers who patronize smoking establishments and then complain about them are like pharmacists who won't fill prescriptions for religious reasons.

"You can't argue that non-smokers are in the majority (which is true), and then claim that there might not be any smoke-free alternatives for workers in a given town."

Yes, I can. Why does a non-smoking majority translate into non-smoking businesses? Your argument assumes non-smoking business owners translate into non-smoking businesses. Incorrect.

Complaining about not being able to spread smoke in an enclosed space is bizarre.

complaining about it is bizarre. And don't tell me you can't find a non-smoking restaurant. They're everywhere.

and 99 people are smoking, 100 people are breathing smoke.

If there are 100 people in a room and 1 person is smoking, 100 people are breathing smoke.

Also, your argument assumes that there are in fact places that don't allow smoking. The town I went to college in had 5 bars, all of which were smoking bars. There were no non-smoking bars in the county before the ban!

The "freedom of choice" argument would hold MUCH more water if non-smoking bars and restaurants were common prior to the ban, but since there wasn't a single non-smoking bar in the county, then what does that say about the validity of your argument?

He would destroy that precious free choice of the majority of the people who wish to attend or work at any restaurant to force their will on the owner of that restaurant.

====
Are you serious? Absolutely no smoke-free alternatives? Scattering asbestos anywhere akin to smoking at a privately-owned, smoking restaurant?

what about smoking a bowl of crack at the next table?

Is prohibiting crack smoking in restaurants unfairly limiting the "rights" of people who smoke crack?

please nooooooooooooooooooooooooooo :cry:

but ...Holding my breath until it is final.

I am soooooooooooooo happy about this. Owned a restaurant back in the 80s- made it non smoking.
Even way back then it INCREASED business.

Go NJ!

most of the country would have been screaming that the religious right was pushing people around. When some dinky town in the bible belt declares itself a dry city, everyone screams about how the fundies are pushing their beliefs down our throats.

However, because the initive was taken in such a progressive haven as California, we are only doing it for the good of everyone. BS. Any way you cut it, banning the use of a legal product on private property smacks of a holier than thou attitude. I've never smoked a cigarette in my life. Out of courtsey, my family members who visit my hous step outside without being asked. However, when they come over, I've made a point to find something for them to use as an ashtry inside my home if they like.

I think the best option would be for businesses to be asked to post on their doors that it is an establishment that caters to smokers. As such, in those places, smoking should be allowed. If you do not want to be exposed to that atmosphere, do not frequent the establishment.

Sorry, I grew up in Utah, and I have seen many people (from many religions) attempt to force what are moral beliefs towards others. It is the last place that government should be involved.

causes cancer. The idea that if you get exposure to second hand smoke your more at risk than the smoker is just plain idiotic. Then again the rabid fanatical anti-smoker clique has actually got a lot of first hand smokers to quite so maybe thats good. Its just a shame they had to lie to do it. One interesting thing to note is that the thousands who die from alcohol related illness each year get almost no press at all. Millions if you include those who die from drinking and driving. Maybe we should outlaw drinking alcohol in bars, but then why would we go to bars.

driving accidents, but still thats no small number.

And alcohol-related illness only effects the person drinking. (obviously not including drinking & driving)

Let's put it this way. Would you enjoy yourself at a bar or restaraunt if you had to smell my farts the entire time?

It's really no different.

to prevent farters from bars. I'm sorry you have to include the drinking and driving deaths it shows a direct relationship between alcohol use and deaths of innocent non-alcoholics. There is also much abuse both physical and psychological related to alcoholism. I used to work in an Intensive care unit and saw much more people dieing from alcohol related illness then smoking related illness. And yet there are no anti-alcohol commercials on tv. Its such a double standard. Do with your body whatever you want. I am not sure the rest of us should pay for it though. I am a non-smoker by the way.

to set it up the way they want. Set up a non-smoking joint if you want. Work at a NS restaurant if you want. More legislation (less freedom) is not the answer.

that drinking is harmful.

I just don't like the comparisons that drinking a beer next to a person is in any way shape or form remotely related to smoking a cigarette.

Drinking is bad for people yet you never hear any anti-drinking sound bits other than AA.

you attacks you and kills you. Violence and drinking go hand in hand.

what if?

than I am from dying of an asthma attack tonight.

brought on by someone with strong perfume for instance. Cigarette smoke is one thing in a world filled with potential irritants.

I'm from NJ.....This sucks:banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

John Spartan (Stallone): Gimme a Marlboro


Lt. Lenina Huxley (Bullock): What's a Marlboro?


Spartan: It's a cigarette. Any cigarette.


Huxley: Smoking is not good for you. Anything not good for you is bad. Hence, illegal. Alcohol, caffeine,contact sports, meat--


Spartan: Are you shitting me?


Computer: You are fined one credit for violation of the verbal-morality statute.

back in the 80s, negotiating $500,000 compensation for him smoking a certain brand of cigarettes in a movie. (Here it is: http://tobaccodocuments.org/youth/AmBWC19830614.Lt.html.) A tremendously cynical thing for them to do. (It's well-known that if a kid reaches 18-20 years without having started smoking, they're very unlikely to start -- most smokers begin in their early to mid teens. And if you start smoking that early in life, it is much more difficult to quit smoking.) Given that smoking cuts 13-14 years off an average smoker's life, there is no form of life lower than tobacco marketers.

I am all for any ban on public smoking, any increase in taxes on cigarettes, and any expenditure of public money on smoking prevention/cessation campaigns.

otherwise...what the hell is it? If this is for the health and well-being of the public irregardless of the adjustment large and small businesses have to make in the process, why don't casinos - a HUGE business - have to comply?

Indian casinos are not regulated by the new anti-smoking law. They're doing a marvelous business wherever they're close to a populated area here.

I guess we found a way to make up for the 19th Century to them...

and are facing what could be the last of our freedoms and liberties being stripped away by this president and his corrupt administration and party, I can't believe that so many people on this board would so blatantly be in support of yet another case of the government stepping into our personal lives.

Before you flame me, I am not a smoker, nor have I ever been. I hate the smell of smoke on my clothes and in the air. But I know going in to a bar that there will be people smoking and I accept that. If I don't want the smoke, I don't go to the restaurant or bar.

I can't see how we claim that we want to protect the rights & freedoms of all people and we so ravenously jump on board these smoking bans. The government should not have the right to stop someone from smoking just like they shouldn't have the right to stop someone from drinking. Both are bad for you, sure, but so is fast food. How many of you who don't want the smoking in public places because it is unhealthy for you or your family have taken everyone to dinner at McDonald's or Wendy's etc.?

We on the left have a few bandwagon issues that always mystify me. Smoking bans, Crusading against violent video games and TV or adult themed radio shows, etc..

If you don't like violence on TV...don't watch, or allow your children to watch.
If you don't like hearing Howard Stern on the radio...change the channel.
If you don't want to smell cigarette smoke...don't go to an establishment that chooses to allow it's patrons to smoke.

If a business makes that decision to allow smoking and you don't like it, DON"T GO! if enough people don't go, they will change their policy, on their own, without the government stepping in where it should not be.

How is this any different than the Religious Right calling for a ban on that NBC TV show last week. I don't see the difference.

is what it should read.

For the record: I'm a non-smoker.