Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Bowling lane owners send shoes to lawmakers
Newsday ^

Posted on 05/21/2005 5:14:16 PM PDT by Sub-Driver

Bowling lane owners send shoes to lawmakers

May 21, 2005, 6:54 PM EDT

TRENTON, N.J. -- A bowling alley industry group has sent a single bowling shoe to each member of the state Legislature as a reminder of why they oppose a proposed indoor smoking ban.

The Bowling Proprietors' Association of North Jersey and Southern New Jersey said it sent the shoes to highlight how the special leather-soled shoes slip easily on wet surfacing. The group claims an indoor smoking ban would raise their insurance rates because smokers going outside to smoke on a rainy day would bring water back onto the lanes.

"Our insurance will then go up, and we're forced to pass on that cost to the consumers," Stephen DiDonato, owner of DiDonato Bowling Center in Hammonton, told The Press of Atlantic City for Saturday's editions.

Other bowling alley owners worry it would hurt their business because smoking and drinking is so associated with the activity, a concern echoed by owners of bars, casinos and other places where smoking is commonplace.

If signed into law, the legislation _ known as the New Jersey Smoke-Free Act _ would ban smoking in all indoor public areas and make the state one of at least seven that have comprehensive smoking bans.

The bill's sponsor, state Sen. John Adler, D-Camden, thought a smoking ban would help, rather than hurt, bowling lane owners. It would create a healthier environment for customers, he said.

(Excerpt) Read more at newsday.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events; US: New Jersey
KEYWORDS: bowling; newjersey; nj; puff; pufflist; smoking; smokingban
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 next last
The Bowling Proprietors' Association of North Jersey and Southern New Jersey???? I give up.....
1 posted on 05/21/2005 5:14:17 PM PDT by Sub-Driver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver
Good, creative way to raise publicity. These indoor smoking bans are nuts. Forcing people to go outside to smoke just makes life less pleasant for pedestrians. No one's forced to go into any of these indoor establishments if they don't like the smoke, but some people kinda have to use the public streets to get back and forth.
2 posted on 05/21/2005 5:17:49 PM PDT by inquest (FTAA delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

What hypocrisy! The Legislators don't want people to smoke to save them from themselves, but gladly balance their state budget with cigarette taxes.


3 posted on 05/21/2005 5:20:39 PM PDT by The Great RJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver; Gabz; SheLion

Tres chic!

4 posted on 05/21/2005 5:34:57 PM PDT by martin_fierro (< |:)~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

Great. Now they'll just ban bowling, too!



Oh, and I suppose Central Old Jersey isn't represented by those associations? ;-)


5 posted on 05/21/2005 5:38:43 PM PDT by Gondring (Pretend you don't know me...I'm in the WPPFF.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #6 Removed by Moderator

To: Sub-Driver
Bowling lane owners send shoes to lawmakers

I propose we all organize and send blue marbles to lawmakers.

No, there's no point.

Other than to confuse them.

7 posted on 05/21/2005 5:40:14 PM PDT by Lazamataz (Not Elected Pope Since 4/19/2005.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Aviso
No one's forcing clientele to do anything. If you don't like it, don't go in there. It's not your property.
8 posted on 05/21/2005 5:42:48 PM PDT by inquest (FTAA delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Gondring

They won't ban bowling - the legi-bastards will just make it mandatory for Bowling Alleys to provide a covered deck.


9 posted on 05/21/2005 5:44:00 PM PDT by bikepacker67
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

Comment #10 Removed by Moderator

To: Gabz

excellent


11 posted on 05/21/2005 5:45:44 PM PDT by patton ("Fool," said my Muse to me, "look in thy heart, and write.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Aviso
Forcing clientele, who find cancer undesireable, to breathe noxious second hand smoke is nuts. Take it outside.

What about those of us who want cancer but who do not smoke? Who speaks for us?

12 posted on 05/21/2005 5:47:17 PM PDT by Lazamataz (Not Elected Pope Since 4/19/2005.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Aviso
Forcing clientele, who find cancer undesireable, to breathe noxious second hand smoke is nuts. Take it outside.

I say, leave it up to the business owner. If he wants to allow smoking, then he should be allowed to do it. Then, if the customers like it, they'll come, and if not, they'll stay away and he'll have to switch to non-smoking, or go out of business.

Mark

13 posted on 05/21/2005 5:48:08 PM PDT by MarkL (I've got a fever, and the only prescription is MORE COWBELL!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Aviso
Nobody working in such an establishment should be required to accept exposure to carcinogenic fumes as a condition of employment.

Nobody's forcing them to work there.

We don't want your Nanny State.

14 posted on 05/21/2005 5:48:32 PM PDT by Lazamataz (Not Elected Pope Since 4/19/2005.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
I propose we all organize and send blue marbles to lawmakers.

No, there's no point.

Other than to confuse them.

That's a great idea. It would be great fun to watch they and the press would react.

15 posted on 05/21/2005 5:49:09 PM PDT by Fzob (Why does this tag line keep showing up?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Aviso
The employees aren't forced to work there either. It's not like it's a hidden danger that they only find out about when it's too late.
16 posted on 05/21/2005 5:49:48 PM PDT by inquest (FTAA delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Aviso
Nobody working in such an establishment should be required to accept exposure to carcinogenic fumes as a condition of employment.

You know, you're right! After spending 4 years in college, then having to take graduate courses in advanced scoring, and shoe disinfection, there's nothing else I could do with this Phd in Bowling Sciences in any other industry. Pity, I shouldn't have listened to that guidance councellor about going into the bowling industry, and sinking all that time, effort, and money in my bowling sciences education. Because of my degree, I'm forced to work in a bowling alley where people smoke, and I have nowhere else that I can ply my trade! I should have ignored him and gone to medical school to become a doctor!

Mark

17 posted on 05/21/2005 5:53:01 PM PDT by MarkL (I've got a fever, and the only prescription is MORE COWBELL!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

Comment #18 Removed by Moderator

To: Aviso
There's a reason the government would prohibit topless waitresses in that bowling alley. Is that nannying too?

Women are also prohibited from going topless outside. When you can do the same with smoking, and actually enforce the law as effectively as the law against topless women, then maybe you can think about banning it inside, where no one's forced to go. Until then, you're arguing this whole point backwards.

19 posted on 05/21/2005 5:57:18 PM PDT by inquest (FTAA delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Aviso
This issue is funded and driven by the cancer industry. Anybody who subscribes to it and anyone who spends their hard earned money sucking on cancer delivery vehicles is a dupe. If you feel the need to shorten your life, do it in private. You have now right to endanger others.

You have no right to tell others how they must conduct their ingestion of a legal and non-intoxicating substance. The research on second hand smoke is dubious at best. I am not a smoker and I am not associated with cigarette companies in any way, so this is not an issue driven by "the cancer industry". In my case, it is driven by disgust at Nanny Busybodies and the total disregard they have for freedom.

By the way, that phrase, "the cancer industry", is one a liberal would be proud of.

We don't need your Nanny State. Take it somewhere where it sells.

20 posted on 05/21/2005 5:58:13 PM PDT by Lazamataz (Not Elected Pope Since 4/19/2005.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson