N.J. lawmakers misstep with smoking ban

Philadelphia Business Journal ^ | January 20, 2006

[Sunshine Sister]

Yup! Everyone in gov't knows better than me. Amazing!

[SheLion]

If they were really interested in reducing public health hazards and expenses they would pass strict anti-sodomy laws and enforce them vigorously. The so-called gay lifestyle is infinitely more destructive and expensive than burning leaves in little paper tubes. But that's politically incorrect and laying punitive taxes on the backs of smokers is moronically easy tax farming. Of course, as smokers stop paying taxes by rolling their own or buying on the black market, the generalized tobacco tax revenues will drop, creating a void in the budget. The result, higher sales, income and property taxes for everyone to make up the new "deficit." Beware, putting tax money in the hands of politicians is like handing whiskey an carkeys to teenage boys. The taxes you favor increasing will turn into your own.

Well, you can tell it isn't about health, when NJ Governor forced a smoking ban on all private businesses EXCEPT the casino!

And as far as banning gays or their lifestyle, they have the Gay Group with lots of money for court costs behind them.  Smokers have no such money or group to turn to.

If they were really interested in reducing public health hazards and expenses they would pass strict anti-sodomy laws and enforce them vigorously. The so-called gay lifestyle is infinitely more destructive and expensive than burning leaves in little paper tubes. But that's politically incorrect and laying punitive taxes on the backs of smokers is moronically easy tax farming. Of course, as smokers stop paying taxes by rolling their own or buying on the black market, the generalized tobacco tax revenues will drop, creating a void in the budget. The result, higher sales, income and property taxes for everyone to make up the new "deficit." Beware, putting tax money in the hands of politicians is like handing whiskey an carkeys to teenage boys. The taxes you favor increasing will turn into your own.

Well, you can tell it isn't about health, when NJ Governor forced a smoking ban on all private businesses EXCEPT the casino!

And as far as banning gays or their lifestyle, they have the Gay Group with lots of money for court costs behind them.  Smokers have no such money or group to turn to.

[newgeezer]

Um, yes, at least at the federal level.

Then let's confine your answer to the state government. After all, that's the subject of the thread.

Any smoking-ban opponents who say, in effect, "any workers who don't want the risk (no matter how serious it really is) can go find another job" are simply shooting themselves in the foot. They're ignoring or even conceding defeat on the bigger issue, that being whether secondhand smoke really poses a serious health risk.

Because, if you give the 'nazis' a pass, and let them call it a serious health risk, if you're going to say concerned workers should just find another job, you'd better be ready to say the government (at all levels) should abandon all its efforts in the area of worker (and consumer) safety regulation.

Now, while that very well may be true -- hey, I'm a big proponent of 'caveat emptor' myself -- that's going to be a VERY difficult sell to the 90% of Americans to the left of me, the hardcore right-wing zealot. You'll be a lot better off focusing on disproving the alleged risks of secondhand smoke. If secondhand smoke does not rise to the level of a serious health risk, even the most casual conservative will agree government has no business regulating it in the workplace, and you'll have a much easier time convincing the mushy middle.

[Madame Dufarge]

could include installing ventilation systems to give non-smoking diners a true alternative to eating in a smoke-filled room.

Many restaurants went to a great deal of expense to do just this before the smoking Nazis' Great Putsch.

It wasn't enough for the Enemies of Private Property.

[newgeezer]

It HAS been debunked. Over and over again. And even by the WHO!

Good. Then, by all means, beat that drum for all to hear.

If we can convince the non-smoking public that secondhand smoke poses no real health risk, it becomes a lot easier to convince them that there is no justification for government regulation in the workplace. Muddy the message with the "workers who don't like it can find other jobs" line at your own peril.

[SheLion]

Many restaurants went to a great deal of expense to do just this before the smoking Nazis' Great Putsch.

It wasn't enough for the Enemies of Private Property.

My favorite place to eat almost closed their doors after the first smoking ban in Maine in 2000.

The owner then invested in a very expensive liquor license and business started to boom again.

They then remodeled.  The place is beautiful.  4 big ceiling air purifiers.  Full menu.  A beautiful glass enclosed non-smoking section.  Sign on the entrance door "This is a smoking establishment.  No one under 18 admitted without guardian."

It is a Sports Bar with the full computer golf game across the back wall;  bunch of big TV's.  Just beautiful.

But that still wasn't good enough for the state.  A full no smoking ban went into effect a year ago January.  I went once after the ban, was so miserable that I couldn't sit there like old times and enjoy the evening that I haven't put myself through that again.

And do you think the state will reimburse this business owner for spending his own money to be able to accommodate everyone?  You can bet they will not.

[SheLion]

Muddy the message with the "workers who don't like it can find other jobs" line at your own peril.

Which reminds me of one gal who worked in a bar and couldn't stand the smoke.

She more or less demanded the owner go smoke free.

Guess what?  She was out on the streets looking for another job.

[jjmcgo]

Don't forget Abbott

[OldFriend]

Thanks for the reminder. Seems the socialists are alive and well in their determination to redistrubte the earnings of hard working folks.

[CSM]

The EPA has already refused to set the minimum exposure limits on ETS. They already have permissable exposure limits on the elements of ETS and the limits are far above levels seen in the smokiest of bars. If the nico-nazis were to be successful in getting these limits lowered, then they would be banning everything from heavy manufacturing down to tap water.

But we all know that is their ultimate goal. The destruction of our economy and outright socialism.

[CSM]

BTW, it is no longer even presented under the guise of "health risks" to workers. It is presented as a convenience that they get to avoid the "unpleasant" smell. They celebrate it because their clothes don't stink.

[newgeezer]

I guess someone should tell the author of the article. He or she wrote, "The state is doing this to save employees from the dangers of second-hand smoke."

[CSM]

They won't stick to that argument tho'. They will very easily accept that no health risks exist, yet they will still bang the drum. Except their mantra will change from "health" to "I just don't like the smell!"

I've experienced enough of it to know.

[newgeezer]

At least if you can force them to fall back on, "I just don't like the smell!," you might be able to convince the American sheeple that no government has any justification for regulating it.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!