Any New Jerseyan who is truly bothered by cigarette smoke in a bar or restaurant can decide for himself or herself not to go to the establishment or work there.
Posted on 03/11/2006 8:35:31 AM PST by SheLion
A statewide indoor smoking ban that exempts casinos is unfair and should never have been signed into law.
When they approved an indoor smoking ban for New Jersey in January, lawmakers all but admitted a double standard was being set by allowing Atlantic City's casinos to continue allowing smoking.
Now, a coalition of bars, restaurants and bowling alleys is rightly challenging the New Jersey Smoke-Free Air Act, set to go into effect April 15, asking a federal court to strike it down as unconstitutional. Hopefully, their challenge will lead to the law being scrapped.
It was shockingly hypocritical for state lawmakers, asserting they wanted to protect the health of workers across the state, to pass a smoking ban that left thousands of workers unprotected for no apparent reason other than politics. The Atlantic City casinos had pushed to not be barred from allowing smoking in the gambling halls.
"It (the casino industry) employs 50,000 people, has billions in public and private investment and just as importantly provides hundreds of millions of dollars to the state annually," Assembly Speaker Joe Roberts, D-Camden, said just after the bill was signed by former Gov. Richard J. Codey. "The view was that we have to look carefully at any industry that is that important and that fragile, given the competition all over the nation."
That flawed logic completely ignores the millions of dollars generated and thousands of people employed by bars, restaurants, bowling alleys and other businesses in the state. Apparently, the owners of these establishments don't deserve the right to make a choice that might affect their businesses -- a choice casino owners will continue to have.
"It's pathetic that these restaurant and bar owners have the gall to try and keep poisoning the bodies of their workers and customers," state Sen. John Adler, D-Cherry Hill, said in reacting to the federal lawsuit, filed Tuesday in federal court in Trenton.
What's pathetic is that Adler, a key proponent of the smoking ban, either doesn't see or is completely ignoring the double standard of this law and the unfairness of it.
There's absolutely nothing right or fair about giving casinos a choice that other New Jersey businesses won't have. It was unbelievable that so many lawmakers got behind the spineless measure.
Robert Gluck, a lawyer for the groups that filed the suit, said they'd be happy if the ban was extended to every business in the state's hospitality industry, including casinos.
That would be more fair, but it would still have the government going too far. Plain and simple, the decision should be made by individual businesses, not the government.
If New Jersey lawmakers, who bring in millions for the state by heavily taxing tobacco, aren't going to make smoking illegal, they shouldn't play nanny and unfairly tell certain business owners not to allow it.
The federal court should strike down this ban, and New Jersey lawmakers should give up their misguided quest to make health decisions for adults. Any New Jerseyan who is truly bothered by cigarette smoke in a bar or restaurant can decide for himself or herself not to go to the establishment or work there.
Any New Jerseyan who is truly bothered by cigarette smoke in a bar or restaurant can decide for himself or herself not to go to the establishment or work there.
Hi, SheLion. Sometime in 2003-2004 I bought cigarettes online from esmokes, and had them shipped to a friend's house in NJ, where I picked them up. Yesterday I got a tax bill from NJ Treasury for $238 in taxes! Have you ever heard of this? Do I have to pay it?
Thanks for your input.
The following is from one guy in Illinois and what HE is doing: (I wonder how they found you, since the orders were sent to your friends home, and not yours? Did the notice come to your address or to your friends?) To All: Well, here is a follow up to the letter I sent to the Michigan State Treasury requesting under the Michigan Freedom of Information Act, any and all information they had on record to substantiate their claim that I allegedly purchased tobacco products out of state: “…To the extent we understand your description, your request is granted. To the best of the undersigned’s knowledge, information and belief, the documents you requested, which the undersigned certifies are in the form the items exist in the department, are enclosed.” Signed……… The ONLY information that was provided which somehow incriminated me in this vast internet tobacco tax scam was a single page spread sheet of names, addresses, cartons ordered and cost of the order. This was a single date in September of 2002 which in no way includes all the other purchases they claim I made. It is as I suspected, they have no definitive evidence to support their claims other than spreadsheet information containing only the names, addresses, quantities of cigarettes ordered and the costs of same. My advice to everyone reading this post who is under assault by their respective state, go on the offensive and exercise your rights under the FOIA. At this point, based on what they provided me, I am sending another letter demanding a refund of the taxes I previously paid.
Try www.stuffyourown.com. Can't get much cheaper. From their website..."Stuff Your Own.com does not sell cigarettes or cigars, and therefore is not required by the "Jenkins Act" to report ANY of our out of state sales."
You are WRONG! A private business owner should HAVE the right to allow smoking or not, depending on his patrons. And NOT the governments intrusion.
The latest problem is smokers congregating at the entrances of non-smoking buildings. It makes it impossible to go in or out without getting smoke on you.
Listen, it was the professional anti-smokers and people like you who kicked smokers out into the streets. Until then, we had smoking rooms and lounges out of the fray of the traffic. Now, some places are even kicking smokers 25 feet away from the buildings. This is WRONG!
If you can't go all day without a drink, you have a problem. If you can't go all day without smoking, you have a problem too - a medical problem - you are a drug addict and it's not the job of non-addicts to endure your substance on their clothes and hair so you can indulge your addiction.
And I could care less what you think about "my problem." None of your business!! You think I am a drug addict and I think you are a busy body who wants the world to rotate on your azz. WRONG! If you don't want to be around smokers, STAY OUT! Leave this decision up to the private business owners!
And don't forget: CIGARETTES ARE A LEGAL COMMODITY!
In my area, it's the conservative Republicans who want the smoking bans and the Dems who oppose them.
"Leave this decision up to the private business owners!
And don't forget: CIGARETTES ARE A LEGAL COMMODITY!"
And they should stay legal.
To be able to use tobaaco around non-users you need a way to keep it from getting on to other people. If it could be swallowed this issue would go away. Or you take nicotine pills or gum or inject it... anything so you don't get it on bystanders.
And I see nothing wrong with private smoking clubs that are not open to the public - but places of public accomodation are different when you operate such a business you incur responsiblity to not harm the people who come in.
I guess it was the "Jenkins Act" - some type of subpoena to the supplier - esmokes.com - to provide the purchasers name, address, and where they had the cigarettes delivered. You need to give them all this info when you submit your credit card. Esmokes won't answer my email. But NJ has all my info now, and full details of my order, too. So I guess I'm nailed here - funny part is, my order was only $100 but the taxes are $238. This is so creepy, coming out of the blue like that after 3 years.
"Until then, we had smoking rooms and lounges out of the fray of the traffic."
I agree with you there. Smoking lounges that don't mix any of the air back where it can get onto other people and that do not require employees to ever enter should be completely protected.
Thanks for the tip - I think I'll try them.
This will never work. It makes too much sense
It's sickening. And we see more and more RINO'S instigating smoking bans or trying to more and more.
ie: Gov Pataki (R) forced a smoking ban on the state of New York. What a dweeb he is.
Promised the moon to get the votes, now he is sticking it to 25-30% of his smoking constituents. He's a dork.
Why respect the owner's rights only for private smoking clubs? Why not permit the owner of ANY property to excercise the decision of what he will permit on the property HE paid for?
Obviously, certain things are more reasonable areas of restriction. Practices that pose a danger to unsuspecting patrons, or that endanger people not even on the property, could conceivably be controlled. But smoking isn't one of these things. Tobacco smoke can be easily, almost instantly detected by anyone entering a restaurant or bar. And, outside of that restaurant or bar, it doesn't really affect anyone. If people want to avoid the easily detected danger or cigarrette smoke, they can simply go elsewhere. There's no need for government involvement, perhaps beyond requiring warning signs.
Ultimately, though, I suspect these bans have little to do with harm and a lot to do with convenience. No one is really that afraid of cigarette smoke, they just want to be able to go into any restaurant they want and have it cater to their wishes. Sad, really.
Now! Why on earth would I want to alter the way I have enjoyed cigarettes for so many years just because YOU don't like the SMELL??!! heh!
And I see nothing wrong with private smoking clubs that are not open to the public - but places of public accomodation are different when you operate such a business you incur responsiblity to not harm the people who come in.
All restaurants AND bars are privately owned businesses. They are not government owned. Therefore, the business owner should continue to have the right to run his business the way he and his patrons see fit.
If you don't want to be around smokers, spend your money in a restaurant or bar where there is no smoking or very little. You still have a choice!
But do not, for heaven's sake, beg the government to do dirty work for you and continue closing doors on the smaller businesses. What's the matter with you!
Private property: That which is not purchased or maintained by tax dollars and is for the benefit of the property owner.
"Why respect the owner's rights only for private smoking clubs? Why not permit the owner of ANY property to excercise the decision of what he will permit on the property HE paid for?"
you have that right. But when you voluntarily open your property to the public then you incur certain responsibilities.
I'd even support a situation where visitors to a business could sign a waiver saying they agree to have chemical residue exposure as a condition of entry. I'm not against smoking. I am against having smoke applied nonconsensually.
This is the only drug and drug residue that is routinely applied to people who don't want it.
Well, lots of people are starting to fight this. So I will keep my fingers crossed for you.
Boy, you sure have a prissy nose, don't you? I'd sure hate to be in a car in the middle of the summer stuck on the exhaust fumed interstates in the summer. Good grief!
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.