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.
I take issue with the whole concept of "places of public accomodation" to begin with. To me, it seems like nothing more than a power grab. The majority (or perhaps a minority) wanted to seize control of property rights they didn't have, so they just applied a new label to certain kinds of private property and claimed the new label gave them the power to make decisions over it.
I am willing to accept, as a matter of compromise, certain regulations that protect innocent members of the community at large. Sanitation codes preventing the spread of food-borne illnesses in a community would be an example of somewhat reasonable regulations. Yes, you are telling the restaurant down the road how they have to prepare their food. The reason is, how they prepare their food might affect me if I catch something nasty from my friend who ate there for lunch.
Smoking bans aren't anything like this. There is no possibility of smoke being forced on anyone unwillingly in a restaurant. Immediately upon entering a restaurant or bar, one can tell if smoking is permitted. Or, one can ask if smoking is allowed.
So obviously, I think there are better choices than a one-size-fits-all directive. You can simply require the posting of signs to let potential customers know that tobacco smoke is present in a restaurant, for example. Then, no one is exposed to smoke without their consent (as evidenced by their informed decision to enter the restaurant). Everybody wins.
Not a bad point.
Simplicity is illusive....government has no right to interfere with private business not allow smoking in ALL places. Very SIMPLE.......You do not want Smoking in your Tavern or Restaurant...put a sign that states No Smoking at the front door. You WANT Smoking at your establishment...post Smoking Allowed on your front door. How simple is that? One then has a choice to frequent or work at that establishment or not. This ALL or Nothing attitude is ignorant.
Simplicity is illusive....government has no right to interfere with private business not allow smoking in ALL places. Very SIMPLE.......You do not want Smoking in your Tavern or Restaurant...put a sign that states No Smoking at the front door. You WANT Smoking at your establishment...post Smoking Allowed on your front door. How simple is that? One then has a choice to frequent or work at that establishment or not. This ALL or Nothing attitude is ignorant.
What is the difference between signing a "waiver" and voluntarily entering the business? (Besides a lawyer getting $$$)
By entering the building, then remaining when the ashtrays and/or any other evidence of smoking being allowed are noticed, the customer has given implied consent.
" What is the difference between signing a "waiver" and voluntarily entering the business? (Besides a lawyer getting $$$)
By entering the building, then remaining when the ashtrays and/or any other evidence of smoking being allowed are noticed, the customer has given implied consent."
Because they are accepting risk, so a waiver is appropriate.
If the court challege claims that the law is unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution, then I guarantee you that the challenge will ultimately fail. When the issue concerns socio/economic legislation, the SCOTUS has long ruled that the gov'ment has broad discretion to create classifications even if the end result is to treat simarly situated people differently and differently situated people the same, provided the classification is rationally related to any conceivable state interest.
"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."
Sorry to disagree with you. If people believe that going into your business will harm them, they won't come in in the first place. That is called market forces. If I want to go to a place that has no smoking, then I will go there. Let the people decide where to go, not the government. Let the pocketbook make the decisions, not some public official who has an agenda.
I am sick and tired of the this damn nanny state mentality that is taking over my country. For God's sake, people are supposed to be adults, let them act like it and stop treating government as one big mommy who needs to tell us what to freaking do.
Smokers are public too
Yep. But anymore, smokers are second class citizens and looked down upon by those who named themselves the protectors of us all.
I am an adult who choses not to smoke, but if a smoker wishes to join me in a restaurant and light up, then so be it. They have the same rights that I do to enjoy the public life. I can choose to go to a non-smoking establishment if I wish, but that is the key....choice. Government believes that I can't make a choice on my own, that I'm a child that must be told what to do what is best for me. I say I am an adult and government can go screw itself.
I agree with you accept for "private clubs", unless I am misunderstanding what you mean by that
Simply have smoking restaurants & taverns and non smoking restaurants & taverns...very simple
"Simply have smoking restaurants & taverns and non smoking restaurants & taverns...very simple"
I don't have a problem with that although I'd have waivers where you understand in advance that other restaurant patrons can put harmful chemicals on you and you give up your right to complain.
not a bad idea
That is because they are simply too prickly...
I live in New York State...and there is no smoking of any kind in any restaurant or tavern...there is one cigar bar that was granfathered into the new law and the other bar has smoking but is not allowed to serve food. Anywhere else where food is served is not allowed to have ANY type of smoking.
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.