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

Skip to comments.

NJ: Federal court should rescind smoking ban
United Pro Smoker's Newsletter ^ | March 9, 2006

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.     


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Government; US: New Jersey
KEYWORDS: anti; antismokers; augusta; bans; budget; butts; camel; caribou; chicago; cigar; cigarettes; cigarettetax; commerce; fda; governor; individual; interstate; kool; lawmakers; lewiston; libertarians; liberty; maine; mainesmokers; marlboro; msa; niconazis; osha; pallmall; pipe; portland; prosmoker; quitsmoking; regulation; rico; rights; rinos; ryo; sales; senate; smokers; smoking; smokingbans; taxes; tobacco; winston
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160161-172 next last
To: MissouriConservative

"
That is a horrible analogy. First off, anthrax is illegal for anyone to have, cigararettes are a legal product. "

I don't think that's the main difference... but in the context we are talking about smoking is not legal in more and more places.


121 posted on 03/14/2006 2:04:36 PM PST by gondramB (Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and unto God that which is God's.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: gondramB

Smoking has significanly dropped...yet asthma has skyrocketed...go figure...it is not from smokers


122 posted on 03/14/2006 2:05:12 PM PST by stone fortress
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: stone fortress
"Smoking has significanly dropped...yet asthma has skyrocketed...go figure...it is not from smokers"

some of that may be increased diagnosis. I've had allergies all my life and been to four different allergists over the last 25 years.

A couple of years ago a new allergist diagnosed the existing symptoms as asthma so now its on my insurance record.

but I concede your basic point - that smoking has decreased but that has not lowered ashtma. other diseases have gone down -but hopefully we aren't debating whether or not smoking is harmful - we are talking about the balance between personal freedom and the rights of other in public - with both being important.
123 posted on 03/14/2006 2:09:38 PM PST by gondramB (Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and unto God that which is God's.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: gondramB
So your argument is that if one person doesn't get sick from cigarettes then it's safe for everybody?

Do not put words in my mouth.

And like over eating and obesity, of course smoking isn't "good" for us.  And just what IS safe today?  Can you list 5 items for me that is "safe?"

Just this week, more then 3 cups of coffee is now a killer again.  Next month, they will come back and say "Oh, actually coffee is rather good for us."  I'm just sick and tired of bogus junk science coming from idiots with their own agenda's.

And I realize smoking isn't for everyone, but there are 55 million of us in the United States that really enjoy it and have smoked for a long time. 

124 posted on 03/14/2006 2:14:47 PM PST by SheLion (Trying to make a life in the BLUE state of Maine!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: gondramB

You cannot constantly blame one thing for all the ills of the world....I still go back to my previous...separate restaurants and tavern...have smoking one and non-smoking ones. The people who have a problem with that are obsessive.


125 posted on 03/14/2006 2:15:01 PM PST by stone fortress
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: gondramB
Check this out from the American Council on Science and Health

OMG!  Now I understand how you became so easily swayed!  By reading a site by ASH????  Good grief!

That's like a DU forum.  They have dedicated their lives to bashing and trashing smokers!  I never read anything they publish.  I would need to do so holding a barf bag.

126 posted on 03/14/2006 2:17:00 PM PST by SheLion (Trying to make a life in the BLUE state of Maine!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: gondramB

6 BILLION PEOPLE WILL DIE!
DOCTORS ARE POWERLESS TO STOP IT!
Yes, it's a fact - within the next 120 years, every person alive in the world today will have died, and there is nothing that medical science can do about it.
Doctors are not Gods, despite what they may think. They will not, they cannot conquer death.
DEATH IS INEVITABLE !
Every person who smokes, is going to die
Every person who never smokes, is going to die
Every person who is "overweight", is going to die
Every person who is never "overweight", is going to die
Every person who uses illicit drugs, is going to die
Every person who never uses illicit drugs, is going to die
Every person who drinks alcohol, is going to die
Every person who never drinks alcohol, is going to die
Every person who fails to heed the advice of health advocates, is going to die
Every person who devotedly follows all the advice of health advocates, is going to die
Now the question comes - since we are all going to die, no matter what precautions we may take - is it justifiable for health advocates to force people to conform to certain lifestyles which those advocates claim will maximize the length of a person's life?
Death is inevitable, but health advocates such as the anti-smoking industry claim that they are justified in using punitive pressures of various kinds to force people to conform to their definition of "a healthy lifestyle".


127 posted on 03/14/2006 2:17:38 PM PST by stone fortress
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: stone fortress
Smoking has significanly dropped...yet asthma has skyrocketed...go figure...it is not from smokers.

My kid grew up in a smoking home and she never had asthma.  The anti's sure have done a job on the minds of a lot of people out there.  Pity. 

128 posted on 03/14/2006 2:19:55 PM PST by SheLion (Trying to make a life in the BLUE state of Maine!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: SheLion

They certainly have!


129 posted on 03/14/2006 2:21:17 PM PST by stone fortress
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: SheLion
"OMG! Now I understand how you became so easily swayed! By reading a site by ASH???? Good grief!"

Well unless its a fake quote, this is from the president of the Heritage foundation

""On one issue after another in recent years, ACSH has stood as a bulwark against the contemporary Luddites who see the beginning of civilization's end in every technological advance that reaches the market place."
- Edwin Feulner, President The Heritage Foundation"

but maybe there are not a good source... I've only seen them on the web.
130 posted on 03/14/2006 2:21:36 PM PST by gondramB (Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and unto God that which is God's.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: stone fortress

"Death is inevitable, but health advocates such as the anti-smoking industry claim that they are justified in using punitive pressures of various kinds to force people to conform to their definition of "a healthy lifestyle"."

Just to be clear I am not trying to force you into a healthy lifestyle - that's your choice.


131 posted on 03/14/2006 2:22:51 PM PST by gondramB (Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and unto God that which is God's.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: gondramB

I think it is a Great quote...no..it is not mine, but I like it and agree with it. Nevertheless, Smokers are "public" too....and a restaurant or tavern should again, be able to choose which they would like to have. A non-smoker sees a sign or license or such at the door, do not walk in...even though it is Public.


132 posted on 03/14/2006 2:28:24 PM PST by stone fortress
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: SheLion

...you know, I'd be happy to quit smoking, just as soon as the tax bill to cover my yearly consumption are pro-rated to all the other non-smoking taxpayers out there.....


...revenue nuetral, fair's fair...


133 posted on 03/14/2006 2:36:21 PM PST by telstar1 (...peace is possible ONLY through precisely applied firepower...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: SheLion

...you know, I'd be happy to quit smoking, just as soon as the tax bill to cover my yearly consumption are pro-rated to all the other non-smoking taxpayers out there.....


...revenue nuetral, fair's fair...


134 posted on 03/14/2006 2:37:00 PM PST by telstar1 (...peace is possible ONLY through precisely applied firepower...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: gondramB
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.

You know, I used to work for a comany that had a smoking lounge, complete with its own seperate air system. Some smoke nazi that worked there got management to remove the lounge and relegated all the smokers to the entrances where all the busy bodies complained that the were having to walk through smoke.

So lets recap here, shall we?

Company had an enclosed lounge (not big mind you) where smokers could go to light up indoors, with tables and chairs; workers who smoked could take their laptop, work related reading material, cup of coffee, and have a smoke and BE PRODUCTIVE at the same time! WOW! Nobody entering the building has to walk through smoke! What a concept!

Idiot non smoker comes along and eliminates the lounge; all smokers must now get on elevator, go down to first floor, out the entrance doors and have a smoke. NOT PRODUCTIVE AT ALL, and of course all the busybody non-smokers NOW HAVE TO WALK THROUGH SMOKE to enter the building.

Just one of those things that make you go: Hmmmmmmm....

135 posted on 03/14/2006 2:38:12 PM PST by AFreeBird (your mileage may vary)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: gondramB
but places of public accomodation are different when you operate such a business you incur responsiblity to not harm the people who come in.

It's a private business that is publically accessable, IF PROSPECTIVE CUSTOMERS CHOOSE TO PATRONIZE said establishment!

I don't know how things are were you live, but for me, if a business or place does NOT have an atomsphere that I find comfortable; I LEAVE, and/or CHOOSE NOT TO ENTER!

If for some reason you have had to endure an environment not to your liking; I suggest you call the police the next time someone puts a gun to your head and FORCES you to enter.

136 posted on 03/14/2006 2:39:16 PM PST by AFreeBird (your mileage may vary)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: AFreeBird

VERY CIVILIZED!!! (and logical!)


137 posted on 03/14/2006 2:41:33 PM PST by stone fortress
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: AFreeBird
At the risk of repeating the whole thread, when one chooses to run a place of public accommodation one incurs various responsibilities... like stopping fights, allowing handicap access and generally stopping the patrons from harming each other or allowing an unhealthy or unsafe environment.
138 posted on 03/14/2006 2:41:58 PM PST by gondramB (Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and unto God that which is God's.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: AFreeBird

"Idiot non smoker comes along and eliminates the lounge; all smokers must now get on elevator, go down to first floor, out the entrance doors and have a smoke. NOT PRODUCTIVE AT ALL, and of course all the busybody non-smokers NOW HAVE TO WALK THROUGH SMOKE to enter the building."

that's horrible... what was the reasoning?


139 posted on 03/14/2006 2:43:52 PM PST by gondramB (Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and unto God that which is God's.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: gondramB

Not if it is a "Public" Smoking establishment.......People are not allowed to smoke in a "Public" Non-smoking establishment...


140 posted on 03/14/2006 2:49:06 PM PST by stone fortress
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160161-172 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