NJ: Federal court should rescind smoking ban

United Pro Smoker's Newsletter ^ | March 9, 2006

[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.     

[gondramB]

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

i'm a bit confised, was that a response to #138? Are you saying that when running a place of public accomodation that you apparently don't have to preseve the right of people to smoke?

[stone fortress]

No...I am simply saying that if it is a smoking establishment ....non- smokers should Not go in because there may be smoke in there. So, if you don't like to smell smoke...simply don't go in.

[AFreeBird]

I don't know if a study has been done on this but; have you ever looked at the inside of your wheels? Covered; thickly covered, in brake dust. Can you imagine all the brake dust floating around in the air, especially on or near roads and streets?

That's got to be some nasty $#!t to be breathing in.

There's gotta be a law! Outlaw brakes!!! Or at least using them in the vicinity of schools, churches, businesses and of course, the chillin.

[gondramB]

"No...I am simply saying that if it is a smoking establishment ....non- smokers should Not go in because there may be smoke in there. So, if you don't like to smell smoke...simply don't go in."

It's just not that simple. Public accomodation places are supposed to be safe for the patron unless they get a waiver accepting the risk...and even then sometimes the right can't be given up.

[stone fortress]

And that is what is Wrong....however, where I am there are NO waivers...everything is non smoking and I find it extremely discriminatory.

[gondramB]

"There's gotta be a law! Outlaw brakes!!! Or at least using them in the vicinity of schools, churches, businesses and of course, the chillin."

I feel pretty sure the courts would rule that brakes save more lives than they cost...

there is a similar argument to be made with cars - they do pollute and some people likely die from that. The reason we don't ban cars is the economic disruption would cost far more people their lives and health that cars do.

[gondramB]

"And that is what is Wrong....however, where I am there are NO waivers...everything is non smoking and I find it extremely discriminatory."

It is discriminatory. But there is nothing about smoking to make that an unlawful discrimination. Basically, smokers are not a protected class and they are making the restaurant unsafe for others.

[stone fortress]

Don't go in.....Isn't that simple enough? I don't go in non-Smoking restaurants....very simple

[AFreeBird]

Besides, we have not even gone to the tough cases... what about kids in the homes of smokers... that's what I don't don't like to talk about because I don't have good answers.

You know, I had a grandmother that was born in 1890, she lived to be 93 - alive and kicking til the day she died. She grew up when everybody smoked ( well okay not everybody, but you get the idea), they smoked at home, in restaraunts, movie theaters, elevators, court rooms, hallways, office buildings, cars (when they eventually came around); basically everywhere.

She even smoked socially I can't say if she inhaled directly or not, but that evil second hand smoke had to be around her - A LOT!. Still lived to be 93.

I figure she lived so long cause she had a basic live and let live philosophy. Sure there are things she didn't like, but in the final analysis, she let things be, at least on a large scale. (I'm sure [know] smaller issues, those within her purvue were dealt with) but over all, she didn't run around with her spincter wound so tight (like some folks these days [not necessarily you]) that she had to fart through her ears. I figure that did wonders for not only her mental health, but physical as well.

I can only hope I live as long, and die as quick and peacefully.

[gondramB]

"Don't go in.....Isn't that simple enough? I don't go in non-Smoking restaurants....very simple"

We are debating in circles now.... one patron does not have the right to do anything that makes the public space unsafe for others.

BTW, I now want a cigarette.... a clove like I used to smoke.

[gondramB]

"I can only hope I live as long, and die as quick and peacefully"

I wish that for you too.. and for myself and all Freepers.

[stone fortress]

Well...I do not agree...if it is stated on the door...don't go in. My sister cannot go into a "Public" store that has incense or candles.

[AFreeBird]

I feel pretty sure the courts would rule that brakes save more lives than they cost...

I was being somewhat facetious. Well, not entirely, given the hysteria surrounding the second hand smoke issue, but it is an environment that people are exposed to and they cannot make the conscious choice not to enter.

And again, take off one of your rims and take a look at the insides compared to the outside. Take a screwdriver and scrape some off and see how thick and nasty it is, and then think about how those fibers are floating around you the next time you're standing on a busy street corner waiting for the light to change.

Now I'm not saying that I want to outlaw brakes, I really like a heathy set of discs to haul me down from 80~100mph and I don't care if I'm getting a dose of those fibers or not. The world is full of crap floating around in the air.

I figure if it don't kill me, it will only make me stronger. If if I'm not able to stand the many irritants around as well, then I probablly pass along some better resistance to my kids.

That adaptive evolution thing.

Nature's funny that way.

[gondramB]

"Now I'm not saying that I want to outlaw brakes, I really like a heathy set of discs to haul me down from 80~100mph and I don't care if I'm getting a dose of those fibers or not. The world is full of crap floating around in the air."

But you can no long choose to use better more heat resistant brakes that include high levels of asbestos because you wouldn't just be assuming a risk for yourself - you would be putting others at risk.

[stone fortress]

I think the whole city should be in a bubble with a massive filtration system...then we will all be "Healthy" Ha Ha! Then a huge Comet smashes right into it....oops! So much for good planning

[AFreeBird]

Right, which goes back to my saying that a private business that caters to a public that wants to patronize it, is not open to the public at large without their [the public] making the decision to enter.

If a sign is not posted that informs of smoking inside, it will be readily apparent once one enters.

And while asbestos might be outlawed, are we really sure that the cure isn't worse than the disease?

We aren't. We can speculate, but only time will tell.

In the final analysis, the number ONE cause of death is: LIFE!

[AFreeBird]

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

The reasoning was that he was an PMTS and was a supervisor, and he wasn't going to allocate a measly portion (shared by all the other BU supervisors) of his BU budget for the expense of the room.

That, and he just plain didn't like smoking and figured he was doing everybody a favor. Like the smokers were gonna see the light and just quit cause he said so ( or made it more iconvenient ).

The flawed loginc of the anti's.

[gondramB]

" If a sign is not posted that informs of smoking inside, it will be readily apparent once one enters.

And while asbestos might be outlawed, are we really sure that the cure isn't worse than the disease?"


Well asbestos was effectively regulated more by lawsuit than by just law.

And that's what would eventually happen with smoke - some non-smoking waitress win a suit for emphysema or bronchitis or some rare form of lung cancer that is only caused by tobacco and suddenly everybody who ever worked around smoke but didn't smoke themselves will think they have a case. And non-smokers who ate lunch every day at waffle house will think they have a case.

Not long after that the liability insurance for a restaurant that allows smoking would be astronomical

But I hate legislation by lawsuit so I hope this works out with some kind of rational compromise

[AFreeBird]

But I hate legislation by lawsuit so I hope this works out with some kind of rational compromise

I hate it as well, although Micky D's is still selling hot coffee. But that's an apples to oranges comparison.

Still, I have a problem with the jack boot of the state coming down on a business that caters to a clientel that engages in a LEGAL activity.

Until the state OUTLAWS tobacco and adds it to the list of substances in the WOD, a business owner has the RIGHT to cater to people that want to come in and have a smoke with a drink and/or after a meal.

He (the business owner) gets to make the decision whether or not catering to one group of people over another (or reasonably tries to accomodate both) affects his bottom line enough to change whom he caters to.

Leave the idiot politcos out of the equation. They've proven - time and time again - that they're not intelligent enough to run their own lives, let alone anyone elses. We don't need to go around giving them more reasons to try.

[MissouriConservative]

So you're ok with government making the use of a legal product illegal??

You have not also answered the other part of my post. You say you're against the nanny state, but your posts indicate otherwise. Can you explain the contradiction?