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.
You still can't grasp the concept of public and private, can you?
Public property: That which is purchased and maintained by tax dollars for the benefit of all people. (Maintained by the state).
Private property: That which is not purchased or maintained by tax dollars and is for the benefit of the property owner. (Private business bought and maintained by the private business owner who will continue to pay taxes on his property.
"You still can't grasp the concept of public and private, can you?"
You incur extra responsibilities when you open your private property to the public.. And that's the way it is.
Yes...I do get it....Cannot get a WAIVER in NY State
Not YOU! That other guy. I just added your name because he was addressing his statement to you. So, in order for you to see what I wrote to him about it, I included your name also. :)
Yes...I do get it....Cannot get a WAIVER in NY State
Not YOU! That other guy. I just added your name because he was addressing his statement to you. So, in order for you to see what I wrote to him about it, I included your name also. :)
I had to read it twice...then I understood that you did not mean me...Thank You! :)
I am a Newbie! Ha Ha!
I know. hehe! Welcome to Free Republic!
THanks!!!!
Your answer does not go with your post. You're ok with making smoking illegal in places that you select. That is a nanny state.
"I believe you are defining "nanny state" incorrectly. Protecting the public from being harmed by other members of the public is one of the two key things government does."
Yes, in a way. Government, whether state or local or federal, is to protect the peaceful from the not so peaceful, the ones called criminals. But you, as a customer, are not forced to go to an establishment that allows smoking. Therefore, government does not need to protect you, you can do that yourself, but you are wanting government to save you from yourself. You want government to take your bias against smoking and make it law, that is the perfect definition of a nanny state. Don't like smoking, choose a restaurant or bar that does not allow it, but leave those who do their rights to allow it on their property. Why make business owners bend to your will? You're using government to enforce your beliefs.
"Smokers wish to be able to freely harm others. The government is preventing that."
Your line there is slightly wrong. It should read "smokers wish to be able to freely exercise their right to use a legal product. The government is preventing that." You make smokers sound like thugs on the street with guns who are out to get you. You need to take a serious look at your beliefs and come to grips with what you believe.....in government being a nanny that takes care of you and enforces your bias against others who may do some things that you don't like.
"The only reason this causes such an uproar is that almost all smokers are addicted and addicts tend to lose perspective when it comes to their addiction."
That is the first step the nanny state takes, demonize the criminals as mindless addicts that need to be saved. It's already happening outside of the tobacco issue. Now they are coming for your food, higher taxes on "low nutrition foods" and then the banning starts. What is after food? Perhaps it will be something you love, something you can't live without, but then when you begin to object, someone, somewhere, will remind you of your stance on smoking and inform you that you are getting what you asked for, a nanny state.
I ppreciate your answer and I'll read over it more carefully, but one thing leaped out...
"Your line there is slightly wrong. It should read "smokers wish to be able to freely exercise their right to use a legal product. The government is preventing that.""
The product is legal. To use an extreme comparison, a axe handle is legal until you use it such a way that it hurts people.
After this statement, I know that gondram does NOT get it.
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.