[SheLion]

I love this line:

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.     

[SheLion]

[Burn24]

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.

[gondramB]

I would guess they exempted the casinos because of the tremendous amount of money involved.

I completely support people's right to smoke. I'm not even sure it should be age limited. But they don't have any right to get their smoke on other people. They can smoke all they want in their homes but public spaces need to be smoke free.

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.

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.

[Old Seadog]

"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."

This will never work. It makes too much sense

[Publius6961]

Hear! Hear!

[unixfox]

Once the government sets a precedent, whether it be outlawing smoking in a private place of business or otherwise it almost ALWAYS leads to more intervention and laws against those businesses.

In other words, give em an inch and they will certainly take a thousand miles.

I hate our government, and I will speak against it EVERY single time they encroach on my rights or the rights of others.

PISS ON THEM!!

[Labyrinthos]

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.