| Author |
Message |
    
TomR
Citizen
Username: Tomr
Post Number: 1055
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, April 16, 2006 - 11:43 pm: | 
|
Noglider,
My initial thought would be it would be the proud father; but, it might just as easily be the owner of the nail salon, depending on what the regulations actually state.
TomR |
TomR
Citizen
Username: Tomr
Post Number: 1056
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, April 16, 2006 - 11:44 pm: |
|
Dave,
I wasn't previously aware of a smoking club exemption.
Whence does it come?
TomR |
Just The Aunt
Supporter
Username: Auntof13
Post Number: 4719
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Monday, April 17, 2006 - 1:10 am: |
|
TomR-
I'm willing to bet at some point the only place you'll be allowed to smoke is in your own home. I think smoking is going to more more restrictive then drinking. You can't drink in public, so the same thing will end up happening with smoking.
The other Tom-
Who gets busted for allowing smoking in a bar? Both the person smoking and the manager / owner in the bar at the time.
Dave-
I didn't realize it also included smoking clubs. Is that the same as a cigar bar? |
Mayor McCheese
Supporter
Username: Mayor_mccheese
Post Number: 1159
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Monday, April 17, 2006 - 1:21 am: |
|
Too many people die from automobile accidents every year. We will be a healthier and safer society when we ban the use of cars. I don't care if everyone disagrees with me. I will find people who don't drive and get their support. Then we can use our money and special interest group influence to make the state government force everyone not to drive! Because I could care less about personal freedom, and only really care about what makes me feel a little better. This is not selfish, it is for the health of everyone around me. |
CFA
Citizen
Username: Cfa
Post Number: 1625
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, April 17, 2006 - 4:49 am: |
|
Let's ban bars. I hate people who drink alcohol. I hate when they walk by me and smell like a brewery. The smell of old, stale alcohol is repulsive. If you are not a drinker, the smell is offensive and can make me sick. Personally, I can't tolerate that smell, and choose not to be around it. I've asked people who have sat down next to me on the train to please move just as I have chosen all these years not to frequent bars/clubs.
Although I NEVER had alcohol in my life, it can kill me. One of you alcoholics might drive while intoxicated and kill me on the road.
|
Dr. Winston O'Boogie
Citizen
Username: Casey
Post Number: 2034
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 17, 2006 - 6:42 am: |
|
public drunkenness and drunk driving already ARE crimes.
and frankly I consider both of those prohibitions to be serious infringements on my civil liberties.
 |
Soda
Supporter
Username: Soda
Post Number: 3755
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, April 17, 2006 - 8:10 am: |
|
If Pizzaz was smart, he'd lease the two vacant storefronts just east if Bunny's, knock down the dividing walls, and name the new venue "Tobacco Road", "The Smoking Gun", or something equally tasteful. Then the majority of his current clientele, as well as every other local tobacco addict, would be drawn to the block, and his existing joint would double its business overnight. Naturally, he would charge an annual membership fee, and/or one-time entry (or -- more appropriately -- exit) charge for use of the new place, and hey -- he could vent the new place's fumes right into SOPAC's parking lot, which would create FREE ADVERTISING (something with which he already has experience right here on MOL)! Cha-CHING!!!
-s.
BTW: Of course, two health-menacing establishments on the same block might impel the BOT to consider regulations similar to the ones already in place requiring minimum spacing between liquor licenses, but I'm sure Pizzaz would find a way around 'em... |
Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro
Post Number: 2891
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Monday, April 17, 2006 - 10:04 am: |
|
McCheese, I can legally use a car and not harm anyone, including myself. Can you say that about smoking?
Can you name another easily accessible product that, in the normal course of it's use, is deadly not only the person using it, but to those around him/her as well? |
John Caffrey
Citizen
Username: Jerseyjack
Post Number: 186
Registered: 11-2005
| | Posted on Monday, April 17, 2006 - 10:27 am: |
|
The 25 ft. rule is in the discussion stage and is not part of regulation. It will probably be adjusted to take into account places such as St. James.
The smoking club excemption exists but only for existing clubs. I believe one can't open a new "club" tomorrow and allow smoking in premises.
|
Dr. Winston O'Boogie
Citizen
Username: Casey
Post Number: 2035
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 17, 2006 - 11:01 am: |
|
I'm getting tired of the disingenous argument that this ban infringes on "civil liberties." first - smoking is not being outlawed. smokers can continue to puff away in private residences and private clubs, as well as outdoor spaces. second, there is no inherent right to any behavior that has an impact on other people. I can't make loud noises after 11 PM even in my own home if it disturbs others. I can't leave rusting cars or piles of trash on my property either. And restaurant and bar owners have to abide by other regulations as well because they are not private spaces, but public ones. Bars especially, are licensed and heavily regulated businesses already.
so the state has a right to prohibit smoking becuase unless and until someone invents a smokeless cigarette, smoking is not private behavior with no impact on others. in an enclosed space like a bar, 100% of the patrons are subjected to breathing smoke even if only 5% or 10% of the others are smoking. your right to smoke ends at non-smokers' noses, mouths, and eyes, and if you can't contain your smoke, you don't retain a right to it.
that said, I'm not militantly anti-smoking, and I didn't petition for this ban. but the dishonest, disingenuous "civil liberties" argument by smokers is tiresome. just be honest and say that you believe your comfort and convenience should take precedence over the comfort of non-smokers. you believe you should retain a right in perpetuity that you have had in the past based on precedence - it's always been that way, so you believe it always should be. that would at least be an honest argument that doesn't inflate the issue of smoking to an level of importance that it doesn't rate. |
Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro
Post Number: 2895
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Monday, April 17, 2006 - 11:05 am: |
|
Well said. |
thoughtful
Citizen
Username: Thoughtful
Post Number: 185
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Monday, April 17, 2006 - 11:14 am: |
|
By the same token, anti-smokers should admit that they simply don't like the smell of cigarette smoke and believe that their convenience should be codified because they believe that they hold the moral high ground. I'm tired of the argument that smoking is "deadly" to those around the smokers, like a cigarette is some kind of a neutron bomb that will immediately kill anyone within a certain raidus. Your clothes may be smelly when you leave the bar and yes, that sucks, but you're more likely to be injured driving to and from the bar than you are to be injured by second hand smoke. |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 13692
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 17, 2006 - 11:18 am: |
|
By taking a risk when using the public roads, we reap a benefit, i.e. transport. There is no benefit to breathing second hand smoke or absorbing it into our clothes and hair.
|
thoughtful
Citizen
Username: Thoughtful
Post Number: 186
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Monday, April 17, 2006 - 11:26 am: |
|
Tom,
If that were true, than we wouldn't need the law because no one would go to a smoky bar and they would all close. People obviously have seen some benefit in going to bars where people smoke, e.g. socializing, catching the game on TV, getting some good wings, getting out of the house, whatever. |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 13693
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 17, 2006 - 11:27 am: |
|
If things were purely bad and purely good, then we wouldn't need regulations of any kind.
|
jamie
Citizen
Username: Jamie
Post Number: 487
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Monday, April 17, 2006 - 11:33 am: |
|
Thoughtful - please list the health benefits of smoking - should we encourage our kids to start when they become proper age? Should there even be a age limit to start smoking? |
Mayor McCheese
Supporter
Username: Mayor_mccheese
Post Number: 1161
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Monday, April 17, 2006 - 11:45 am: |
|
"McCheese, I can legally use a car and not harm anyone, including myself."
This is not true. The exhaust from the cars hurts everyone. Also, you could get into an accident and kill yourself or me.
|
thoughtful
Citizen
Username: Thoughtful
Post Number: 187
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Monday, April 17, 2006 - 11:48 am: |
|
Weight loss might be perceived as a health benefit of smoking. And from what I've seen, smokers who are suffering a "nic fit" seem a whole lot happier when they get a cigarette. I'm not a smoker, though, so I can't speak from first hand experience.
I don't think kids should smoke. I don't think anyone should smoke. I'm not a smoker and I find the whole smoking thing vile. But I'm not so arrogant as to believe that my personal tastes should be forced upon others and for most of us, that's what this debate boils down to. Like most people, when I walk into a smoky bar, my first thought is, "man, that's disgusting." It's not, "Oh my, all of these people in here are in grave danger and need help." My suspicion is that there are a lot of people out there thinking the first thing but saying only the second. |
Dr. Winston O'Boogie
Citizen
Username: Casey
Post Number: 2036
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 17, 2006 - 11:49 am: |
|
thoughtful,
you're right that there are dishonest arguments on both sides. but a good many (perhaps the majority) of non-smokers cheering this law are citing their comfort, and not health risks. They say they don't want their eyes watering, and they don't want to smell like an ashtray when they go home. Those are purely comfort issues. Some are mentioning health, but most are not. I agree that the lawmakers are overstating the health issues, but of course politicians are famous for pompously overstating the effects of their laws.
but while there is disingenuousness on both sides, IMHO the smokers are way more likely to phrase the discussion dishonestly. why can't they just admit that their addiction is giving them panic when they think about sitting down for a drink without their smokes? why phrase it as a "civil liberties" issue? at a time when real civil liberties like due process are being eroded, putting cigarette smoking in the same category trivializes the term civil liberties. |
Just The Aunt
Supporter
Username: Auntof13
Post Number: 4722
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Monday, April 17, 2006 - 12:05 pm: |
|
Doc
Very Well said! You know what gets me? Nicotine is a drug!!! I don't know of any other 'legal' drug that you can get without a prescription that is as addictive as nicotine! Perhaps those smokers who are unable to stop smoking are addicted?
I know several people have asked the more vocal smokers what the real benefits of smoking is.
What about people living in apartment buildings because they can't afford to buy a house? Two of my nonsmoking friends live in apartments. One Ivy Hill, the other in Springfield. One has smokers on both side of her; the other below him. Both have the smell of smoke in their apartment because it seeps through the walls / floor. The one shares a common entrance way. That area reeks of smoke. I have several friends who own two family houses. They live in one unit and rent out the other. One is a smoker so she doesn't care if her tenants smoke. The others don't smoke and will not rent to smokers. One of these friends had to have a tenant evicted because they lied and said they didn't smoke, when they did. |
greenetree
Supporter
Username: Greenetree
Post Number: 7262
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, April 17, 2006 - 12:12 pm: |
|
JTA - the ban is not going to help your friends in the apartment unless the building management makes the apartments non-smoking.
What happened to the days when those who can't stand the smell simply refused to date smokers?
Yes - it is addictive and a horrible, lethal drug. But, until we get to the point (probably many years down the road) where very few people smoke, we have to deal with the fact that there are people who do. It is currenlty legal. Smokers need somewhere to go. Why not provide outdoor smoking sections in parks, beaches, etc.?
I'd rather see a law that makes it illegal to smoke in a car (even a private vehicle) with children than out on the street, frankly. |
Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro
Post Number: 2896
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Monday, April 17, 2006 - 1:08 pm: |
|
I could get into an accident and kill myself or you. but it will not necessarily harm either of us. Smoking harms everyone around hte smoker. Driving does not, in and of itself, harm everyone around the car.
But I do agree that cars should not spew as much pollution as they do.
Do you truly believe that you have a right to smoke and that it is being infringed upon? |
Mayor McCheese
Supporter
Username: Mayor_mccheese
Post Number: 1166
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Monday, April 17, 2006 - 2:19 pm: |
|
Yes, I do. Also, the same way that you driving is probably not going to hurt anyone, smoking is probably not going to hurt anyone either. Chances of illnesses are increased quite a bit for smokers (secondhand smoke is still debated) but you are still more likely to not become sick from smoking than to become sick because of smoking. |
Monster©
Supporter
Username: Monster
Post Number: 2804
Registered: 7-2002
| | Posted on Monday, April 17, 2006 - 2:29 pm: |
|
At least I won't have to suffer from third hand smoke the morning after a night out.
Yes that's right, third hand smoke, of course it's always sucked coming home stinkin' like smoke, but it never bothered me to be in a bar with people smoking (while I'm eating in a restaurant is something else), just having to strip at the door & sometimes having to to take a shower or at least wash my hair and wash out my nostrils, that could be a pain.
But the next day having my farts smell like smoke is the worst, third hand smoke blows.... |
las
Citizen
Username: Las
Post Number: 1600
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 17, 2006 - 2:36 pm: |
|
secondhand smoke is still debated
Oh, Mr. Mayor. With this kind of wiley conjecture I'm tempted to cross your name off the list of people to whom I owe drinks. 
From the CDC:
Secondhand smoke is associated with an increased risk for lung cancer and coronary heart disease in nonsmoking adults.
Secondhand smoke is a known human carcinogen (cancer-causing agent).
Because their lungs are not fully developed, young children are particularly susceptible to secondhand smoke. Exposure to secondhand smoke is associated with an increased risk for sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), asthma, bronchitis, and pneumonia in young children.
Current Estimates
An estimated 3,000 lung cancer deaths and more than 35,000 coronary heart disease deaths occur annually among adult nonsmokers in the United States as a result of exposure to secondhand smoke.
Each year, secondhand smoke is associated with an estimated 8,000–26,000 new asthma cases in children.4 Annually an estimated 150,000–300,000 new cases of bronchitis and pneumonia in children aged less than 18 months (7,500–15,000 of which will require hospitalization) are associated with secondhand smoke exposure in the United States.
Approximately 60% of non-smokers in the United States have biological evidence of secondhand smoke exposure.
http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/factsheets/secondhand_smoke_factsheet.htm |
Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro
Post Number: 2899
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Monday, April 17, 2006 - 2:42 pm: |
|
I'm curious. what part of the Constitution protects your right to smoke?
And driving does not inherently harm me or others around me. Smoking does. |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 13710
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 17, 2006 - 2:49 pm: |
|
I believe the ninth and tenth amendments acknowledge implicitly the right to smoke and also to cut your toenails with hedge clippers.
The constitution is not an exhaustive list of our rights.
|
Mayor McCheese
Supporter
Username: Mayor_mccheese
Post Number: 1167
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Monday, April 17, 2006 - 2:56 pm: |
|
Rastro, I'm also curious, what part of the constitution says smokers are not real people and that business owners cannot provide an area for them as well?
The exhaust on your car does inherently harm me and others.
las -
Does Passive Smoke Kill?
Study Sparks Controversy
By MARILYN CHASE and VANESSA O'CONNELL
Staff Reporters of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
A newly released study claiming that the danger of secondhand smoke is greatly overstated has provoked protests from antismoking advocates.
According to the study, which will appear in the prestigious British Journal of Medicine, exposure to secondhand smoke had no significant effect on death rates from lung cancer or heart disease. The rates were similar for those with spouses who smoked and those with nonsmoking spouses, the study found.
http://193.78.190.200/wsj/wsjcom__does_passive_smoke_kill.html |
Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro
Post Number: 2901
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Monday, April 17, 2006 - 2:57 pm: |
|
IANAL, and I don't believe it is an exhuastive list of rights, but if it is a protected right,I believe it has to be protected somewhere, either in legislation or a court decision. Otherwise, it is just an assumed right.
Itonically, I would guess smoking bans provide that protection, since by banning it in specific places, you can assume it is not banned in others. |
Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro
Post Number: 2902
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Monday, April 17, 2006 - 3:02 pm: |
|
McCheese, who said smokers are not real people? Of cours they are people. Just with slightly diminished lung capacity. Should businesses be allowed to have a section for people who like to shoot guns while the eat and drink?
And I drive an electric car, so my car does not exhaust anything...
ok, I made up that last part |
Mayor McCheese
Supporter
Username: Mayor_mccheese
Post Number: 1169
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Monday, April 17, 2006 - 3:17 pm: |
|
Yes they should. If some shooting gallery wants to serve dinner then I wish them good luck. |
TomR
Citizen
Username: Tomr
Post Number: 1057
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Monday, April 17, 2006 - 3:31 pm: |
|
John Caffrey,
What's the source for the information regarding the 25 foot restriction not being part of the current regulations?
I recall that the Star Ledger stated that the restrictions took effect immediately.
Do you have a link to the existing, or proposed, regulations? I've not yet been able to find the regs.
Thanks.
TomR |
Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro
Post Number: 2905
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Monday, April 17, 2006 - 3:57 pm: |
|
I don't mean a shooting gallery that serves dinner. I'm talking about people being able to shoot their guns indescriminantly while sitting at the table eating and drinking.
Oh, nevermind. I'm not going to convince you, and you're not going to convince me.
Smoke 'em if you got 'em... |
Mayor McCheese
Supporter
Username: Mayor_mccheese
Post Number: 1170
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Monday, April 17, 2006 - 4:11 pm: |
|
I would but the state won't let me... |
new_2_nj
Citizen
Username: New_2_nj
Post Number: 10
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 18, 2006 - 5:04 pm: |
|
Did everyone forget that it wasn't all that long ago that smoking was banned in office buildings? Aren't you glad that you don't have to go to work everyday in a filthy, stinking office? I'd venture to guess that many bar and restaurant employees would like to enjoy the same benefit. To say "they can get another job" is just defies all logic. For some people (chefs, sommliers, waiters, etc.), this is a profession and it's absurd to think that they should go get a "regular" job because they don't want to be exposed to carcinogens on a daily basis. And the further implication that we shouldn't be concerned about the health of those bar and restaurant employees who may not many other employement options is offensive.
And for the record, this IS a health issue. Not because anyone other than your loved ones care if you rot your lungs, but because 1) when you smoke you expose others to carcinogens and put them at risk for health problems and 2) when you are diagnosed with health problems and have to suffer through an agonizing and protracted treatment, everyone else will have to pay for it through exorbitant health insurance premiums. |
Mayor McCheese
Supporter
Username: Mayor_mccheese
Post Number: 1177
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 18, 2006 - 5:11 pm: |
|
new_2_nj - I would agrue with you, but first read this thread and the one for the news record. I would just be repeating myself.
And yes, if you don't like your job you can quit. You can work at a place that doesn't allow smoking. It really is that easy.
As for health insurance premiums, there really would be no deference, becuase these smokers would just get older and take many more medications over more years before eventually draining the same amount of money as they get sick during their old age. Actually, smoking may be keeping your premiums down.
Thanks for stopping by. |
greenetree
Supporter
Username: Greenetree
Post Number: 7288
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 18, 2006 - 5:42 pm: |
|
Mayor, tons of actuarial and health economics research proves you wrong on the expenditure part. |
The Libertarian
Citizen
Username: Local_1_crew
Post Number: 1960
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 18, 2006 - 5:49 pm: |
|
Very Well said! You know what gets me? Nicotine is a drug!!! I don't know of any other 'legal' drug that you can get without a prescription that is as addictive as nicotine! Perhaps those smokers who are unable to stop smoking are addicted?
caffeine
In their review, the researchers identified 57 experimental studies and nine survey studies on caffeine withdrawal, and examined each to assess the validity of the reported findings.
The researchers identified five clusters of common withdrawal symptoms: headache; fatigue or drowsiness; dysphoric mood including depression and irritability; difficulty concentrating; and flu-like symptoms of nausea, vomiting and muscle pain or stiffness. In experimental studies, 50 percent of people experienced headache and 13 percent had clinically significant distress or functional impairment -- for example, severe headache and other symptoms incompatible with working. Typically, onset of symptoms occurred 12 to 24 hours after stopping caffeine, with peak intensity between one and two days, and for a duration of two to nine days. In general, the incidence or severity of symptoms increased with increases in daily dose, but abstinence from doses as low as 100 milligrams per day, or about one small cup of coffee, also produced symptoms.
The research also showed that avoidance of caffeine withdrawal symptoms motivates regular use of caffeine. For example, the satisfying feelings and perceived benefits that many coffee users experience from their morning coffee appear to be a simple reversal of the negative effects of caffeine withdrawal after overnight abstinence.
But there is good news for those wishing to quit caffeine: A simple, stepwise approach can often eliminate the need for a "fix" without suffering the most severe withdrawal symptoms.
"We teach a systematic method of gradually reducing caffeine consumption over time by substituting decaffeinated or non-caffeinated products. Using such a method allows people to reduce or eliminate withdrawal symptoms," says Griffiths.
According to the report, caffeine is the most widely used behaviorally active drug in the world. In North America, 80 percent to 90 percent of adults report regular use of caffeine. Average daily intake of caffeine among caffeine consumers in the United States is about 280 milligrams, or about one to two mugs of coffee or three to five bottles of soft drink, with higher intakes estimated in some European countries. In the United States, coffee and soft drinks are the most common sources of caffeine, with almost half of caffeine consumers ingesting caffeine from multiple sources, including tea.
BAN COFFEE! I find the smell offensive! |
mickey
Citizen
Username: Mickey
Post Number: 426
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 18, 2006 - 6:24 pm: |
|
Libby,
I'm so sorry the smell of coffee bothers you. If I'm having a cup at the pub and I happen to sit down next to you, please feel free to ask me nicely to move (or move yourself).
I feel the same way about too much cologne and bad breath. But see, the thing is...the reason I hate sitting near smokers is not just because I'm offended by the smell, but because my health is actually endangered just by being there. God help us all if we discover being near coffee can cause lung disease or cancer.
See you at the pub! |
Joan
Supporter
Username: Joancrystal
Post Number: 7279
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 18, 2006 - 6:50 pm: |
|
Rastro: To answer your above question, lead is another example of a substance which is harmful both to the user and to persons around him/her. Lead is often found in hot water pipes, ceramics gaze, house paint and dirt in play grounds down wind from certain industrial plants among others. Lead house paint is now illegal in many places and steps are being taken to remove other sources of lead, such as those mentioned above, from our environment. This could be construed as a precident for the recent legislation banning smoking in certain public spaces.
By the way, indoor spaces are not the only ones affected by the new law. There was an announcement being made at Hoboken train station this afternoon to the effect that due to the new law smoking is no longer permitted on NJT railroad platforms.
|
John Caffrey
Citizen
Username: Jerseyjack
Post Number: 189
Registered: 11-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 18, 2006 - 8:04 pm: |
|
Tom,
As to why you can't find the link to the regs, that's the point. They have not been finalized and the 25ft. rule is not yet set in stone.
|
Just The Aunt
Supporter
Username: Auntof13
Post Number: 4740
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 18, 2006 - 9:41 pm: |
|
Libby-
I thought about posting about those who can't live without the coffee, soda, chocolate, things with caffeine last night but was too tired. But then I also thought I have never heard it's as addicting or as hard of an addiction to break as Heroin. Nicotine is. That's why I said
"I don't know of any other 'legal' drug that you can get without a prescription that is as addictive as nicotine!"
Years ago when I was in high school and college I use to drink at least 4 cans of soda a day. (Coke or Dr Pepper). If I didn't, I'd get nasty headaches and all the other symptoms you mentioned. I kept saying it's as if I was addicted to the caffeine. My doctors said it was impossible.
After a while I decided I just wasn't going to drink soda anymore, or eat chocolate. Was going to do without the caffeine. Back in 1991 the only soda I'd drink was A and W Cream because it was caffeine free. It also didn't have the carmel color in it. There was a four year period I'd only drink bottled water! Now it's Diet Sprite Zero for the past year or so. I'm trying to go back to water only. But it's hard. |
TomR
Citizen
Username: Tomr
Post Number: 1059
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 18, 2006 - 10:10 pm: |
|
John,
Thanks. I thought it odd that the Star Ledger reported that the restrictions took effect immediately.
TomR |
The Libertarian
Citizen
Username: Local_1_crew
Post Number: 1966
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 18, 2006 - 11:12 pm: |
|
But then I also thought I have never heard it's as addicting or as hard of an addiction to break as Heroin. Nicotine is
you would be making a false assumption, a very common mistake on this board.
caffeine is as addicting and can actually be more addicting than tobacco. it can also cause much more severe withdrawal symptoms.
this is an example of why it is better to research something before assuming, just because you think something is true doesnt make it true. true. |
Just The Aunt
Supporter
Username: Auntof13
Post Number: 4743
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 18, 2006 - 11:53 pm: |
|
Thanks for the heads up Libby. Could you please post a link to your source so I can so it to my Mentor and those at Rutgers when I go in a few weeks? I think they'd be interested in this but I don't want to say anything without something to back me up.
|
irl
Citizen
Username: Irl
Post Number: 227
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 19, 2006 - 10:14 am: |
|
If I drink coffe around my very active daughter, will she become HYPER active? That would be a reason to ban coffee in public places.
If I smoke around my asthmatic son, will he experience an asthma attack? That's a good reason to ban smoking in public places.
I'm glad for the regs not because of the smell(though I do hate it), or the inconvenience, but because it is harmful to me (asthmatic Mom) and my asthmatic sonny boy.
My question is this - Should the sexually harassed male or female "find another job" if (s)he doesn't want to be sexually harassed? Should the ethnic or homosexual person "live somewhere else" if they don't want to be discriminated against?
When regs regarding these issues were passed, I'm sure there was similar debate. However, they passed, as time passed we all saw the wisdom in them. I think the same will hapen here. |
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page