| Author | Message | ||
     wolfy Citizen Username: Locowolfy Post Number: 26 Registered: 10-2005 |
all rights of humans being pushed aside, how does the CASINO industry rise above all others to allow smoking?? Is it just BIG money that has a voice? I smoke, i am mindful of those who do not, but this action is denial of rights! any thoughts about the process, (not my smoking)!! | ||
| Stuart0628 Citizen Username: Stuart0628 Post Number: 194 Registered: 2-2003 |
The casino exemption was put in, I presume, to eliminate one major obstacle to getting it passed. I agree that the denial of rights to smoke-free breathing in casinos is still an issue! | ||
| Dave Supporter Username: Dave Post Number: 8326 Registered: 4-1997  |
It's definitely big money and governmental duplicity. | ||
| TomR Citizen Username: Tomr Post Number: 902 Registered: 6-2001 |
Can you say equal protection? Sure you can. TomR | ||
| Just The Aunt Supporter Username: Auntof13 Post Number: 3510 Registered: 1-2004  |
I'm for the smoking ban! I don't think casinos should have been exempt. | ||
| Stuart0628 Citizen Username: Stuart0628 Post Number: 195 Registered: 2-2003 |
Casinos or no, this is a win for anyone who appreciates air devoid of carcinogens. Once people see firsthand the benefits, see that restaurant revenues are not dropping, and observe percentages of smokers continuing to drop, the casinos will look to increase the % of their space devoted to smoke-free gaming. Give it time. | ||
| jamie Citizen Username: Jamie Post Number: 363 Registered: 6-2001  |
NJ has passed the smokefree bill!! 64-12-2 | ||
| Just The Aunt Supporter Username: Auntof13 Post Number: 3521 Registered: 1-2004 |
GREAT NEWS JAMIE~~~ Thought I think the casinos should have been included. Maybe next year... | ||
| cmontyburns Citizen Username: Cmontyburns Post Number: 1671 Registered: 12-2003  |
I look forward to giving Bunnies a LOT more business. Great news. | ||
| The Libertarian Citizen Username: Local_1_crew Post Number: 1234 Registered: 3-2004  |
Any doctrine that weakens personal responsibility for judgment and for action helps create the attitudes that welcome and support the totalitarian state. John Dewey keep supporting the erosion of personal freedom, little by little, and soon you will have none at all. shame on you all. | ||
| tjohn Supporter Username: Tjohn Post Number: 3935 Registered: 12-2001  |
Not really. For many, the indoor smoking ban is about preventing smokers from imposing their lifestyle decisions upon non-smokers. Smoking in public indoor locations is not something, like religion, that can be kept to oneself. | ||
| aquaman Supporter Username: Aquaman Post Number: 653 Registered: 8-2001 |
Libby, Smokers can chew gum, use the patch, gnaw a pinch of chaw, shoot up liquid nico, shave a patch on their heads and apply a nicotine salve, lube up a butt and stick it up their butts, drink a tabacco martini, or just kick it old school and sniff snuff off their ulnar region. The only thing they can't do is ignite tobacco encased in paper and exhale the gases indoors. Exhaling tobacco smoke indoors is a personal decision that negates the autonomy of the inhalers of unadulterated air. Put that in your pipe and smoke it Libertarian. | ||
| bmpsab Citizen Username: Bmpsab Post Number: 181 Registered: 3-2001 |
Go aquaman! | ||
| jamie Citizen Username: Jamie Post Number: 366 Registered: 6-2001 |
Libertarian - you still haven't answered this question: Name a few other Group A carcinogens that should be allowed in public spaces. You still have personal freedom to satisfy your addiction to carcinogens in your home. | ||
| The Libertarian Citizen Username: Local_1_crew Post Number: 1235 Registered: 3-2004 |
i will not answer question because it has nothing to do with the bill. a private business is not a public space. something you seem unable to grasp. | ||
| jamie Citizen Username: Jamie Post Number: 367 Registered: 6-2001 |
Another great piece of legislation that passed today as well is: S2783 Raises minimum age for sale and purchase of tobacco products from 18 to 19. | ||
| The Libertarian Citizen Username: Local_1_crew Post Number: 1236 Registered: 3-2004 |
Exhaling tobacco smoke indoors is a personal decision that negates the autonomy of the inhalers of unadulterated air. not the point of the discussion. but your input is greatly appreciated, sorry, i meant ignored. | ||
| jamie Citizen Username: Jamie Post Number: 368 Registered: 6-2001 |
If it's not public than why does it have to pass health inspections? If asbestos was found in their kitchens - they'd be shut down immediately. | ||
| The Libertarian Citizen Username: Local_1_crew Post Number: 1237 Registered: 3-2004 |
something you all seem unable to grasp is that this has nothing to do with smoking. its all about the erosion of personal freedoms. GW's new bill to limit speech on the internet is no different from this smoking legislation. they are both a symptom of the erosion of personal freedom that you all seem not to be too concerned about. you will when its too late. | ||
| The Libertarian Citizen Username: Local_1_crew Post Number: 1238 Registered: 3-2004 |
let me get this straight, you are saying that privately owned restaurant or bar is a public space? | ||
| jamie Citizen Username: Jamie Post Number: 369 Registered: 6-2001 |
if they are open to the "public" they should have to adhere to the rules and regulations of the law - this include protecting citizens from group A carcinogens - ie: asbestos. Is it that hard to comprehend? What side does everyone else agree with? Limiting speech on the internet is a far stretch from carcinogens enter our lungs. | ||
| johnny Citizen Username: Johnny Post Number: 1521 Registered: 5-2001 |
It's about time. Maybe next year casinos will be included. | ||
| The Libertarian Citizen Username: Local_1_crew Post Number: 1240 Registered: 3-2004 |
What side does everyone else agree with? It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people. Giordano Bruno a majority of germans thought hitler was swell too. didnt make them right -denis leary Limiting speech on the internet is a far stretch from carcinogens enter our lungs. it is if you continue to see this bill in sucha simplistic and naive manner. the importance of the bill has nothing to do with smoking. you are so smug with your little victory that you cant see the trees for the forest. the importance of the bill is a further restriction on the rights of the individual. plus if you cant see how this is political bread and circuses for the likes of you with the exclusion of the casinoes , then there is no explaining this to you. if health were a concern then the casinoes would have been included. they will never be included cause it has nothing to do with health and everything to do with appeasement and money. if you really wanted to help with peoples health you would try to outlaw tobacco. rather this is about people who are trying to empower themselves by imposing their wants onto everyone else by restricitng thier freedoms. it gets easier and easier each time until the majority has imposed its will and anyone who steps outside the Gap collective will be silenced. now answer my question: do you really think that a privately owned restaurant or bar is a public space? | ||
| SO Ref Citizen Username: So_refugee Post Number: 1419 Registered: 2-2005  |
Doesn't matter because, as some would tell it, by next year we'll all be under the mind control of the guv'ment... Consider the allowance of smoking at casinos as offering the peace pipe to the Indians. | ||
| jamie Citizen Username: Jamie Post Number: 371 Registered: 6-2001 |
I said - it's open to the public and should be restricted to the law. In the U.S., about 440,000 people die a tobacco-related death every year. Please add your smoking facts on why it should be allowed - from a health persoective. | ||
| The Libertarian Citizen Username: Local_1_crew Post Number: 1241 Registered: 3-2004 |
you stil havent answered the question. is a privately owned restaurant or bar a public space? i explained above, this has nothing to do with health if it is still legal to sell and buy tobacco. | ||
| jamie Citizen Username: Jamie Post Number: 372 Registered: 6-2001 |
it is a privately owned space that must adhere to public health regulations because it is open to the public. It's a business. Now name a group A carcinogen that should be allowed inside a business where the public is allowed. | ||
| TomR Citizen Username: Tomr Post Number: 903 Registered: 6-2001 |
Just thinking out loud here in Maplewood. Our State legislature has declared that "... tabacco is the leading cause of preventable disease and death in the State and nation, and tabacco smoke constitutes a substantial health hazard to the nonsmoking majority of the public...". Given the foregoing, I sitting here wondering why we have purposefully decided to subject some citizens to this health hazard??? I mean, we, the people of the State of New Jersey, through our duly elected legislature, have decided that the patrons, and the employees, of casinos are not worthy of the same protections of law that the rest of us are soon to enjoy. Does this strike anybody else as peculiar? Weird? Can anybody say equal protection of the laws? Sure you can. Doesn't this legislation make the patrons, and the employees, of casinos de jure if not de facto second class citizens? So I'm sitting here wondering why Governor Cody has announced that he will sign the bill on the last day of his tenure. Could it be: 1) he wants this legislation to be the final, if not defining, act of his tenure: 2) he is looking for the opportunity to declare, with, or without, the advice of our Attorney General, that the legislation requires further study, due to possible conflicts with the Fourteenth Amendment; or 3) he wants to leave this whole problem to soon-to-be Governor Corzine? I dunno. Seriously. If somebody can explain how this legislation doesn't put a definable segment of our population at risk to the "...leading cause of preventable disease and death in the State and nation..." while protecting the rest of us from that risk, and how the legislation doesn't deny the patrons, and the employees, of casinos, equal protection of the laws, I'd like to read the explanation. Like I wrote, I'm just some guy sitting here in Maplewood, thinking out loud. TomR | ||
| jamie Citizen Username: Jamie Post Number: 373 Registered: 6-2001 |
It's probably because the casinos have billions of dollars to block this measure (just a guess). Hopefully Corzine will help in amending it further - he was all for the ban. Like everyone in the houses that was for it said - it's not perfect, but it's a good first step - better than nothing. | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 11856 Registered: 1-2003  |
Right. And imperfect laws seem like worse than no laws, but the reality is that everything requires compromise in legislature. It would be ideal to illegalize (is that a word) tobacco, but doing so is impracticable. I think these public smoking bans, however, demonstrate that life isn't really as bad as we predict. Even Ireland is managing quite well, from what I hear! | ||
| Stuart0628 Citizen Username: Stuart0628 Post Number: 196 Registered: 2-2003 |
A private bar may be a private space, but it still is required to conform to public laws. They can't say, "Sorry, we don't serve your kind." They can't discriminate in employment practices or engage in other acts that are patently illegal, such as serving minors. Prohibiting the creation of carcinogens in the bar is a legitimate public interest, the same as the public interest in prohibiting the other activities listed above. | ||
| TomR Citizen Username: Tomr Post Number: 905 Registered: 6-2001 |
jamie, Hey, I just had an idea about the Administration's wiretapping. Why don't the "boyz" in Washington pass legislation banning wiretaps on everybody except (insert identifiable group of your choice)? Its not perfect, but its a first step. Noglider, As long as all legislation requires compromise, why don't we all compromise on the school funding initiatives which are comming our way soon. We can tell (fill in the district of your choice) that it doesn't get any funds because we had to "compromise". In this one man's opinion, passing a bad law, is just, well, BAD LAW. TomR | ||
| jamie Citizen Username: Jamie Post Number: 375 Registered: 6-2001 |
How many carcinogens are involved in wiretapping and school funding initiatives? | ||
| TomR Citizen Username: Tomr Post Number: 906 Registered: 6-2001 |
jamie, As far as I know, none. What's your point? My point was that a good first step, not affording equal protection, is the road to folly, if not worse. TomR | ||
| jamie Citizen Username: Jamie Post Number: 376 Registered: 6-2001 |
It seems to me that you wouldn't support a total ban either. | ||
| TomR Citizen Username: Tomr Post Number: 907 Registered: 6-2001 |
jamie, A total ban would make more sense to me than S1926. To avoid argument where none is sought, my issue is not whether smoking is permitted. My issue is the process. The legislature tells us that "... tabacco is the leading cause of preventable disease and death in the State and nation, and tabacco smoke constitutes a substantial health hazard to the nonsmoking majority of the public...". Yet the legislature also tells us that smoking is OK in casinos. Reconcile the positions in terms of equal protection of the laws. I, for one, don't get it. TomR | ||
| jamie Citizen Username: Jamie Post Number: 377 Registered: 6-2001 |
ok, it is BAD that casinos were exempt - but lets put it this way: If there's a building on fire with 100 people in it. With the technology you have at hand - you can only save 93. Do you save those 93 or wait until you can save all 100? In the meantime you're risking all 100. Hopefully this will be amended - unfortuantely it's a separate fight due to politics and $$$. There was evidence of a greater monetary loss to casinos I believe which is why this provision was put in place. There was not the same evidence of a harmful economic impact on bar and restaurants. | ||
| TomR Citizen Username: Tomr Post Number: 909 Registered: 6-2001 |
jamie, You inartfully dodge the question. A fire is a fire. You do what you can, to save as many as you can, with the resources available. Legislation is, or at least in my opinion, should, be different. Legislation should not be passed which, on its face, deprives a segment of our society equal protection of the laws. If politics and $$$ are sufficient reason to toss the Fourteenth Amendment, and gain the benefit of saving 93 people, or 93% of the PEOPLE, I, for one, don't see how we have achieved a benefit. It is the road to folly, or worse. Passing a BAD LAW hoping to amend it at some future time is exactly like my above example of outlawing warrantless searches except for (fill in any identifiable group) and saying "we'll fix the problems later". Doesn't get it for this one man sitting in Maplewood. Thanks for the message board; thanks for engaging; thanks for thinking about the issue. The night is over for this one man sitting in Maplewood. TomR | ||
| Dr. Winston O'Boogie Citizen Username: Casey Post Number: 1845 Registered: 8-2003  |
the casinos are very different businesses than restaurants. the casinos are already subject to considerably more regulation than restaurants. so while I disagree that they should have been exempted, the "equal protection" argument is bogus. If I was the governor, I'd meet this lawsuit threat head-on. I'd ask the restaurant lobby if, in exchange for dropping the smoking ban, they'd want to operate under all the other regulations the casinos are subject to. all in the name of "equal protection of course." can you imagine if you had to go through the same background checks and oversight just to sling slices of pizza over a counter? imagine if persons under 18 were prohibited from entering any eating establishment? the "equal protection" argument is hogwash. | ||
| The Libertarian Citizen Username: Local_1_crew Post Number: 1242 Registered: 3-2004 |
it is not hogwash as this is being played as a health initiative, not a regualtory issue to combat organized crime. |
