| Author | Message | ||
     Dr. Winston O'Boogie Citizen Username: Casey Post Number: 1846 Registered: 8-2003  |
how does that make a difference? casinos and restaurants are not the same type of business, so why must they necessarily be treated equally in legislation? logically they should be, and it would be proper for them to be, but if they aren't how is that a violation of the 14th Amendment? by that logic, the legislature should have outlawed smoking everywhere. | ||
| steel Citizen Username: Steel Post Number: 938 Registered: 2-2002 |
Interesting note on local affiliation, (Cryan's): From the NYTIMES: "Some opponents of the ban sought to weaken its chances by arguing that it should apply to the casinos. Assemblyman Joseph Cryan, a Democrat who represents Union County and whose family owns Cryan's Pub in South Orange, was one of those leading an effort to weaken the bill's chances by making it stronger. He had said he was considering offering an amendment that would have subjected casinos to the smoking ban, but it never materialized on Monday when the ban was presented for a vote in the Assembly. Instead, Mr. Cryan took the floor to say why he would not support the measure. "It sticks to my craw to no end that the casino exemption is there," he said. Mr. Cryan said imposing the ban would eliminate more than 20,000 cigarette sales locations in bars and restaurants, costing the state some of the $540 million generated by the cigarette tax. He also said that New Jersey was giving up a competitive edge it had held among smokers since similar bans had been enacted in New York. "It's just good business sense, something we should be encouraging, not discouraging," Mr. Cryan said. | ||
| Duncan Supporter Username: Duncanrogers Post Number: 5499 Registered: 12-2001  |
Wow. Thats scary rhetoric from Mr. Cryan. Tobacco lobby in his pocket? | ||
| jamie Citizen Username: Jamie Post Number: 379 Registered: 6-2001  |
Lib - name a few carcinogens that are allowed in indoor places where the public congregates - I don't think you've answered this one yet. Thanks in advance. | ||
| Dr. Winston O'Boogie Citizen Username: Casey Post Number: 1847 Registered: 8-2003 |
it stinks that the casinos' lobbying clout got them an exemption, but the "equal protection" argument is a non-starter. there is ample precedent for exempting certain businesses from workplace regulations. typically the exemptions are for small businesses not the type of conglomerates that own casinos, but regardless, the exemptions exist. | ||
| aquaman Supporter Username: Aquaman Post Number: 654 Registered: 8-2001 |
Libertarian, "do you really think that a privately owned restaurant or bar is a public space?" A private home is a private space. A private club is a private space. A privately owned business is required to adhere to the laws of the state, county and municipality in which the business resides. If I pour a gallon of Clorox on the bar in my own home and inhale the fumes because I like the buzz that's my right. If I do that in a bar, it's a public health hazard and is against the law. If the Missus and I boink on the pool table in our private home, that's fine and dandy. If we try that at O'Reilly's, eh, not so fine and dandy. Habits, proclivities, and personal tastes which infringe on the rights of others to clean air, clean livin' and so on are not protected by the constitution. Not allowing tobacco smoking indoors is not an erosion of personal liberties, it's an expansion of the basic rights of people (the overwhelming majority) who choose not to smoke. | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 11875 Registered: 1-2003  |
Good explanation, aquaman. It seems clear enough to me that the government can impose regulations on restaurants. But that's just me. | ||
| TomR Citizen Username: Tomr Post Number: 911 Registered: 6-2001 |
Dr. Winston, In the event that your recent posts were in response to my own regarding equal protection, allow me to clarify. In the scenario I was addressing, the equal protection argument would be advanced on behalf of the employees of casinos, and other exempt establishments. In the event you were addressing somebody else, or some other issue, please ignore this irrelevant post from the guy sitting in Maplewood, just thinking out loud. I have no comment upon the "rights" of proprietors of one type of establishment as opposed to those of proprietors of other types of establishments. TomR | ||
| The Libertarian Citizen Username: Local_1_crew Post Number: 1257 Registered: 3-2004  |
of course they can! it doesnt always make it right. this bill is misguided and is bogus in terms of what it claims to be doing. | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 11876 Registered: 1-2003 |
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. | ||
| TomR Citizen Username: Tomr Post Number: 912 Registered: 6-2001 |
With regard to the public -v- private space thing, read this: http://www.southorangevillage.com/cgi-bin/show.cgi?tpc=26018&post=520011#POST520 011 And as for aquaman and the Missus doing whatever on their own pool table, boinking will really muck up the felt. Aquaman, you have greatly offended pool players everywhere. TomR | ||
| E Citizen Username: Scubadiver Post Number: 79 Registered: 8-2004 |
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/30418 Secondhand Smoke Linked To Secondhand Coolness October 22, 1996 | Issue 30•11 WINSTON, NC—Americans have known for years that smoking is a direct cause of coolness. But a recent study funded by R.J. Reynolds, Philip Morris and several other cigarette conglomerates proves conclusively that the cool effects of smoking are not limited to the smoker. According to the study, secondhand smoke is a leading cause of coolness, and is only slightly less cool than actual smoking. As a result of the study, cigarette companies are encouraging non-smokers to frequent smoky bars and make friends with smokers. The companies are also speaking out against laws that mandate separate non-smoking areas in public places. "We are only acting in the interests of the public at large," R.J. Reynolds spokesperson Ron Gronfeld said. "We're not saying non-smokers are going to die as a result of their actions, but we do want to make sure they know they're not as cool as they could be." Gronfeld referred to a "three-level progression" of coolness that non-smokers experienced in the study. Level one could be observed as soon as the non-smoker sat down at a barstool near a person enjoying a delicious cigarette. "Even the nerdiest subject we could find somehow appeared cool when interacting with his smoking partner," Gronfeld said. "Just the fact that the subject was brave enough to breathe deadly secondhand smoke established him as a hip, freethinking individual, the kind of person who might one day run with the bulls in Pamplona." Level two begins after a non-smoker has been in a smoke-filled environment for at least an hour. At this point, the non-smoker's clothes begin to stink of smoke, and he develops a dry, hacking cough. Bronchial fits are directly proportional to mucus overproduction, respiratory cyanosis and coolness. The smelly clothing leads to coolness because the nonsmoker smells to others as if he smokes two or more packs a day, which is a very cool thing to do. Level three occurs once the non-smoker admits to himself that smoking is cool, and then starts smoking himself. "Even if a former non-smoker only smokes in bars or social situations, we feel as if we have scored a victory," Gronfeld said. Smokers across the country feel vindicated by the study, claiming it proves what they have believed all along. "It's an exciting time to be a smoker," University of Virginia freshman Gina Pongres said. "It made me look grown- up in high school, and now that I'm older, it just makes me look cool." Her boyfriend, sophomore Tom Willard, agrees. "She always looks sexy smoking at the bars," he said. "I myself don't smoke, but I sure feel cool when I'm with Gina." David Prochnow, president of United Smokers of America, says there has never been such a good time to seek out the friendship of smokers. "Cigarette companies need our help," he said. "They want to get Third World countries addicted to American cigarettes, but that's going to take money. Now that this study has been released, I'm confident that even nonsmokers will make donations to cigarette companies, thanking them for the gift of coolness." Prochnow went on to praise the tobacco companies for adding freon, nicotine and dozens of other poisonous substances to tobacco. "Anyone would be seen as cool if their bodies were strong enough to handle even one of those chemicals. But smokers, being the coolest people around, have no problem breathing all of them at once," he said. "And breathing those chemicals secondhand is almost as cool." R.J. Reynolds plans to use the study's findings as evidence this fall, when it petitions the government to encourage smoking among newborns. | ||
| The Libertarian Citizen Username: Local_1_crew Post Number: 1259 Registered: 3-2004 |
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. i am tired to death with your patronizing comments. especially when i feel much the same about you. | ||
| aquaman Supporter Username: Aquaman Post Number: 656 Registered: 8-2001 |
E - funny, thanks. Libertarian. "this bill is misguided and is bogus in terms of what it claims to be doing." Huh? How is it bogus and misguided? Here's another example: Say I have a bottle of cologne, "Hai Karate" (I bought it on Ebay) When I drink I really like to smell Hai Karate. I spritz a plume of my eau with every sip of my beer. If you (Libertarian) got the last seat and you're next to me and get spritzed - tough luck if you don't like it, go drink at home pal. The bartenders reek, the other drinkers reek, coats will have to be dry-cleaned to get rid of the stank, etc. Tough toe-nails, I like to spritz Hai Karate while I drink. A ridiculous scenario, but less ridiculous then expecting people to inhale proven carcinogens while they quaff a cold one. All in the truly bogus guise of "personal freedom" | ||
| sylvester the investor Citizen Username: Mummish Post Number: 95 Registered: 6-2004 |
Its not only an infringement on my health, but it is a major infringement on the workers of the restaurant. (here I am, staunch conservative arguing for workers rights and against big tabacco....I must be drunk). People should be free to work in an environment that is not detrimental to their health. Ok, so you will say, go get a different job. Well, if you are a bartender, waiter, hostess, etc. by trade, what other options do you have. There are only so many non-smoking establishments out there, so the rest of the workers are forced to work in an unsafe environment. There are a lot of economics at play here. First there are the economics of healthcare. Employers face higher health costs due to the health implications their employees can face from working in a carcinogen filled environment. But single employers, namely places with bars, are very hesitant to go non-smoking because they will lose clientel when most do not change. Sure the few who change might pick up some non-smokers, but if only a few change people are not going to go out of there way to hunt down the non-smoking establishments. So until the law is passed to make it an equal playing field, there are no incentives to change (although, I'm formally reccomending tax cuts to businesses that go non-smoking.....there's one for the libs, tax cuts wrapped into anti-big tabacco). Where does the first or second amendment give you rights to smoke in a place of commerce? you can't drink on the street, is this any different? you could once smoke on airplanes, can't do that any longer. Did we take away all of your rights? All that you have to do is to step outside the bar for a smoke. I don't see why this is such a big hassle for smokers. When you go to someone's house that doesn't smoke, what do you do? you don't light up inside, so what's the difference. What do you think of chem-lawn (I think its chem-lawn, or its some other lawn company in the midwest) that has told their employees that they have until the end of this year to stop smoking or they will be fired? The company is even willing to help, but if you don't quit you are done (subject to individual state laws where the company does business). | ||
| Joan Supporter Username: Joancrystal Post Number: 6894 Registered: 5-2001 |
Libertarian: Under the law a privately owned business such as a bar or restaurant which serves the general public is included in the definition of public space. A bar or restaurant which is included in a private club is not. Whether or not you agree with this definition is moot since the law is being specifically applied to bars and restaurants which are open to the general public. TomR: I would like to see casinos included in the legistation under discussion but given the choice between banning smoking in all public spaces other than casinos and not banning smoking in any public spaces, I will take the casino exemption for now and then use the precident set by this legislation to press for including casinos next year. Net result is that the overall air quality in the State will be better as a result of this legislation and some lives may even be saved because of it. | ||
| anon Supporter Username: Anon Post Number: 2487 Registered: 6-2002 |
Someone once said that one should not watch either sausages or laws being made. All laws are a matter of compromise. No doubt the casinos were exempted because of their lobbying clout. | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 11879 Registered: 1-2003 |
I like that sausage analogy, anon. Here's why I mentioned compromise. In November of 2004, I heard a story on the public radio show This American Life which chronicled the passage of a law in the Michigan state legislature. There were so many deals being made to get voters on one side or the other. The point of whether the law was a good idea or not was totally overshadowed by the issue of which side would win. In fact, if I remember right, people eventually changed their views to the opposite of what they had been, only because the balance of power shifted. It was enough to make one utterly cynical about government. So if that's the reality, I'll begrudgingly allow the exemption for casinos, not because it's right, but because any progress is something to be grateful for. And we make that progress not because of our legislators but despite them. I'd love for the world not to be that way, but we should face the fact that it is. Does that clarify my position, TomR? | ||
| Dr. Winston O'Boogie Citizen Username: Casey Post Number: 1848 Registered: 8-2003 |
TomR, even under your scenario, the "equal protection" argument is a non-starter. as I posted earlier, their is ample precedent for such exemptions from regulation. Plenty of employees of particular types of establishments are exempted from all types of protections. The Family and Medical Leave Act comes immediately to mind, because it exempts small businesses. The equal protection argument in this case is nothing more than a desperate restaurant lobby grasping at straws. | ||
| wolfy Citizen Username: Locowolfy Post Number: 28 Registered: 10-2005 |
well, here I am, the Jackass that started this thread,(I do SMOKE), if the HEALTH POLICE think this is a stop gap measure to decrease the amount of deaths that are aligned with smoking, then why not make BUTTS illegal?? TOO much BIG money behind this? Liggett-myers etc?? TOBACCO fuels an ecomomy that is with odds at the health industry WHO HAS MORE MONEY, TOBACCO INTERESTS or HEALTH/DRUG COMPANIES??? This BAN is a F######G onslaught against little rights! CAN "THEY" outlaw the insidious perverors of our DIET next? G#D DA#M it!THe F##K##G food industry is KILLING more people than the "SMOKERS"!! I rest my weakass case!! WOLFY | ||
| wolfy Citizen Username: Locowolfy Post Number: 29 Registered: 10-2005 |
every "EVERY PIECE OF S##T" politican in a REAL society does not have the GOOD of the people at heart, they "bend to the trend" They are not real and their concept of reality is distorted by "special interest groups" The CASINOS as an exemtion is the BIGGEST non reality CRAP SHOOT, they have more MONEY to offer the state than anyone else! THE CASINOS SUCK AND THE POLITICOS SUCK THEM! politicans are WHORES and we VOTE for them, LIVE AND LET LIVE< OR LIVE AND LET DIE!!!!! | ||
| The Libertarian Citizen Username: Local_1_crew Post Number: 1260 Registered: 3-2004 |
the people here cant see past the smoking part of this to see the big picture. they clap there hands gleefully like a small kid getting a cookie. they are unable to grasp the idea that this sort of leggislating goes against everything that the constitution stands for. the yell yay no smoking without realizing how this continues the erosion of personal freedom. they say how is not stinking like smoke a bad thing. again they cant see past the smoking part. that is the most insignificant part of this whole bill. a bill that does nothing to truly address the issue it is supposedly made for. it is a panacea for the easily propogandized masses. the politicians make you think they are looking out for your health while continuing to recieve money from big tobacco and the casino lobby. they get to sell their tobacco, people keep on smoking, nothing changes. it is window dressing to obtain votes from people who cant see the forest for the trees. the only thing lost is more personal freedom to choose. lets keep making laws like this. lets allow the government to oversee every moment of our lives. lets remove any choice. lets allow the vast majority to continue to homgonize our lives. stop looking for big brother to relieve you of the responsibility of being a free person. | ||
| wolfy Citizen Username: Locowolfy Post Number: 30 Registered: 10-2005 |
WANT CARCINOGENS?? (live in NEW JERSEY)with the density of population and the amount of car exhaust we inhale, not to mention the overflow of the fuel burning plants in OHIO etc, HELL if you don't smoke you're gonna DIE anyway. | ||
| aquaman Supporter Username: Aquaman Post Number: 657 Registered: 8-2001 |
What's all this I hear about Tabasco products being banned? Think of all the fajitas and taco and burritos and encheladas that will go bland! I support the right to inhale tabasco, and exhale (if you know what I mean) in bars and restaurants. Thankey. >>>> Idiotic. >> You're an idiot! >>>> Moron! >> You're a moron! >>>> Lib!! >> You're a moron! | ||
| wolfy Citizen Username: Locowolfy Post Number: 31 Registered: 10-2005 |
IF the GODDAMN GOVT had their way( maybe next month) cigarettes may be declared WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION, sell them, you are jailed, buy them, you are jailed, make them, you are jailed, make butts ILLEGAL!!!!!!!!!!!!}}}}} | ||
| wolfy Citizen Username: Locowolfy Post Number: 32 Registered: 10-2005 |
HEY AQUAMAN< after your non-politically correct rebuttal, please if you have nothing to add of consequence,go "swim with the fishes" !!!! thank you!! | ||
| Dr. Winston O'Boogie Citizen Username: Casey Post Number: 1849 Registered: 8-2003 |
Lib is just trying to be provocative again. First off, no one is banning smoking. In the privacy of your own home, or even in public outdoor spaces, you can still smoke. Second, nothing in the Constitution allows you to engage in behavior that assaults other people. I can't walk up to you in a bar and slap your face, or spit in your drink, so why is it such a big deal that now I also can't blow cigarette smoke in your face? | ||
| TomR Citizen Username: Tomr Post Number: 913 Registered: 6-2001 |
Joan & Noglider, Your respective responses remind me of a story I once heard. A man at a party asks a woman if she would spend the night with him for a million dollars. The woman ponders the proposal, smiles, and says "well, yes". The gentleman then asks if she'd spend the night with him for fifty dollars. The woman slaps his face, and yells accusingly, "what do you think I am, a whore? The gentleman replies that they have already established what she is, but now need to settle on a price. The two of you seem to be willing to sell casino employees down the river, for the time being, for the "benefit" of removing second hand smoke from most indoor venues. We can take care of the casino employees later. What a great idea. Lets protect the employees of the St. James Gate Pub, and, for the time being, the hell with the casino employees. I mean, seriously, they're second class citizens anyway. So, as long as we're going down this road, why don't we all get together and decide what other groups of people aren't worthy of equal protection of the laws? Any suggestions? Blacks? Gays? WOMEN? King's shelf stockers? Someone can always offer some justification why a BAD LAW will accomplish some good. The question I posit is only do we, the People of the State of New Jersey want the responsibility of enacting this BAD LAW? In the interest of clarity, I call it a BAD LAW because of what I perceive to be a hole large enough to drive a truck through. That nagging equal protection thing. This is not about what I want, or, personally find convenient. Then again, if I've overlooked something regarding that PITA equal protection thing, somebody, please, tell me what I've missed. (See also, response to the good Dr. Winston below). TomR | ||
| TomR Citizen Username: Tomr Post Number: 914 Registered: 6-2001 |
Dr. Winston, Sorry I'm not getting it. You write of treating businesses, as businesses, differently. I write of treating employees differently, based solely upon a soon-to-be State enacted law, which effectively says that certain employees are second class citizens. Your reference to the Family and Medical Leave Act as a basis for differential treatment of businesses leaves me particularly perplexed. Legislation such as the Family and Medical Leave Act has exemptions for small businesses specifically because they are small businesses, and therefore (in theory) less able to afford the financial burdens imposed by such laws. I've yet to hear of an exemption for a "well able to afford the expense" segment of business from some employee benefit scheme, nor any justification for such an exemption. If you want to discuss the equal protection argument in terms of employees, please help me understand your position. If you want to discuss equal protection in terms of employers; Do good and fare well. TomR | ||
| Dr. Winston O'Boogie Citizen Username: Casey Post Number: 1850 Registered: 8-2003 |
I didn't say it is morally right to exempt the casinos. I said there doesn't appear to be 14th Amendment grounds for throwing out the smoking ban. The law does not discriminate against a class of citizens, unless you consider casino employees a separate class of U.S. citizens. And I can't imagine any legal precedent that would lead you to such a conclusion. | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 11882 Registered: 1-2003 |
I'm not happy about the compromise which leaves casinos alone. I suspect the framers of the constitution were not happy about slavery, but at the time, they had to go along with the definition of a person who had rights, which was white men who owned real estate. I'm glad they secured rights for white men who owned real estate, because it led to rights for people of all ethnicities and both sexes, regardless of ownership of property. We're actually not even providing full rights to all people, but every time we pass a new law that attempts to level the playing field, we are making progress. I wonder if you are so uncompromising in other areas of your life. That would seem difficult to me. | ||
| Lydia Supporter Username: Lydial Post Number: 1579 Registered: 5-2001 |
Wolfy -
What are you smoking? Dr. Winston - good point re: spit in your drink/blow smoke in your face I'm not happy with the casino exemption, but at least casinos have huge smoke-sucking fans and ventilation systems. In the big casinos, unless I'm standing right next to a smoker, the air smells and looks pretty clear, unlike a typical bar. | ||
| thoughtful Citizen Username: Thoughtful Post Number: 173 Registered: 6-2001 |
Likening someone's smoking in a bar to assault is another example of needlessly demonizing smokers because you don't like the way that they behave. People get into their cars--which cause many more deaths than second hand smoke--drive to bars where they eat fatty food and/or drink alcohol (a known carcinogen) and then complain that smokers are endangering their health and should be banned. I don't know, it seems a little hypocritical to me. By the way, I think that people in bars who talk loudly on cell phones, belch, or root for the Jets should be considered guilty of assault, too. | ||
| jamie Citizen Username: Jamie Post Number: 383 Registered: 6-2001 |
No one has been able to list one other GRADE A carcinogen that is permitted in the eneral space of restaurants. We do not have the "personal freedom" to bring asbestos into any workplace, let alone into a restaurant. We should not allow "personal freedom" to subject others to another known carcinogen, secondhand smoke. Another consideration: People with respiratory disabilities are guaranteed the personal freedom to work at any job without toxic air, according to the American Disabilities Act. | ||
| mickey Citizen Username: Mickey Post Number: 375 Registered: 10-2001 |
When people eat fatty foods, belch or root for the Jets they don't endanger my health or the health of the people working in the restaurant. When they drink and then drive it can be dangerous; that's why it's illegal. | ||
| Dr. Winston O'Boogie Citizen Username: Casey Post Number: 1851 Registered: 8-2003 |
thoughtful, the likening of smoking to assault was not meant literally - more like it "assaults" the senses. I thought that would have been clear, but maybe not. my point is - if some people don't agree with the ban, fine, that's their prerogative. but the state has as much of an interest in banning smoking in bars as it does in banning spitting on the floor in a public place, peeing on someone's lawn, making excessive noise after 10 PM, or any of a number of other unhealthy, unsanitary, or disruptive behaviors. | ||
| TomR Citizen Username: Tomr Post Number: 916 Registered: 6-2001 |
Noglider, Setting up a set of rules under which a game is to be played will require some compromise. Playing the game under those rules shouldn't. The rules are the Constitution and the game is government. Yeah, the Framers compromised on a number of things to get the game started. And from time-to-time we've agreed to change the rules of the game. Having the rules in place, I'd rather that we all play by the same rules, and that each of the rules apply to every player. Should we allow people to drive at age 16, 18 or 21; and whatever the age, under what restrictions? Certainly issues of importance, the resolution of which is subject to compromise. Should we impose restrictions on business to protect some employees but not other similarly situated employees? Another issue of importance, on which, however, we disagree as to whether there should be compromise. Dr. Winston tell me I'm wrong about the equal protection thing. Maybe I am. We'll just have to wait and see how this round of the game plays out. Lastly, with regard to the anecdote I related above, I should have spent the time to have thought of another, less harsh, way to make my point. It was crude and rude, and I offer my apologies to both you and Joan. Sometimes I think too fast, and somtimes I'm just half fast. TomR | ||
| TomR Citizen Username: Tomr Post Number: 917 Registered: 6-2001 |
Dr. Winston, If I turn out to be wrong, so be it, but... When enacted, this legislation will create the class. I fail to understand how, or why, the designation of a certain definable group of employees as not being entitled the the health protections afforded to all other employees in the State is rationaly related to the State's interest in "...prohibit[ing] smoking in all enclosed indoor places of public access and workplaces". tomr | ||
| Dr. Winston O'Boogie Citizen Username: Casey Post Number: 1852 Registered: 8-2003 |
TomR, you are wrong about the equal protection argument - special classes of citizens is typically interpreted to mean what someone is (gender, race, religion, disability, etc,) not what they do - which would be the case with casino workers. because the law treats everyone in NJ equally regardless of race, religion, ethnicity, etc, there is no equal protection argument. if a black, white, Muslim, disabled person works in a restaurant, or a casino, they are all subjected to the same working conditions if they work in the same type of establishment. it's a desperate hail mary on the part of the restaurant lobby, and frankly a pathetic one. | ||
| aquaman Supporter Username: Aquaman Post Number: 659 Registered: 8-2001 |
Do we get a prize if we can name one, Jamie? Actually, it appears to be a trick question, because I believe the carcinogens are categorized (at least by the International Agency for Research on Cancer) as Group 1, Group 2A, Group 2B, Group 3, and Group 4. So naming a "Grade A" would be hard to do. But a Group 1 Carcinogen that is allowed by law in restaurants does exist. Solar Radiation.  |
