| Author | Message | ||
     Lucifer Citizen Username: Lucifer Post Number: 37 Registered: 5-2005 |
The statewide smoking ban failed in the state senate, thank god. I think it is a stupid stupid idea. I've heard that Maplewood might be considering a local version of this law, does anyone have any information about this? please say it isnt so. | ||
| jamie Citizen Username: Jamie Post Number: 321 Registered: 6-2001  |
Smoking ban did not fail in the state senate - thank god. The vote was: Yea - 29 Nay - 7 It goes for a vote in the Assembly January 9th, if it passes there we'll be smoke free 90 days later. Woohoo! | ||
| Jonathan Teixeira Citizen Username: Jhntxr Post Number: 336 Registered: 10-2005 |
Maybe the only stupid , stupid idea here was the one someone had when they started smoking ! | ||
| TomR Citizen Username: Tomr Post Number: 855 Registered: 6-2001 |
Was the bill under consideration introduced as a public health and safety measure, or as an occupational workplace safety measure? TomR | ||
| vocallee Citizen Username: Vocallee Post Number: 28 Registered: 9-2001 |
Sorry Lucifer...Counting the days until January 9th! Non-smokers...please send all your positive energy! | ||
| Scully Citizen Username: Scully Post Number: 94 Registered: 8-2005 |
Lucifer thanking god? | ||
| mickey Citizen Username: Mickey Post Number: 354 Registered: 10-2001 |
Jamie, Do you know whom we should contact to register our support for the ban and encourage a yay vote? | ||
| jamie Citizen Username: Jamie Post Number: 322 Registered: 6-2001 |
Might be good to send a letter below asking Assembly leaders to post S1926 and to support it. Also, call Assembly Speaker Albio Sires at 201 854-0900 and Assembly Majority Leader Joseph Roberts at 856 742-7600. Ask them to post and support S1926. For smokefree workplace legislation to happen, the Assembly must post S1926 for a vote in the full Assembly, without the bill's going through committee, by January 5 or 9 (the last meeting of this legislative session), and 41 members must vote for it. They don't have direct email addresses - but they do have forms to contact: Albio Sires: http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/members/sires.asp Joseph Roberts: http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/members/roberts.asp Also, might be good to drop our local assembly members an email as well (We already know Codey is behind it): Senator RICHARD J. CODEY - Democrat District Office: 449 Mount Pleasant Avenue, West Orange, NJ 07052 (973)-731-6770 http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/members/codey.asp Assemblyman MIMS HACKETT - Democrat District Office: 15 Village Plaza, Suite 1B, South Orange, NJ 07079 (973)-762-1886 http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/members/hackett.asp Assemblyman JOHN F. MCKEON - Democrat District Office: 4 Sloan St., Suite D & E, South Orange, NJ 07079 (973)-275-1113 http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/members/mckeon.asp Talking Points: Explain why you are writing (tourism, family, friends, impact on your state, etc). Post S1926. Support S1926. All workers deserve a safe, healthy, smokefree work environment. No one should have to risk his health to hold a job. Tobacco smoke pollution causes cancer and respiratory disease. California, Delaware, New York, Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Montana, Vermont, and Washington have passed smokefree workplace legislation for ALL workers. | ||
| Scrotis Lo Knows Citizen Username: Scrotisloknows Post Number: 37 Registered: 10-2005 |
Hi everyone, Not to be a partypooper on most of your anti-smoking crusade but even though I gave up smoking 6 years ago and lead an overall healthy lifestyle, think smokers could spend their money better, smell better and just do something better with their time, I find it rather humourous that you guys can't pick a fight with the giant so you beat up on the dwarf. The only places I can think of right now off the top of my head where you still can smoke is in the smoking section of restaurants and bars. If you don't want to be subjected to cigarette smoke don't go or work at these esatblishments (or at least sit in the no-smoking section of the former. Your anti-smoking intentions are good, but they seem on the threshold of fascism...this legislation isn't about making a healthier community but curbing potential liabilities.... | ||
| John Caffrey Citizen Username: Jerseyjack Post Number: 5 Registered: 11-2005 |
It seems the most powerful opposition to the passage of the smoking regulation bill is coming from Assembly Majority Leader Roberts. You may also find information from njgasp.org. A public health debate similar to the present one took place at the beginning of the 20th. century when health advocates began to argue that cuspidors should be removed from public lobbies and taverns. Opponents argued that, to do so, would hurt businesses and besides, if you don't want to be confronted with a patron launching a "ginder" into a cuspidor, just patronize establishments that don't offer one to their customers. Also, to regulate cuspidors would be a further limitation on personal freedom. Pennsylvania's Governor Pennypacker articulated this libertarian view when he pronounced, "It is a gentleman's right to expectorate." Today, the most common use for cuspidors is as receptacles for umbrellas. To gain understanding about the problem of smoking in public facilitites, visit both the Parkwood Diner and St. James Gate. Then write your legislator. | ||
| jamie Citizen Username: Jamie Post Number: 323 Registered: 6-2001 |
I like the FAQ section at NJGASP: http://www.njgasp.org/b1_faq.htm | ||
| TomR Citizen Username: Tomr Post Number: 874 Registered: 6-2001 |
OK. I'm officially confused. Jaime tell us that the legislation is for a smokefree workplace. John Caffrey makes the argument froma public health perspective. Which is it? Occupational workplace safety or public health? TomR | ||
| jamie Citizen Username: Jamie Post Number: 324 Registered: 6-2001 |
Why does it have to be about one or the other? I think it includes occupational workplace safety AND public health - among countless other factors. How do you see it TomR? | ||
| jamie Citizen Username: Jamie Post Number: 325 Registered: 6-2001 |
I think this statement encompasses both areas: Restaurants are places of public accommodation, licensed to serve everyone, and must meet minimum health standards. Also, restaurants are workplaces and employees there deserve the same protections as employees in other workplaces. | ||
| TomR Citizen Username: Tomr Post Number: 876 Registered: 6-2001 |
jaime, In one case, I think its unnecessary and intrusive, and therefore an innappropriate subject for legislation. In the other case, I don't have sufficient information upon which a reasoned position can be formulated. TomR | ||
| jamie Citizen Username: Jamie Post Number: 326 Registered: 6-2001 |
you don't think smoke is intrusive? Do you smoke? I'm guessing you do. You can't form a reasoned opinion as to cigarette smoke being harmful? Here's some info that might help: People exposed to secondhand smoke, or environmental tobacco smoke (ETS), suffer increased rates of cancer, heart disease, breathing and lung problems, and developmental problems. There is strong scientific evidence that ETS causes: lung cancer nasal sinus cancer heart disease acute respiratory infections (bronchitis and pneumonia) in children asthma and worsening of asthma in children chronic respiratory symptoms in children eye and nasal irritation in adults middle ear infections in children low birth weight or small size babies Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS) There is also evidence that ETS causes: cervical cancer worsening of cystic fibrosis decreased pulmonary (lung) function spontaneous abortion problems in intellectual performance and behavior in children. How serious can these problems be? It is estimated that between 40,000 and 68,000 Americans die each year because of problems caused by secondhand smoke. Who says so? Since the 1970s, scientific studies have been documenting the link between secondhand smoke and harm to human health. The following scientific and health organizations agree that secondhand smoke is a hazard: American Cancer Society American Heart Association American Lung Association American Medical Association Harvard School of Public Health International Agency for Research on Cancer National Academy of Sciences National Cancer Institute National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health U.S. Department of Health and Human Services U.S. Environmental Protection Agency U.S. Office on Smoking and Health U.S. Public Health Service U.S. Surgeon General World Health Organization. Hundreds of governments and courts throughout the United States have made decisions to limit ETS, based on the scientific information. The evidence has also convinced thousands of proprietors of public places and workplaces to institute smokefree policies. For the record - here's parts of the country and world that are smokefree: In the USA, ten entire states-- CA, DE, NY, CT, ME, MA, RI, MT, VT, and WA-- have now enacted smokefree workplace legislation for ALL workers, including restaurant and bar workers. In Canada (which has thirteen provinces/territories), eleven entire provinces/territories-- British Columbia, Quebec, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland, Northwest Territories, Nunavut, and Ontario-- have enacted smokefree workplace legislation for ALL workers, including restaurant and bar workers. The remaining two-- Alberta and Yukon-- are likely to take action in 2006. Worldwide, the entire countries of Ireland, Italy, Norway, Sweden, Spain, New Zealand, Uganda, Malta, and Bhutan have enacted smokefree workplace legislation for ALL workers, including restaurant and bar workers. The UK, Australia, and Bermuda are likely to become the world's next smokefree countries. | ||
| TomR Citizen Username: Tomr Post Number: 878 Registered: 6-2001 |
jaime, I do. I do, although, generally, not in restaurants. I don't have the information to formulate a reasoned position as to whether a workplace ban on smoking is an appropriate subject for legislation. I'm not, and wasn't, looking for an argument. I just asked a question. Smoking isn't good for anybody. It is also intrusive, annoying, and for some, physically iritating. Its an expensive habit, if you don't roll your own. (Why isn't rolling tabacco taxed like cigarettes)? It makes clothing. hair and people smell. Some people think that one or more of the above facts makes a smoking ban an appropriate subject for State legislation. Others don't. But hey! I just asked a simple question. TomR | ||
| Mayor McCheese Supporter Username: Mayor_mccheese Post Number: 745 Registered: 7-2004  |
I love living in a free country where you have the option of choosing things yourself. If you like smoking and drinking, you enter an establishment in which the owners allow it. If you don't like smoking, you can avoid places where smoking is allowed. Unfortunately, in order to live in a place where freedom is still available, I will soon have to move. And perhaps if this issue were really about workplace safety, then we might find out how the workers in this field feel about this proposed laws. It seems that this has more to do with a few angry anti-smoking people, and less to do with workplace safety. As a smoker, I don't make a fuss about when I enter a place that has chosen to be a non-smoking facility. I will not just sit and bitch about how I have the right to smoke there. So I have a hard time following the anti-smoking argument. If you know a place allows smoking, and are bothered by it, don't go there. What this state needs is more common sense and less legislation. | ||
| jamie Citizen Username: Jamie Post Number: 327 Registered: 6-2001 |
Mayor - Do you know many people who have passed away thanks to cigarettes? I do, and I think any legislation that will make cigarette smoking less prevalent in our society is a needed measure. | ||
| Mayor McCheese Supporter Username: Mayor_mccheese Post Number: 746 Registered: 7-2004 |
I feel that every smoker knows the choice they have made. Quiting is always an option. I feel that every person knows that choice they make when they choose to enter an establishment that allows smoking. I don't feel that the government needs to babysit its citizens. I would hope that people could make up their own minds. For instance, did you know that people die every year from something known as "water intoxication," stemming from drinking too much water. Do you believe that the government should regulate that amount of water that people can drink? | ||
| jamie Citizen Username: Jamie Post Number: 328 Registered: 6-2001 |
You're comparing "water intoxification" with smoking? lol That's quite a stretch. How many people a year die from it? | ||
| Mayor McCheese Supporter Username: Mayor_mccheese Post Number: 748 Registered: 7-2004 |
Not many. The point is that I don't need the government telling me what to do. I am perfectly capable of making decisions myself, just as every other adult is. | ||
| steel Citizen Username: Steel Post Number: 926 Registered: 2-2002 |
Smokey bars are a disappearing refuge as of the last bastions of indulgent "incorrectness". In a way I will miss them even though I don't smoke. Meanwhile, The government has estimated that about 10% of Medicare's budget, or $14.2 billion, is spent on health problems related to smoking (Wall Street Journal, 12/24). Federal Medicare and State Medicaid programs are trying to cut the swelling taxpayer healthcare costs of paying for the results of other's "adult decisions" down the road and thus doing everything possible to discourage smoking. These anti-smoking ordinances are not really just about "health is nice" and "smoke smells" but that "bad health is expensive", (for everyone). | ||
| jamie Citizen Username: Jamie Post Number: 329 Registered: 6-2001 |
Another country goes smokefree!!! Bermuda Enacts Smokefree Workplace Law Law goes into effect on April 1 The Bermuda Senate voted unanimously in favor of smokefree workplace legislation. The Bermuda Assembly passed the same bill earlier this month. Under terms of the legislation, all Bermuda workplaces (including restaurants and bars) will become smokefree beginning April 1, 2006. Supporting the measure, Senator Carol Anne Bassett spoke of the “mind-boggling loss to families” caused by tobacco addiction, while Senator Kim Swan passed around a picture of a diseased lung to highlight the damage that tobacco addiction causes to both smokers and those around them. The new law also ends the sale of cigarettes through vending machines. Introducing the bill, Senator Raymond Tannock said: “It's for the public health that I bring this bill before the Senate. He explained that the action is part of a global health treaty – the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control – signed by 168 countries and ratified by 115 of them, and involves tightening tobacco control laws. The United States is one of the few major countries not to sign the Framework Convention due to opposition from the Bush administration. | ||
| ajc Citizen Username: Ajc Post Number: 4603 Registered: 9-2001  |
"The point is that I don't need anyone telling me what to do. I am perfectly capable of making decisions myself, just as every other adult is." So I found out...  | ||
| Mayor McCheese Supporter Username: Mayor_mccheese Post Number: 749 Registered: 7-2004 |
"So I found out..." ajc, I hope you are not saying this rudely. Steel, on the other end of that spectrum, much of the taxes collected from cigarettes goes to education. If all smokers quit, education would have serious funding problems. In addition to that, smokers would be alive longer and become more of a strain on programs such as social security. I don't know how things would balance out overall. | ||
| steel Citizen Username: Steel Post Number: 927 Registered: 2-2002 |
I thought about the cigarette taxes thing as well, -a big chunk of revenue. Let's face it, -the only reason that they say it goes to education is to mildly justify such a "passive" participation in the sale of cigarettes by making it more palpable. I'm sure that they'll find something else to tax. Smoke 'em if ya got 'em, (and can find a place). PS: We could always do a "Logan's Run" thing, -kill off everybody before they get old, -then there'd be no Social Security problem at all. Who wants to live to be 90? -Somebody who's 89. | ||
| ajc Citizen Username: Ajc Post Number: 4605 Registered: 9-2001 |
"Ajc, I hope you are not saying this rudely." Why would you think that when I used a face? Trust me, I don't mix my words and most people get it right away when I'm unhappy about something... BTW, there's nothing I can say positive about smoking, it sucks! IMHO, they should ban it not just in public, but on the planet like pot, coke, and all the other illegal drugs... | ||
| Mayor McCheese Supporter Username: Mayor_mccheese Post Number: 751 Registered: 7-2004 |
I also have no problem with person recreational drug use. (But that should be heavily regulated, with age restrictions, in home use only, etc.) But I digress. Steel - I always wondered how much of that money went to education. The way I see it, the governemtn will tax anything that people will continue to buy. It doesn't matter if they even say where the money is going. | ||
| ajc Citizen Username: Ajc Post Number: 4609 Registered: 9-2001 |
Will someone please explain to me what recreational drug use really is? I’m dead serious! Listen, I can understand what it is to have fun, and to engage in entertaining activities, but mixing drugs into the equation makes it not only irresponsible, but dangerous. I have to really wonder about the people who would offer to share a joint with say their younger brother/sister, or maybe their children, or do a few lines just to engage in some “recreational drug” activities with friends now and again? I guess I’ve seen too many people and family members throw their lives away using drugs to be able to see any kind of drug use as a "recreational" pass time. | ||
| Joan Supporter Username: Joancrystal Post Number: 6853 Registered: 5-2001 |
According to astatistics posted on the New York City Health Department's website, waitstaff in bars and restaurants where smoking is permitted have the highest rate of smoking-related cancer in the country, and this includes waitstaff who are non-smokers. That is because second hand smoke is at least as much a killer as smoking itself. We have laws which make it illegal for a person to drive drunk, not just because they might kill themselves while driving drunk but because drunk drivers may kill others with whom they come in contact while they are behind the wheel. Smoking in public contained spaces should be outlawed because smokers are endangering the health and well being of those around them as well as themselves when they smoke in interior areas of bars and restaurants. I am all for personal freedom but not when it endangers the health and well being of others. Much of the opposition to smoking ban legislation is based on economic arguements -- tobacco companies are major employers and major contributers to political campaigns; restaurant and bar owners are afraid of losing substantial business if anti-smoking legislation passes. Much of the support for passing such legislation is to improve the health and well being of us all. Which side of the argument should the State legislature take? Which do you think is the more powerful argument? | ||
| ajc Citizen Username: Ajc Post Number: 4616 Registered: 9-2001 |
"Which side of the argument should the State legislature take? Which do you think is the more powerful argument?" Asked and answered Joan... Ban all smoking products, and to hell with the economic arguments. The companies who are major employers and major contributors to political campaigns I'm sure will find some other way to screw us. Restaurant and bar owners afraid of losing substantial business will all be playing on a level field if anti-smoking legislation passes. Finally, as for government, they can now impose their punitive tax assessments on the fast food industry, gaming, and a host of other surfeit industries engaging in the unlimited other areas of overindulgence by the world’s endless supply of ravenous consumers... | ||
| Just The Aunt Supporter Username: Auntof13 Post Number: 3433 Registered: 1-2004  |
I am one of those who can't wait for this smoking ban to go into effect. And believe you me it will. I think it should have included the casinos as well. Someone tried to compare smoking to drinking too much water. The difference between the two is many people are ADDICTED to nicotine. I seriously doubt anyone can name someone addicted to water. Nicotine is a drug, a powerful one at that. It is one of the hardest, if not the hardest, addiction to break. The cigarette companies are very powerful and they know it. Until the govenrment takes a Nationwide stand against them, they will maintain that power. | ||
| Just The Aunt Supporter Username: Auntof13 Post Number: 3434 Registered: 1-2004 |
Tom- While it is a choice to start smoking, many started as children due to peer pressure. Quitting isn't always as easy as you might think. Many people become addicted to smoking the same way some become alcoholics. | ||
| The Libertarian Citizen Username: Local_1_crew Post Number: 1064 Registered: 3-2004  |
each business should be allowed to make the choice, not be forced by the tyranny of the self righteous. if you dont like cigarette smoke dont frequent businesses that allow it. if enough people dont go then they will change their policy. it is called voting with your dollar. i am sick to death of people trying enforce their personal choices on others through legislation. | ||
| The Libertarian Citizen Username: Local_1_crew Post Number: 1065 Registered: 3-2004 |
I seriously doubt anyone can name someone addicted to water. you, me, everyone. | ||
| The Libertarian Citizen Username: Local_1_crew Post Number: 1066 Registered: 3-2004 |
You're comparing "water intoxification" with smoking? lol That's quite a stretch. How many people a year die from it? how about this for an example then: automobiles alcohol both are huge killers yet you never hear about banning them, why? because it isnt fashionable. | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 11661 Registered: 1-2003  |
At the Parkwood Diner last week, the owner told me he doesn't have a smoking section any more! | ||
| The Libertarian Citizen Username: Local_1_crew Post Number: 1067 Registered: 3-2004 |
and it was a choice, not forced by facistic legislation. as it should be. | ||
| jamie Citizen Username: Jamie Post Number: 331 Registered: 6-2001 |
Tobacco kills more Americans than auto accidents, homicide, AIDS, drugs and fires combined. Lib - can you inform us of anything else that comes close to the effects of smoking among public health? Since 1964, there have been 12 million tobacco-related deaths in the U.S. |
