Regarding the smoking ban

[mostasteless]

As some of you may know the NJ state legislature passed a state wide smoking ban yesterday; the legislation is expected to be signed by the governor as early as Sunday. Although I am sure most of you are non smokers, who are for the ban, or people who could really care less. I feel I need to make a statement to try to make you realize this is much more than a issue of smoking, it is an issue of the government infringing on the rights of establishment owners and its citizens in general; particularly your right to run your business the way you see fit, your right to partake in a legal activity in an establishment that otherwise has no qualms with it, your right to not be discriminated against for partaking in a legal activity.

If you are an establishment owner who enjoys the patronage of smokers, the effects of this law will become evident quickly. Establishments such as clubs, bars, and strip joints whose clientele consists of a majority of smokers can expect financial losses as high as 70% in the first 90 days of the laws enactment. Losses like this will put any business under. It has also been estimated that the state is expected to loose as much as $150 million dollars in tax money. In a state that is already claiming bankruptcy; do you think this will not be used as an excuse to raise another form of tax to recoup the losses?

The politicians who pushed for and voted to pass this bill have used flawed and hypocritical logic to justify their promotion of this bill. The main point they attempt to make is that they are pushing the law to protect the health of business patrons and employees. They ignore the fact that the bill was passed exempting casino floors; therefore negating the sincerity of their act (State employees, including politicians pensions are invested in many companies tied to the casino industry, therefore if the casino looses money so does the politician). These politicians are ignoring the right of business owners to run their business as they see fit. The establishments that will be effected by this law are places of non necessity. People who do not wish to be subjected to second hand smoke do not have to enter the building. In essence, they are only protecting people who are willingly subjecting themselves to the supposed health risk. On the same note, there are many establishments that have chosen, of their own free will, to be smoke free, so there were already places for non-smokers to congregate away from second hand smoke. This same logic can be applied to employees who do not want to associate with smokers. No one is forcing them to continue to work where smoking is permitted.

Another rationale advocate's of the ban use is that the law protects the rights of patrons who do not want to be exposed to second hand smoke, but what they fail to mention is by doing so they are denying the right of business owners to run their business as they see fit. The ban also discriminates against smokers who enjoy having a cigarette while congregating at an establishment that would otherwise allow smoking.

When these points are brought up, the only response politicians and smoking ban advocates give are that by enacting the law they are “leveling the playing field” for all businesses. This is absurd and this logic can be used to justify things as extreme as a ban on serving seafood at restaurants. Currently some restaurants serve seafood and others do not. Many people enjoy seafood and will only go to restaurants that serve it; this is an uneven playing field because some establishments will be unable to get business from seafood lovers. By this logic we should do one of two things: ban the sale of seafood in eating establishments to “level the playing field”, or mandate that they all must sell seafood. I hope this scenario has shown you not only how ridiculous their reasoning is, but also helps you to see how little your government officials think of your ability to think logically and make decisions for yourself.
I would also like you to keep in mind this bill does not just affect public establishments it also affects private clubs, organizations and VFW’s.

Many of you are wondering how this affects your rights. The answer to this is not as clear cut as most make it out to be, and is quite hard for a “regular guy” like myself to put into words without performing a slippery-slope fallacy so please try to follow me with this reasoning.

Smoking ban legislation will open up the door to the government restricting more of your freedoms, making more of your decisions for you under the guise of public safety, and infringing more on property rights (as has been seen with the recent debacle know as the new interpretation of eminent domain). If you feel these statements are nothing more than a scare tactic to persuade you to take my viewpoint please be advised that even before this bill was passed by the legislature, a bill to make smoking in your personal vehicle illegal had already been introduced. There are also talks of allowing businesses to fire employees for partaking in the legal activity of smoking or drinking on their personal time so the business can save money health benefits (I know this sounds crazy but it has already been done in other states).

What can be done about this? You need to stand up for yourselves now, before things get even worse. Laws can be repealed and you can make your opinion known in a variety of ways! Show them that acts such as these will not be taken lightly. Write, call, or fax your legislators and the governor and let them know all the reasons that you disapprove of them using their power to restrict the rights and freedoms of the citizens. Voicing your opinion to the people in charge is the ONLY way to protect your freedoms. Educate others who may not be aware of the issues at hand. Contact bar/restaurant/club owners and urge them to also write letters or call their legislators. There are many ways to fight unfair legislation like this…get creative! I for one have decided to stop purchasing cigarettes in a state that refuses to allow smokers the right to enjoy the habit in public but have no qualms about overtaxing them for having the habit. We need to stand together to protect the rights of all citizens, because one day you will be the one loosing a freedom you enjoy and by that time it may be too late.

I would also like to direct you to an essay written by Joe Jackson speaking on a similar ban passed in NY in 2003. Not only does he describe the negative effects this bill has had on the city, he also goes into detail describing how the studies used to push the ban are flawed in more ways than one.

http://www.joejackson.com/smokingissue.htm

Also: Here is a link to my post regarding the 100 Stripper march, Hope to see you there.

http://www.tristatetuners.com/forum/showthread.php?p=137935#post137935

[WhiteXFire]

This is a serious question, so please don't take it the wrong way. What do you see as the advantages of being able to smoke in a public place, such as a bar, other than the fact that it allows the people who feel the necessity to smoke the right to do it? Related to this, if you feel simply having the right to do it outweighs the health issues connected to it, do you think it's also right to force non-smokers to be exposed to it by saying the have the choice of being excluded by not attending such smoke-filled places or grinning and bearing it? Lastly, another serious question for any smokers on the board...if you were able to quit today without any effects, would you want to/do it?

[dolphinS4]

Loose 70% of buisness for 90 days?? Talk about flawed or exagerated studies.

How about the people that don't smoke and might actually enjoy patronizing a non-smoking establishment more often, resulting in greater revenue for the bar/rest. Thats not possible?

I do agree that the casino's exemption should be challenged. If that isn't an unfair advantage to the casino's, nothing is.
It really comes down to the fact that this law is for the well being and health of the general public.

[teh DIRT]

its not about what you want or what someone else wants. Its about what we are given the right to do. Taking away someones right to have a cigarette is wrong. I personally dont like when people show affection for eachother in public, but I am not going to start a war and make it illegal to kiss in public. its rediculous.

[mostasteless]

For me and other smokers it is not much more than an inconvenience that will cause many of us to stop going to bars/clubs ect, or at least as often as we do now but for business owners it’s a different story. Because so many smokers will stop frequenting their establishments the can expect to loose a lot of money and quite possibly go out of business. I understand the concern people have for the health risks of second hand smoke (although they are highly inflated) and if the government wants to regulate air quality in places that smoking is allowed like they do with food quality and serving procedures I see no problem with that. This could be easily achieved because as some of you may know air purification equipment is readily available and although on the pricy side some have the ability to make air in a room full of smokers cleaner than the air you breath outside everyday; this would give a establishment owner the choice to meet regulation and allow smoking or choose not to and run a smoke free business.

To answer your question about if I would quit, yes, but only because it is a financial burden. Smoking is an unhealthy habit but much like having a couple beers or putting the petal to the floor on some empty back road I enjoy it, and I just like those other unhealthy pleasures I am willing to take the risk.

I understand that many non-smokers do not wish to walk into a smoke filled bar, all I am saying is why use it as an excuse to discriminate against smokers when their are other easily attainable options to remedy the problem.

Now I would like to pose a question to you (or anyone else):
Do you think it is fair to force smokers to "grin and bear it" if they want to go out for a drink with friends? Particularly when if the establishments owner has no qualms with allowing that person to have a smoke? This is slightly different than because under this law smokers wouldn’t have the option (like non-smokers do now) to go to a smoking establishment.

[mostasteless]

Loose 70% of buisness for 90 days?? Talk about flawed or exagerated studies.

How about the people that don't smoke and might actually enjoy patronizing a non-smoking establishment more often, resulting in greater revenue for the bar/rest. Thats not possible?

I do agree that the casino's exemption should be challenged. If that isn't an unfair advantage to the casino's, nothing is.
It really comes down to the fact that this law is for the well being and health of the general public.

Do some research on the subject and you will see how badly many businesses suffered in other states that have enacted similar bans. Yes 70% in 90 days is an extreme case but I chose that to make a point, would it have been as effective if I said 40% in 6 months, probibaly not but the end result would still be the same, another business closing.

[mostasteless]

It really comes down to the fact that this law is for the well being and health of the general public.

Please show me one study... or better yet one one death certificate showing that second hand smoke killed somone and I will quit this instant. The only studys you will find showing second hand smoke is a SIGNIFIGANT (as in more dangerous than cooking with non-stick pans) health risk have been proven to use flawed methods (for example a person whos spouse smokes becoming ill but forgetting to mention their are 40 other things the person was exposed to daily that also could have caused the illness such as poor diet, stress or working conditions)

[MuddyREX]

I believe how it works in Florida is this:

If 25% of the sales volume is from food, the establishment must be non smoking. This means restaurants will be smoke free. And that is fine with me, since having a smoking section in a restaurant is like having a peeing section in a pool.

It also means that places like bars and nightclubs where 20% of sales are not from food are able to continue to allow smoking.

I think it's a happy medium.

[thewake]

As some of you may know the NJ state legislature passed a state wide smoking ban yesterday; the legislation is expected to be signed by the governor as early as Sunday. Although I am sure most of you are non smokers, who are for the ban, or people who could really care less. I feel I need to make a statement to try to make you realize this is much more than a issue of smoking, it is an issue of the government infringing on the rights of establishment owners and its citizens in general; particularly your right to run your business the way you see fit, your right to partake in a legal activity in an establishment that otherwise has no qualms with it, your right to not be discriminated against for partaking in a legal activity.

I have as much a right to go to these same places as you do, and you do not have the right to polute my lungs by your smoking.

If you are an establishment owner who enjoys the patronage of smokers, the effects of this law will become evident quickly. Establishments such as clubs, bars, and strip joints whose clientele consists of a majority of smokers can expect financial losses as high as 70% in the first 90 days of the laws enactment. Losses like this will put any business under. It has also been estimated that the state is expected to loose as much as $150 million dollars in tax money. In a state that is already claiming bankruptcy; do you think this will not be used as an excuse to raise another form of tax to recoup the losses?

The places I go do not have a majority of smokers. Even the bars and such. A small minority of the patrons would be adversely impacted while the majority would be benefited. The inconvenince is small, you should be able to adjust. The rest of us will be able to enjoy ourselves more.

The politicians who pushed for and voted to pass this bill have used flawed and hypocritical logic to justify their promotion of this bill. The main point they attempt to make is that they are pushing the law to protect the health of business patrons and employees. They ignore the fact that the bill was passed exempting casino floors; therefore negating the sincerity of their act (State employees, including politicians pensions are invested in many companies tied to the casino industry, therefore if the casino looses money so does the politician). These politicians are ignoring the right of business owners to run their business as they see fit. The establishments that will be effected by this law are places of non necessity. People who do not wish to be subjected to second hand smoke do not have to enter the building. In essence, they are only protecting people who are willingly subjecting themselves to the supposed health risk. On the same note, there are many establishments that have chosen, of their own free will, to be smoke free, so there were already places for non-smokers to congregate away from second hand smoke. This same logic can be applied to employees who do not want to associate with smokers. No one is forcing them to continue to work where smoking is permitted.

Even with flawed logic, your right to smoke ends when you polute my lungs. The casinos lobbied hard for their exception and used a study funded by Phillip-Morris to get it. Both the casino industry and the tobacco industry are attempting to protect their explotative businesses. Do not be fooled into thinking that the state payroll or pension will be hurt be lower profits at the casino floor. These same politicians will cover any lost revenue with money from either new taxes or reduced spending on some other state program.

Another rationale advocate's of the ban use is that the law protects the rights of patrons who do not want to be exposed to second hand smoke, but what they fail to mention is by doing so they are denying the right of business owners to run their business as they see fit. The ban also discriminates against smokers who enjoy having a cigarette while congregating at an establishment that would otherwise allow smoking.

All businesses are regulated to some degree, should any business be allowed to sell alchohol to minors and adults without a license? Should they be allowed to sell tobacco to minors? How about other fees and expenses businesses must pay, like workers comp. insurance, unemployment and disability taxes, corporate licencing, minimum wages, health and safety regulations? Should we just scrap them all? I think not, and most people here would agree. This is just one regulation that is a benefit to more people than a detriment. A small inconvienence to you is way better than a large inconvience to the people around you. You just need to go outside and smoke. My eyes will not tear, my lungs will not constrict, and my sinuses will not be inflamed.

When these points are brought up, the only response politicians and smoking ban advocates give are that by enacting the law they are “leveling the playing field” for all businesses. This is absurd and this logic can be used to justify things as extreme as a ban on serving seafood at restaurants. Currently some restaurants serve seafood and others do not. Many people enjoy seafood and will only go to restaurants that serve it; this is an uneven playing field because some establishments will be unable to get business from seafood lovers. By this logic we should do one of two things: ban the sale of seafood in eating establishments to “level the playing field”, or mandate that they all must sell seafood. I hope this scenario has shown you not only how ridiculous their reasoning is, but also helps you to see how little your government officials think of your ability to think logically and make decisions for yourself.

Your eating of seafood at a resturant does not force me to eat seafood as I sit at the next table. I can order a steak. There is significant difference between them. This is a False Analogy.

I would also like you to keep in mind this bill does not just affect public establishments it also affects private clubs, organizations and VFW’s.
Good.

cont.

[thewake]

cont.

Many of you are wondering how this affects your rights. The answer to this is not as clear cut as most make it out to be, and is quite hard for a “regular guy” like myself to put into words without performing a slippery-slope fallacy so please try to follow me with this reasoning.

Smoking ban legislation will open up the door to the government restricting more of your freedoms, making more of your decisions for you under the guise of public safety, and infringing more on property rights (as has been seen with the recent debacle know as the new interpretation of eminent domain). If you feel these statements are nothing more than a scare tactic to persuade you to take my viewpoint please be advised that even before this bill was passed by the legislature, a bill to make smoking in your personal vehicle illegal had already been introduced. There are also talks of allowing businesses to fire employees for partaking in the legal activity of smoking or drinking on their personal time so the business can save money health benefits (I know this sounds crazy but it has already been done in other states).

What can be done about this? You need to stand up for yourselves now, before things get even worse. Laws can be repealed and you can make your opinion known in a variety of ways! Show them that acts such as these will not be taken lightly. Write, call, or fax your legislators and the governor and let them know all the reasons that you disapprove of them using their power to restrict the rights and freedoms of the citizens. Voicing your opinion to the people in charge is the ONLY way to protect your freedoms. Educate others who may not be aware of the issues at hand. Contact bar/restaurant/club owners and urge them to also write letters or call their legislators. There are many ways to fight unfair legislation like this…get creative! I for one have decided to stop purchasing cigarettes in a state that refuses to allow smokers the right to enjoy the habit in public but have no qualms about overtaxing them for having the habit. We need to stand together to protect the rights of all citizens, because one day you will be the one loosing a freedom you enjoy and by that time it may be too late.

Again here you embark on a slippery slope after stating that you are not. The sentence that includes "...will open up the door to the government restricting more of your freedoms..." is a clear indicator of such. Then go on to fear monger over the slippery slope. You also introduce several red herrings creating an overly complex question. Each of the freedoms that you claim are under attack are independent of each other and only the smoking ban in public spaces is relevant.

I would also like to direct you to an essay written by Joe Jackson speaking on a similar ban passed in NY in 2003. Not only does he describe the negative effects this bill has had on the city, he also goes into detail describing how the studies used to push the ban are flawed in more ways than one.

http://www.joejackson.com/smokingissue.htm

Joe Jackson's best argument is a the one where he claims it is political. He also does not link to many scientific site, but mostly political ones. This is where his and your argument is strongest.

Also: Here is a link to my post regarding the 100 Stripper march, Hope to see you there.

http://www.tristatetuners.com/forum/showthread.php?p=137935#post137935

Political action is your best bet. I still hope you fail, because I agree with the ban on a political and personal level. Enjoy the march. I will be enjoying smoke free bars and resturants in 94 days. I may even go out to places that would be newly smoke free. As more of us do this, the business' income may go up. Their health care expenditures may even go down. All in all, the world will not end, and a majority of the businesses will be fine. Do not forget that many bars/resturants fail every year with or without a smoking ban.

[smoger]

from first hand experience,.. the diner across the street from my apt became completely non smoking about 4 or 5 months ago and their business is booming. now keep in mind this is smack dab in NE philly, where people have the choice to go to countless smoking establishments.

if you think every smoker is going to leave jersey to go out to eat, you're nuts.

by the way, i noticed you posted twice about this,.. if it upsets you that much,.. you might wanna see a therapist about your severe dependancy.. if you cant wait until you get a chance to step outside, you might need serious help.

[thewake]

For me and other smokers it is not much more than an inconvenience that will cause many of us to stop going to bars/clubs ect, or at least as often as we do now but for business owners it’s a different story. Because so many smokers will stop frequenting their establishments the can expect to loose a lot of money and quite possibly go out of business.

If this is such a large hit the businesses will take, where are the statistics? Have there been any studies? Do not discount the ability for a long term increase to more than offset a short term dip. If you really cut down on your patronage of these places, could there be a greater number of people that will increase their patronage?

I understand the concern people have for the health risks of second hand smoke (although they are highly inflated) and if the government wants to regulate air quality in places that smoking is allowed like they do with food quality and serving procedures I see no problem with that. This could be easily achieved because as some of you may know air purification equipment is readily available and although on the pricy side some have the ability to make air in a room full of smokers cleaner than the air you breath outside everyday; this would give a establishment owner the choice to meet regulation and allow smoking or choose not to and run a smoke free business.

And these businesses that can not afford a small dip in revenue, can afford these air purifiers with what?

To answer your question about if I would quit, yes, but only because it is a financial burden. Smoking is an unhealthy habit but much like having a couple beers or putting the petal to the floor on some empty back road I enjoy it, and I just like those other unhealthy pleasures I am willing to take the risk.

Your right to unhealthy habits ends when they effect others. Your right to smoke ends when you polute my lungs, and your right to drive in that manner ends when you strike my car or other property, or otherwise violate the law.

I understand that many non-smokers do not wish to walk into a smoke filled bar, all I am saying is why use it as an excuse to discriminate against smokers when their are other easily attainable options to remedy the problem.

Can you prove that each and every molocule of smoke is trapped by the filters or otherwise does not reach a non-smoker? Until you can you are the one who is adversely effecting others and are not being discriminated against.

Now I would like to pose a question to you (or anyone else):
Do you think it is fair to force smokers to "grin and bear it" if they want to go out for a drink with friends? Particularly when if the establishments owner has no qualms with allowing that person to have a smoke? This is slightly different than because under this law smokers wouldn’t have the option (like non-smokers do now) to go to a smoking establishment.

Yes, smokers are the ones with the harmful and distasteful habit and should have to protect others from it.

[dolphinS4]

Do some research on the subject and you will see how badly many businesses suffered in other states that have enacted similar bans. Yes 70% in 90 days is an extreme case but I chose that to make a point, would it have been as effective if I said 40% in 6 months, probibaly not but the end result would still be the same, another business closing.
I just wrote a long ass respone and had my browser lock. :mad:
I'm not retyping it.
FYI: I am owner or partner in no less than 3 bar/restuarants in the tri-county Philadelphia area. Also member of more than one trade group. This is my research.

Don't believe every study you read. Any group, even the non-smokers, that has an agenda can bend twist and shape numbers to reflect their point of view.
This was the jist of my lost post.

BTW: effective air filtration equipment is unbelievably expensive and requries constant expensive service and maintenance. This is not a viable option for the smaller operations. You want to really create an unlevel playing field and drive the small guys out of buisness, put that requirement into the law.

[thewake]

from first hand experience,.. the diner across the street from my apt became completely non smoking about 4 or 5 months ago and their business is booming. now keep in mind this is smack dab in NE philly, where people have the choice to go to countless smoking establishments.

if you think every smoker is going to leave jersey to go out to eat, you're nuts.

by the way, i noticed you posted twice about this,.. if it upsets you that much,.. you might wanna see a therapist about your severe dependancy.. if you cant wait until you get a chance to step outside, you might need serious help.

Does anyone here remeber when the malls allowed smoking then one by one they banned it?

I remember going to the one remaining mall in the area that still allowed smoking. It was a horrible experience, the air stank, every surface looked dirty, there were butts all over the floor. I had to leave before be able to puchase anything. It took me the rest of the day to recover from being inside for less than ten minutes.

On top of all that it was pratically deserted during the holiday shopping season. Needless to say this mall was smoke free in January.

[2point4DSM]

It has also been estimated that the state is expected to loose as much as $150 million dollars in tax money.

Healthcare dollars used to take care of people that have become sick from years of smoking or being exposed to second hand smoke easily beats the tax money the state is expected to lose.

Please show me one study... or better yet one one death certificate showing that second hand smoke killed somone and I will quit this instant. The only studys you will find showing second hand smoke is a SIGNIFIGANT (as in more dangerous than cooking with non-stick pans) health risk have been proven to use flawed methods (for example a person whos spouse smokes becoming ill but forgetting to mention their are 40 other things the person was exposed to daily that also could have caused the illness such as poor diet, stress or working conditions)

Medicine has come a long way in figuring out these case studies and is a lot better at making these correlations. And there are plenty of them around I'm sure many of which you probably heard of already at one point and dismissed for various reasons.

The problem is for every legit study there are probably two funded by the tobacco company that says the opposite. And the tobacco company definitely has a lot more money to throw around into spreading mis-information like the one quoted above.

Ultimately, smokers are hurt by this, tobacco companies make their money, and the rest of us have to deal with second hand smoke.

Lucky for us the tobacco company's grip on our society is loosening and their powers in government are dwindling so that laws like this are starting to find their way into our lives.

Btw, a lot of my family is in medicine and are able to see these correlations first hand. Not to mention, there have been plenty of smokers in my family and my wife's with several of them affected by it. Currently we have one friend of the family who is currently on oxygen ALL the time, who has turned down a chance at getting another set of lungs.

[2point4DSM]

I just wrote a long ass respone and had my browser lock. :mad:
I'm not retyping it.


It seemed like mine was going to lock up too but I just waited a few minutes. I'm guessing when there is a lot of stuff being uploaded to the site at once our browser waits till it has a chance and then proceeds but might look to us like it is actually locked.

Btw, I just figured this out recently too, cause, like you, I tend to write a lot, lol.

[silver05bullet]

Its like taking your right to drive your car away from you, pretty soon they will be telling us how to live our lives within our house

America is really no longer a land of the free because theres to many bull**** laws we have to deal with



::::::BY THE WAY NOT TRYING TO OFFEND YOU GUYS JUST STATING MY TOTAL DISAPROVAL OF THIS LAW, AND HATING ON THE PEOPLE THAT ARE ACTUALLY FOR IT::::::

[smoger]

by the way.. let me add that my girlfriends mother can barely talk due to LOSING HER TONGUE in her fight against lung cancer she got from exposure to second hand smoke. so if you think smoking isnt a big deal for people around you, you're dead wrong.

like someone else said.. you dont have the right to harm others. you mention the right to drive your car? well guess what.. you arent allowed to drive your car on the sidewalk and endanger innocent lives.. its no different here.

[mostasteless]

I have as much a right to go to these same places as you do, and you do not have the right to polute my lungs by your smoking.

I agree, and I am NOT saying all establishments are smoking, I am saying the owner should have the right to choose. If non smokers feel so strongly about their lungs being polluted stop going into these establishments and make the owners aware as to why you are not going, when they loose money and know why they will make the changes needed to keep the money flowing, why push the government to get involved in something you have the power to do on your own.



The places I go do not have a majority of smokers. Even the bars and such. A small minority of the patrons would be adversely impacted while the majority would be benefited. The inconvenince is small, you should be able to adjust. The rest of us will be able to enjoy ourselves more.

That is fine for the places you frequent but what about the ones. At one of the places I frequent a conservative estimate is 60% of the people who go to this bar smoke, now the majority of patrons will be adversely impacted for the benefit of the minority.



Do not be fooled into thinking that the state payroll or pension will be hurt be lower profits at the casino floor. These same politicians will cover any lost revenue with money from either new taxes or reduced spending on some other state program.

If you live in NJ you know reduced spending is not in our politician’s vocab :) Seriously though, the states pension system is already on thin ice and any hit to it could cause serious problems. This may not bother most but it does bother me, mainly because I work for the state and it’s my money they are playing with.

All businesses are regulated to some degree, should any business be allowed to sell alchohol to minors and adults without a license? Should they be allowed to sell tobacco to minors? How about other fees and expenses businesses must pay, like workers comp. insurance, unemployment and disability taxes, corporate licencing, minimum wages, health and safety regulations? Should we just scrap them all? I think not, and most people here would agree. This is just one regulation that is a benefit to more people than a detriment. A small inconvienence to you is way better than a large inconvience to the people around you. You just need to go outside and smoke. My eyes will not tear, my lungs will not constrict, and my sinuses will not be inflamed.
And I agree regulation is necessary but an outright bad IMO is just not a smart way to go about it. Yes it does only inconvenience the minority in most instances but this is not the underline issue. The issue is business owners being able to allow their patrons to partake in a legal activity if they choose to do so.



Your eating of seafood at a resturant does not force me to eat seafood as I sit at the next table. I can order a steak. There is significant difference between them. This is a False Analogy.

The analogy is based solely on the idea of creating a level playing field so it is not a false analogy. And although it is completely irrelevant to the debate, the smell of seafood makes me sick to my stomach and when it is in my presence the smell overpowers what I am eating and it is all I can taste, so in essence I am being forced to eat seafood as much as you are being forced to smoke :mrgreen:

[smoger]

And I agree regulation is necessary but an outright bad IMO is just not a smart way to go about it. Yes it does only inconvenience the minority in most instances but this is not the underline issue. The issue is business owners being able to allow their patrons to partake in a legal activity if they choose to do so.

um.. but smoking in public places no longer IS a legal activity. anytime a law makes something illegal, you could use that argument.

The analogy is based solely on the idea of creating a level playing field so it is not a false analogy. And although it is completely irrelevant to the debate, the smell of seafood makes me sick to my stomach and when it is in my presence the smell overpowers what I am eating and it is all I can taste, so in essence I am being forced to eat seafood as much as you are being forced to smoke :mrgreen:

getting sick to your stomach from the smell of seafood is not going to have life long consequences to your health.

[2point4DSM]

The politicians who pushed for and voted to pass this bill have used flawed and hypocritical logic to justify their promotion of this bill. The main point they attempt to make is that they are pushing the law to protect the health of business patrons and employees. They ignore the fact that the bill was passed exempting casino floors; therefore negating the sincerity of their act (State employees, including politicians pensions are invested in many companies tied to the casino industry, therefore if the casino looses money so does the politician).

I completely agree with this. Smoking should be banned at the casinos, too!

Its like taking your right to drive your car away from you, pretty soon they will be telling us how to live our lives within our house

Driving is a privilege and not a right. Smoking is like pumping toxic chemicals into your lungs. No one has the right to pump toxic chemicals into any one else's lungs!

And the government already has laws that restricts us from doing whatever we like in our own homes. For example we all know we are not allowed to manufacturer illegal substances within our own homes but how many people know that in Philly we aren't allowed to make noises that will disturb our neighbors especially btw certain hours of the night.

[mostasteless]

If this is such a large hit the businesses will take, where are the statistics? Have there been any studies? Do not discount the ability for a long term increase to more than offset a short term dip. If you really cut down on your patronage of these places, could there be a greater number of people that will increase their patronage?

All these things are possible and I did not say all businesses should expect to loose tons of money but here is the first link that came up from a google search, it is a compilation of news articles relating to the topic. I have a lot of people to respond to still but if you want I will dig up more. http://www.davehitt.com/facts/banlinks.html



And these businesses that can not afford a small dip in revenue, can afford these air purifiers with what?
The businesses that expect a small dip in revenue most likely would not invest in the equipment but the ones that can expect a much more signifigant loss will cetainly conciter loans to pay for the equipment that could keep them in business.



Your right to unhealthy habits ends when they effect others. Your right to smoke ends when you polute my lungs, and your right to drive in that manner ends when you strike my car or other property, or otherwise violate the law.

I see your point and totally agree with you IF, for instance I tried to walk into a grocery store, hospital or somewhere non-smokers must enter. Resteraunts, bars, and clubs are recreational facilities and because they are you are not being forcefully exposed to my bad habit, you choose to be exposed to it. It would be like me going to a Backstreet Boys concert and complaining about the music, I knew what to expect, I was not forced to go, so I have no right to complain that the didn't play any Metallica.



Can you prove that each and every molocule of smoke is trapped by the filters or otherwise does not reach a non-smoker? Until you can you are the one who is adversely effecting others and are not being discriminated against.
I am not a air quality technician so I dont know. I am sure the average system you see on TV probibally does not but that does not mean they do not exhist.


Yes, smokers are the ones with the harmful and distasteful habit and should have to protect others from it.

I never said it wasn't harmful, distasteful is your opinion, and the government should not have to protect someone from something they can protect themselves from.

[mostasteless]

Political action is your best bet. I still hope you fail, because I agree with the ban on a political and personal level. Enjoy the march. I will be enjoying smoke free bars and resturants in 94 days. I may even go out to places that would be newly smoke free. As more of us do this, the business' income may go up. Their health care expenditures may even go down. All in all, the world will not end, and a majority of the businesses will be fine. Do not forget that many bars/resturants fail every year with or without a smoking ban.

I guess this means I wont see you there :wink:

[mostasteless]

if you think every smoker is going to leave jersey to go out to eat, you're nuts.
I never said they would, all I said is it will create financial hardships to SOME businesses encompases in the ban.



by the way, i noticed you posted twice about this,.. if it upsets you that much,.. you might wanna see a therapist about your severe dependancy.. if you cant wait until you get a chance to step outside, you might need serious help.

Firstly, if you think making 2 posts about a topic shows severy distain on a topic I think you are the one who needs therapy. Secondly, I can and have no problem waiting or stepping outside to have a smoke if the owner of the establishment wants me to. I do however have a problem with the government taking the rights away from that establishment owner to make that choice.

[2point4DSM]

There have been plenty of times I have wanted to go to a certain restaurant but didn't because it was smokey and my family was with me.

To be honest I still have plenty of friends that smoke and it really doesn't bother me much if they smoke around me. My wife is different. And we both feel the same about the little one being exposed to the stuff....

I think a lot of people are in similar situations and I bet some of these businesses might actually see more business from the smoking ban.

At least NJ isn't the first to go this route and from prior experience in other states it seems their local economy hasn't suffered as the smokers would like us to believe. Besides, less smoking would probably allow more drinking at bars and at least they can make their money off that, lol.

[mostasteless]

I don't think we will see a horrible economic backlash because lets be honest the only places that can expect a real loss in business are some bars and clubs but the people who are effected won't sleep any better knowing that everyone else is still doing fine.

I totally respect the fact that you do not wish to expose your children to the smoke but much like if you do not want to expose your child to drinking you need to take these factors into consideration when choosing an establishment to attend, not just go out and ban drinking in all businesses. If The government wishes to strengthen air quality standards for all businesses (which will effectively end smoking in many establishment and go further by making non-smoking establishments improve the quality of their air) or even mandate that a business needs to get a license to be a smoking facility (like they do with alcohol) I see no problem with that, it helps protect peoples health while allowing the business owner be the final say in what legal activity they allow in their establishment.

Not all smoker are chain smoking freaks with no consideration for others, some of us go out of our way to avoid exposing non-smokers to our habit on a daily basis but this ban is not only an insult to hard working business owners by telling them how to run their business, it is a slap in the face to the courteous smokers by taking away the last few places they can sit back have a smoke and socialize in a comfortable friendly atmosphere.

[Intercooled T]

next time i see you smoking at work I'm gonna point at you and give you the 'nelson laugh'..... haaa-ha!

:)

[mostasteless]

next time i see you smoking at work I'm gonna point at you and give you the 'nelson laugh'..... haaa-ha!

:)
:cry:
















































:mrgreen:

[smoger]

I totally respect the fact that you do not wish to expose your children to the smoke but much like if you do not want to expose your child to drinking you need to take these factors into consideration when choosing an establishment to attend, not just go out and ban drinking in all businesses. If The government wishes to strengthen air quality standards for all businesses (which will effectively end smoking in many establishment and go further by making non-smoking establishments improve the quality of their air) or even mandate that a business needs to get a license to be a smoking facility (like they do with alcohol) I see no problem with that, it helps protect peoples health while allowing the business owner be the final say in what legal activity they allow in their establishment.

the difference of course, which you keep ignoring in your examples, is that if someone sitting near me in a restaurant is drinking, it doesnt affect my health in any way whatsoever

do you honestly think this is going to hurt businesses? its been proven time and again that it will not in other areas. it sounds like your grasping at straws to argue your point while not making yourself sound like a smoke fiend. america has wised up to the danger, now accept it yourself and get over it.

[thewake]

All these things are possible and I did not say all businesses should expect to loose tons of money but here is the first link that came up from a google search, it is a compilation of news articles relating to the topic. I have a lot of people to respond to still but if you want I will dig up more. http://www.davehitt.com/facts/banlinks.html


There are about 300 businesses spanning 18 states, Canada and Ireland. Not a very large number at all that have reported financial hardships.


I see your point and totally agree with you IF, for instance I tried to walk into a grocery store, hospital or somewhere non-smokers must enter. Resteraunts, bars, and clubs are recreational facilities and because they are you are not being forcefully exposed to my bad habit, you choose to be exposed to it. It would be like me going to a Backstreet Boys concert and complaining about the music, I knew what to expect, I was not forced to go, so I have no right to complain that the didn't play any Metallica.


So when I am required to travel for work, I don't have any option other than going to a resturant. Are you telling me that I should find a new career so you can smoke?


I never said it wasn't harmful, distasteful is your opinion, and the government should not have to protect someone from something they can protect themselves from.

Distasteful is my opinion. Harmful is where we have common ground. When a common space is poluted with smoke, it is unreasonable to have a non-smoker selectively breathe small pockets of the cleaner air when it is reasonable to ask the smoker to go outside to smoke.

Note: I skipped a bunch of stuff to keep this debate more focused.

[thewake]

I guess this means I wont see you there :wink:

I guess I could organize a counter protest or photo trip...

[mostasteless]

There are about 300 businesses spanning 18 states, Canada and Ireland. Not a very large number at all that have reported financial hardships.
Like I said that was a quick search and im sure their have been quite a few more. Also, you are correct not a very large number of businesses will go under in compairison of how many were effected when the laws were enacted but even still it is safe to assume that a large majority of the places that did go under would still be in business if the the laws had never been passed, and if you were the owner/employee of one of the establishments it sure does suck.



So when I am required to travel for work, I don't have any option other than going to a resturant. Are you telling me that I should find a new career so you can smoke?

Not at all, what I am saying is if their are 2 resteraunts in the immediate area one is smoking and one is not, you can choose to go to the non smoking resteraunt. To be honest I don't do much traveling but from what I have seen in recent years 2 ot of 3 resteraunts/diners are non smoking so options are available.




Distasteful is my opinion. Harmful is where we have common ground. When a common space is poluted with smoke, it is unreasonable to have a non-smoker selectively breathe small pockets of the cleaner air when it is reasonable to ask the smoker to go outside to smoke.

I couldn't agree more, if said establishment is a place that the non-smoker must go (using the word very loosly) and no alternatives are available. A resteraunt, although I just used it in my last response defending my stance, is iffy in my judgement. I can see how you could make the argument that resteraunts could be concitered places a non-smoker may need to go so I would not even be addressing this law if they were the only establishments effected. On that same note going to bars, and clubs on the other hand can not be justified as a necessity so I feel the business owner should have the final say.


Note: I skipped a bunch of stuff to keep this debate more focused.

Thats cool, I think if we can keep the debate more focused at the very least we will be able to understand where we both are coming from and best case come to some sort of agreement. Although in the scope of things it will do nothing more than allow us both to feel that we have achieved something by spending so much time bantering over the internet :thumbup:

[mostasteless]

it sounds like your grasping at straws to argue your point while not making yourself sound like a smoke fiend. america has wised up to the danger, now accept it yourself and get over it.

It sounds like you are completely missing the point of what I am saying so I will break it down to a few points.

1) I agree that smoking is a health danger.

2) Although I feel the danger of second hand smoke is exaggerated it DOES exist.

3) Places that people must go to should be non smoking because non-smokers do not have the option of not entering the establishment.

4) I feel that bars, clubs and other recreational establishments that people do not need to go to (guess that is implied in the word recreational but I wanted to clarify) the choice should be left to the establishment owner.

Everything else I have written has been to try to defend my position, some may have been effective, some not, but that is what happens when someone goes head on with a topic that people feel so strongly about.

I feel if we continue on the way we are going this could easily turn into a pissing match and I do not want this thread to be close, so let’s stay on these topics or just agree to disagree :afro:

[smoger]

It sounds like you are completely missing the point of what I am saying so I will break it down to a few points.

1) I agree that smoking is a health danger.

2) Although I feel the danger of second hand smoke is exaggerated it DOES exist.

yeah? tell that to my girlfriends mom. i hope you can understand whatever she tells you in response.(review the thread if you missed the post where i discussed this)

3) Places that people must go to should be non smoking because non-smokers do not have the option of not entering the establishment.

4) I feel that bars, clubs and other recreational establishments that people do not need to go to (guess that is implied in the word recreational but I wanted to clarify) the choice should be left to the establishment owner.

the employees of said establishments HAVE to go there. it isnt reasonable to just say get a new job, not everyone can.

i used to work at ups.. now what do you think would happen if ups knew about a health hazard in the workplace and did nothing about it? not only would the union go ape****,.. but the government as well. why is it different for other businesses? if anything, businesses should embrace this because they can go to a non smoking environment on a level playing field and theyll save imense amounts of money in health care costs.

just feel lucky that you dont work for one of the many companies who now DO NOT employ smokers whatsoever. (whether they be smoking at work OR home)

Everything else I have written has been to try to defend my position, some may have been effective, some not, but that is what happens when someone goes head on with a topic that people feel so strongly about.

I feel if we continue on the way we are going this could easily turn into a pissing match and I do not want this thread to be close, so let’s stay on these topics or just agree to disagree :afro:


and if you are not aware of it.. read the OSHA act.. OSHA as in occupational safety and health agency.. the govment entity that oversees workplace safety.

this should end this debate once and for all...

The Secretary, in promulgating standards dealing with toxic materials or harmful physical agents under this subsection, shall set the standard which most adequately assures, to the extent feasible, on the basis of the best available evidence, that no employee will suffer material impairment of health or functional capacity even if such employee has regular exposure to the hazard dealt with by such standard for the period of his working life.

now,.. yes.. smoking apparantly is not regarded in this as a standard.. but the language is clear. anything deemed a health hazard is not allowed in the workplace.. and its only a matter of time before smoking IS a standard.

[mostasteless]

yeah? tell that to my girlfriends mom. i hope you can understand whatever she tells you in response.(review the thread if you missed the post where i discussed this)

I am sorry to hear about what happened to her but when we are told that no amount of second hand smoke is safe but at the same time are told that safe amounts of chemicals found in our drinking water (including dioxin which is a cancer causing agent found in both water and smoking) you can see why I think the claims are exaggerated.



the employees of said establishments HAVE to go there. it isnt reasonable to just say get a new job, not everyone can.

I was always under the impression that if you do not like what goes on at your place of business you could quit. I am not saying finding another job is a walk in the park but it can be done, this is assuming you were already not aware of the health risks associated with second hand smoke before you got the job, if that is the case you have no right to complain IMO.
A few years back I use to work at a packaging company then out of the blue I developed allergies (I do not know if it was dust, the boxes or what) so what you are telling me is instead of finding a new job I should have gotten the government involved in the matter? Before you say it is not the same, it is. I had no say in the matter and the same things that caused my allergies could have easily caused me to develop asthma, and asthma can be fatal.



just feel lucky that you dont work for one of the many companies who now DO NOT employ smokers whatsoever. (whether they be smoking at work OR home)

I am, and although it is off topic what do think about this? I have also read that some businesses do the same thing for people who drink at home and may have sick family members who would be put on the health plan in an attempt to lower their health care costs. The way I see it they do have the right to tell you can’t smoke or drink while in work but how can they dictate what legal activities you partake in your own home. (excluding of course things that are a blatant conflict of interest)




and if you are not aware of it.. read the OSHA act.. OSHA as in occupational safety and health agency.. the govment entity that oversees workplace safety.

this should end this debate once and for all...



now,.. yes.. smoking apparantly is not regarded in this as a standard.. but the language is clear. anything deemed a health hazard is not allowed in the workplace.. and its only a matter of time before smoking IS a standard.

And when OSHA (an organization whose job it is to determine work place hazards and regulate them accordingly) decides to encompass smoking into the definition I won't have a leg to stand on, but right now they do not.

[Broken5hift]

post whoring is my antidrug.

i love the cigg ban. i dont smoke and i dont wanna smell you smoke or smell like your smoke. if there was a masturbation ban, then id be worried.

if you think about it though, saying your a non smoker when selling your car actually makes the car worth more, even if its just in peoples minds.

[smoger]

I was always under the impression that if you do not like what goes on at your place of business you could quit. I am not saying finding another job is a walk in the park but it can be done, this is assuming you were already not aware of the health risks associated with second hand smoke before you got the job, if that is the case you have no right to complain IMO.
A few years back I use to work at a packaging company then out of the blue I developed allergies (I do not know if it was dust, the boxes or what) so what you are telling me is instead of finding a new job I should have gotten the government involved in the matter? Before you say it is not the same, it is. I had no say in the matter and the same things that caused my allergies could have easily caused me to develop asthma, and asthma can be fatal.


theres a HUGE difference between allergies, which affect a very small subset of the
population and something like ciggarette smoke which affects 100% of the population.

I am, and although it is off topic what do think about this? I have also read that some businesses do the same thing for people who drink at home and may have sick family members who would be put on the health plan in an attempt to lower their health care costs. The way I see it they do have the right to tell you can’t smoke or drink while in work but how can they dictate what legal activities you partake in your own home. (excluding of course things that are a blatant conflict of interest)

it's their right to set any policy they'd like. you may not realize, but health care is a HUGE problem right now. companies just cant afford it anymore. all across the board employees are having to pay more for their health care and youd be hard pressed to find a company that still includes it 100% as a benefit. cutting out employees who partake in an unhealthy lifestyle can potentially save millions for the company.. so of course its in their best interest to do so. in may cases, since most workers contribute to their health care costs, cutting out non smokers can save individual employees some money too. its a win win situation.

your employers policies absolutely CAN dictate what you do in your private life. if you want the job, you have to follow their policies. for example my job has a policy that i cannot disclose information about my job to our competitors(as many jobs do). that limits me in what i can do in my own time, but its part of taking the job. another example is i heard on the radio yesterday about WWE wrestlers.. they are required to be in character at all times when in public. meaning the "bad guys" have to act like dicks when they go out to eat with their family, or anything else they do in public. example #3: if you work for a city or township, more often than not you have to live in the same city or township.

these policies on alcohol and smoking are no different IMO

And when OSHA (an organization whose job it is to determine work place hazards and regulate them accordingly) decides to encompass smoking into the definition I won't have a leg to stand on, but right now they do not.

its only a matter of time. im sure the only reason it hasnt happened yet is due to the money that the tobacco industry has

[smoger]

post whoring is my antidrug.

i love the cigg ban. i dont smoke and i dont wanna smell you smoke or smell like your smoke. if there was a masturbation ban, then id be worried.

if you think about it though, saying your a non smoker when selling your car actually makes the car worth more, even if its just in peoples minds.

yep, totally true. heck my dad traded in his 02 xl7 over the summer and he told me when he was cleaning it out to trade in, he was disgusted about how the smoke had collected in the headliner, discolored spots in the car, and how bad he realized it smelt. he vowed not to smoke in the new car,.. though he broke that a few months later hehe..

[mostasteless]

theres a HUGE difference between allergies, which affect a very small subset of the
population and something like ciggarette smoke which affects 100% of the population.

Everyone is a canidate to get allergies but not everyone will get allergies, just like everone is a canidate to have ill effects from second hand smoke but not everyone will have ill effects.



it's their right to set any policy they'd like.


But not when it comes to smoking?


you may not realize, but health care is a HUGE problem right now. companies just cant afford it anymore. all across the board employees are having to pay more for their health care and youd be hard pressed to find a company that still includes it 100% as a benefit. cutting out employees who partake in an unhealthy lifestyle can potentially save millions for the company.. so of course its in their best interest to do so. in may cases, since most workers contribute to their health care costs, cutting out non smokers can save individual employees some money too. its a win win situation.

Believe me I am quite aware of the current health care issue. My girlfriends father current can not find a job that will give healthcare to anyone in the familt other than him because my girlfriend has fibromialgia(a disease that is thought to be genetic so its not her fault she has it) call me nieve but that doesnt sound right to me.

Women are obviously more likely to have a baby than a man, pregnancy is expensive to the health care system.

Overweight people are more likely to have health issues than others.

try to fire/refuse to hire these people because of this and it is descrimination.


your employers policies absolutely CAN dictate what you do in your private life. if you want the job, you have to follow their policies. for example my job has a policy that i cannot disclose information about my job to our competitors(as many jobs do). that limits me in what i can do in my own time, but its part of taking the job. another example is i heard on the radio yesterday about WWE wrestlers.. they are required to be in character at all times when in public. meaning the "bad guys" have to act like dicks when they go out to eat with their family, or anything else they do in public. example #3: if you work for a city or township, more often than not you have to live in the same city or township.

these policies on alcohol and smoking are no different IMO

All of these (well maybe not so mch the case with the WWE) can be concitered a conflict of interest and as I said this is a reasonable exception to the rule



its only a matter of time. im sure the only reason it hasnt happened yet is due to the money that the tobacco industry has

You could be right but if the only reason it hasn't happened is the greasing of palms don't you think this is the only issue this is happening with?

[Broken5hift]

this country was founded by people sick of englands laws and overbearing government.

the irony is sickening.

[thewake]

Like I said that was a quick search and im sure their have been quite a few more. Also, you are correct not a very large number of businesses will go under in compairison of how many were effected when the laws were enacted but even still it is safe to assume that a large majority of the places that did go under would still be in business if the the laws had never been passed, and if you were the owner/employee of one of the establishments it sure does suck.

First, the cause of these business downturns is not proven to be a smoking ban. Just because there is a ban does not prove it caused the business hardships. Your assumption is also a bad one to make. The hospitality industry is notoriously unstable. Businesses open and close all the time for a myriad of reasons. Yes, being the employee of a failed business is bad, but not the end of the world. I have been there, and for the lamest of reasons too (the owner got married, and decided to get a 'real' job for stability).

Not at all, what I am saying is if their are 2 resteraunts in the immediate area one is smoking and one is not, you can choose to go to the non smoking resteraunt. To be honest I don't do much traveling but from what I have seen in recent years 2 ot of 3 resteraunts/diners are non smoking so options are available.

I don't usually have the local knowledge that this requires, especially after hours and relying on recomendations from people who may not be as sensitive to tobacco smoke as I am, does not help much.

I couldn't agree more, if said establishment is a place that the non-smoker must go (using the word very loosly) and no alternatives are available. A resteraunt, although I just used it in my last response defending my stance, is iffy in my judgement. I can see how you could make the argument that resteraunts could be concitered places a non-smoker may need to go so I would not even be addressing this law if they were the only establishments effected. On that same note going to bars, and clubs on the other hand can not be justified as a necessity so I feel the business owner should have the final say.

I have been to places where after about 8pm there is nothing but bars and fast food available to eat. Sometimes it is even later when I have a chance to grab food. Not all of the country is as metropolitan as the coasts.

Thats cool, I think if we can keep the debate more focused at the very least we will be able to understand where we both are coming from and best case come to some sort of agreement. Although in the scope of things it will do nothing more than allow us both to feel that we have achieved something by spending so much time bantering over the internet :thumbup:

To understand where I am coming from you would have to know what it is like to have a tobacco allergy, which can trigger an athsma attack. At the same time have sinus, watery eyes and headache symtoms from the allergy. I have been working at places where smoking was not allowed indoors, and have had smokers walk by my desk to trigger an athsma attack. As I have aged I have gotten less sensitive, but I still worry about ending up in the hospital again because I am suffocating (separate incident).

I would be happy to see smoking banned from all public spaces, both indoors and out. So I am happy about this ban. I am also not a political activist, so don't look for me at the statehouse or capitol hill.

There is nothing you can do to stop the ban, it is too late. This deal is done. However I think you should go march anyway. It is an important part of the process to let the government know you feel wronged by this.

[DomZ]

I am all for it, I am a non-smoker and it is not fair that I can't go to certain places without being surrounded by disgusting cigarette smoke.....

I don't want to go to bars, pool halls, and even diners at this point because the smoke is so thick. My eyes burn, I smell terrible, and I'm sure my lungs aren't too happy with it. What gives you the right to endanger my health? People sue over that type of stuff. I don't see the freedom to smoke on the Bill of Rights. You still have the right to bear arms and the right to free speech so get over it.....shoot me or scream at me if you gotta get over your niccotine craving in an indoor public place....

[Fourbanger]

Its a touchy subject, those sensitive to smoke are sol in pa. And in my opinion i think they should just start to establish more non-smoking resturants and bars, instead of taking the smoking away. That would make more sense to me at least.

[smoger]

Everyone is a canidate to get allergies but not everyone will get allergies, just like everone is a canidate to have ill effects from second hand smoke but not everyone will have ill effects.

almost everyone is allergic to something, but noone is allergic to everything. so,.. saying you have a seafood allergy and seafood should be banned is different than banning smoking. if you could do that, it would be illegal to eat anything and illegal to drink anything but completely purified water




But not when it comes to smoking?

tho i suspect you knew what i meant, i will clarify.

bussinesses can set any policy they want ....without overriding the law. the smoking ban is [now] a law, therefore a business cannot override it with their own policies.



Women are obviously more likely to have a baby than a man, pregnancy is expensive to the health care system.

Overweight people are more likely to have health issues than others.

try to fire/refuse to hire these people because of this and it is descrimination.

i think the borgata would disagree. they have strict weight standards for their employees.


All of these (well maybe not so mch the case with the WWE) can be concitered a conflict of interest and as I said this is a reasonable exception to the rule

well,.. i dont know what to tell you,.. whether you agree with the examples or not.. its still the case.

i just thought of another one... in my job i am on call. now,.. i do not get paid when im not working, but i have to be able to respond to an emergency at any time. this means that my job shapes my actions outside of work. had i refused to accept that policy, i would not have met the requirements for the job and someone else would have been chosen.




You could be right but if the only reason it hasn't happened is the greasing of palms don't you think this is the only issue this is happening with?

actually i think its quite the opposite. i think there are many issues like this. politicians are dirty.

all big business is dangerous to the public. gas industry, drug industry, tobacco industry, entertainment industry. all of them are WAY too involved in our gov'ment IMO.

[smoger]

Its a touchy subject, those sensitive to smoke are sol in pa. And in my opinion i think they should just start to establish more non-smoking resturants and bars, instead of taking the smoking away. That would make more sense to me at least.

in that case..

lets have some sidewalks you can drive your car on. if you dont want to get hit by a car, dont go on those sidewalks.

lets have some factories with no paint on overhead hazards, if you dont want to smash your head , work somewhere else

lets have some pools that dont get cleaned. dont want to swim in bacteria? swim somewhere else

see how that works?

its not that people are just annoyed by smoking.. its that people are HARMED by smoking. even if the smoke doesnt bother them, they still have the potential of health issues if they breathe the stuff.

[mostasteless]

First, the cause of these business downturns is not proven to be a smoking ban. Just because there is a ban does not prove it caused the business hardships. Your assumption is also a bad one to make. The hospitality industry is notoriously unstable. Businesses open and close all the time for a myriad of reasons. Yes, being the employee of a failed business is bad, but not the end of the world. I have been there, and for the lamest of reasons too (the owner got married, and decided to get a 'real' job for stability).
Businesses go out of business every day but that doesn't mean that many of the businesses going under were not directly related to the ban. Here is a good example I read today (if you want me to cite it let me know and I will search and find it again). Within a year of the smoking ban in CA 40% of the states exotic clubs went under, now I dont know the turnaround on these types of businesses but if it is normally anywhere near that number they would be very few and far between bu now.





I don't usually have the local knowledge that this requires, especially after hours and relying on recomendations from people who may not be as sensitive to tobacco smoke as I am, does not help much.

I have been to places where after about 8pm there is nothing but bars and fast food available to eat. Sometimes it is even later when I have a chance to grab food. Not all of the country is as metropolitan as the coasts.

Yes, but we arer not talking about the rest of the country we are talking about NJ where non smoking diners/resteraunts are more common than smoking ones and most are open till atleast 10:00 and plenty are open much later (some even 24)


To understand where I am coming from you would have to know what it is like to have a tobacco allergy, which can trigger an athsma attack. At the same time have sinus, watery eyes and headache symtoms from the allergy. I have been working at places where smoking was not allowed indoors, and have had smokers walk by my desk to trigger an athsma attack. As I have aged I have gotten less sensitive, but I still worry about ending up in the hospital again because I am suffocating (separate incident).

You are right I can never truly understand what you have to deal with but I do have simpathy for your situation (and others like you). This however does not change my stance on the issue, in places that people do not have to go to (when I say people I mean the vast majority) should not be forced to not allow people to partake in a legal habit (no matter how unhealthy) in their establishment, now if they choose to good for them. Once again just for clarification my argument is for bars, clubs (private or otherwise).


There is nothing you can do to stop the ban, it is too late. This deal is done. However I think you should go march anyway. It is an important part of the process to let the government know you feel wronged by this.

I know, but like you said even though it will not change anything if I don't speak out I might as well be saying that it is OK with me.

[mostasteless]

almost everyone is allergic to something, but noone is allergic to everything. so,.. saying you have a seafood allergy and seafood should be banned is different than banning smoking. if you could do that, it would be illegal to eat anything and illegal to drink anything but completely purified water

I may just be dense (wouldn't be the first time I have heard it) but how does this relate to my statement. I did not say someone is allergic to everything nor did I say we should ban everything someone is allergic to. All I was saying is even though everyone can get ill effects from second hand smoke (just like anyone can become allergic to something they come in contact with) the majority of people who come in contact with it (safe to say the majority of people in the country) will not show any ill effects.






tho i suspect you knew what i meant, i will clarify.

bussinesses can set any policy they want ....without overriding the law. the smoking ban is [now] a law, therefore a business cannot override it with their own policies.


I never said they could, I am saying the law (as it is written) is unfair to business owners and I think it should be reconcitered.


i think the borgata would disagree. they have strict weight standards for their employees.
But as this law has shown, casinos are exempt from the law :mrgreen:




well,.. i dont know what to tell you,.. whether you agree with the examples or not.. its still the case.

i just thought of another one... in my job i am on call. now,.. i do not get paid when im not working, but i have to be able to respond to an emergency at any time. this means that my job shapes my actions outside of work. had i refused to accept that policy, i would not have met the requirements for the job and someone else would have been chosen.

But by being on call your action outside of work could directly effect you actions at work if you were to be called in at a "bad time". Please explain to me how me having a beer and a smoke after work will directly effect my action while at work.





actually i think its quite the opposite. i think there are many issues like this. politicians are dirty.

all big business is dangerous to the public. gas industry, drug industry, tobacco industry, entertainment industry. all of them are WAY too involved in our gov'ment IMO.

Well atleast we agree on one thing :thumbup:

[mostasteless]

its not that people are just annoyed by smoking.. its that people are HARMED by smoking. even if the smoke doesnt bother them, they still have the potential of health issues if they breathe the stuff.

And seeing that everyone is educated about this (if you disagree, push for more education on its health risks and I will be there right with you). you know the risks, no one is twisting your arm to enter the bar, if you don't like it don't go.

[Matt2.8NJ]

People and businesses will adapt. Businesses will continue to survive long term...in the short term there may be some casualties.

Back when I was at college in DE, the state imposed the same ban.

People adjusted.

[thewake]

Businesses go out of business every day but that doesn't mean that many of the businesses going under were not directly related to the ban. Here is a good example I read today (if you want me to cite it let me know and I will search and find it again). Within a year of the smoking ban in CA 40% of the states exotic clubs went under, now I dont know the turnaround on these types of businesses but if it is normally anywhere near that number they would be very few and far between bu now.


In industries with an unstable business model, they usually have a large number of start ups. No study I have found has shown that the failures were directly related to the smoking ban. They usually just state how many failures occured immidiately after the ban. There are no customer counts, or comparisons to prior years. Just an ergo hoc, propter hoc argument that does not prove anything.

Yes, but we arer not talking about the rest of the country we are talking about NJ where non smoking diners/resteraunts are more common than smoking ones and most are open till atleast 10:00 and plenty are open much later (some even 24)

The problem is still the same for anyone who travels into NJ.

You are right I can never truly understand what you have to deal with but I do have simpathy for your situation (and others like you). This however does not change my stance on the issue, in places that people do not have to go to (when I say people I mean the vast majority) should not be forced to not allow people to partake in a legal habit (no matter how unhealthy) in their establishment, now if they choose to good for them. Once again just for clarification my argument is for bars, clubs (private or otherwise).


You can still go out to these same places, only now you must smoke outside it is still not a great burden on you.

[smoger]

But by being on call your action outside of work could directly effect you actions at work if you were to be called in at a "bad time". Please explain to me how me having a beer and a smoke after work will directly effect my action while at work.



its all in health care costs man. costs more money to insure smokers. business decision. if they arent in desperate need of employees, of course they want the ones that have the potential for the company to make the most money. its their right and in their best interest.

[smoger]

And seeing that everyone is educated about this (if you disagree, push for more education on its health risks and I will be there right with you). you know the risks, no one is twisting your arm to enter the bar, if you don't like it don't go.

yeah it makes perfect sense that business owners should be allowed to ignore a public health risk, while forcing non smokers to tippytoe around and carry maps of "safe zones" with them, while banning smoking simply makes you have to take a step outside. in the latter case, everyone gets to be in peace and in a healthy environment.

noone in their right mind who wants to keep out of the smoke is going to drive around for hours looking for a non smoking establishment, nor should they have to.

lol, imagine if you went into a restaurant and they had silverware thats not cleaned properly . "oh it would hurt us financially to properly clean them, but if you look around the area you might find a place that does clean it"

[mostasteless]

No study I have found has shown that the failures were directly related to the smoking ban. They usually just state how many failures occured immidiately after the ban. There are no customer counts, or comparisons to prior years. Just an ergo hoc, propter hoc argument that does not prove anything.
I will try to find some info on the the closure rate of prior years, and although it would only give you a rough idea, it should be enough to prove their is an effect.



The problem is still the same for anyone who travels into NJ.

It is, but from my experience and im sure yours as well it is much easier to find a non-smoking eatery than it is to find one that allows smoking. Your arguement was some places it is harder/impossible to find one.

[mostasteless]

lol, imagine if you went into a restaurant and they had silverware thats not cleaned properly . "oh it would hurt us financially to properly clean them, but if you look around the area you might find a place that does clean it"

If I find an establishment to be unsanitary yes, I will go somewhere else.

[smoger]

If I find an establishment to be unsanitary yes, I will go somewhere else.


..but the question is should they be ALLOWED to keep their silverware in that condition?

[smoger]

It is, but from my experience and im sure yours as well it is much easier to find a non-smoking eatery than it is to find one that allows smoking. Your arguement was some places it is harder/impossible to find one.

thats a ludicrous statement. there are very few places that do not allow smoking, save for fast food.

[mostasteless]

This will be my final post on this topic( other than finding the info I promised thewake) because I see it is pointless to continue but I have one more example I would like you to ponder.

Prolonged exposure to noise above 85dB has been shown to cause hearing loss (a health problem). In most bars and clubs that play music the dB level is closer to 100dB (and sometimes exceed 110dB). At 100dB the maximum exposure without protection reccomendation is 2 hours. Knowing this do you think laws should be passed to prohibit these places from being louder than say 90dB(8 hours per day reccomended maximum exposure (protects 90% of people) ) or would you say "if its too loud go outside".

Keep in mind if you choose to prohibit, it is safe to say you will never see another concert (they almost always exceed 110dB). Or is it OK because it is something you enjoy.

Maybe I'm odd but even after experiencing hearin loss (mild to moderate depending on frequency) I still feel that if I have a problem with the volume level I can leave (and many times do)

[smoger]

This will be my final post on this topic( other than finding the info I promised thewake) because I see it is pointless to continue but I have one more example I would like you to ponder.

Prolonged exposure to noise above 85dB has been shown to cause hearing loss (a health problem). In most bars and clubs that play music the dB level is closer to 100dB (and sometimes exceed 110dB). At 100dB the maximum exposure without protection reccomendation is 2 hours. Knowing this do you think laws should be passed to prohibit these places from being louder than say 90dB(8 hours per day reccomended maximum exposure (protects 90% of people) ) or would you say "if its too loud go outside".

Keep in mind if you choose to prohibit, it is safe to say you will never see another concert (they almost always exceed 110dB). Or is it OK because it is something you enjoy.

Maybe I'm odd but even after experiencing hearin loss (mild to moderate depending on frequency) I still feel that if I have a problem with the volume level I can leave (and many times do)

close but no cigar.

the danger with sound levels is in prolonged exposure for consecutive periods of time. just like too much alcohol can harm your body, so can too much sound. in other words, it is not a health hazard for a bar to play loud music or serve alcohol.. it becomes a health hazard when you decide to partake in too much of it.

besides,... anyone who is concerned about the effects of loud music can simply wear earplugs(which many people do). there is no way to protect yourself from smoke, unless you expect people to walk around in painting masks , which obviously is unreasonable and impossible if they are eating.

[mostasteless]

Sorry I said I wasn't going to post but I'm addicted :wink:

close but no cigar.

the danger with sound levels is in prolonged exposure for consecutive periods of time.
Find me one piece of literature that says short term non consecutive exposure to second hand smoke will cause unreversable (as in your body won't heal itself) ill effects. All I hear is how even for a 20 year, pack a day smoker (a hell of a lot more carcinogens that you would get hanging out in a bar a couple hours a day a few days a week) within 10 years you chances of seeing ill effects from your habit drops to 10% of a smokers (and continues to drop for the rest of your life. Is it safe to assume someone exposed to signi***antly less smoke for a signifigantly less period of time will recover signi***antly faster(I really dont know, I have not seen any studies even touching on this issue)? I'm sure you know this but I want to point it out anyway, unlike damage to your lungs, hearing loss is not reversable.

just like too much alcohol can harm your body, so can too much sound. in other words, it is not a health hazard for a bar to play loud music or serve alcohol.. it becomes a health hazard when you decide to partake in too much of it.


By deciding to go to noisy bars/clubs? short term exposure has little/no ill effect for most people, it is long term that you can expect to see a problem? Sounds like you are using the same reasoning for this issue as I am for smoking.

[JoeScooby]

waste, im going to smoke anyway..

[smoger]

Sorry I said I wasn't going to post but I'm addicted :wink:


Find me one piece of literature that says short term non consecutive exposure to second hand smoke will cause unreversable (as in your body won't heal itself) ill effects. All I hear is how even for a 20 year, pack a day smoker (a hell of a lot more carcinogens that you would get hanging out in a bar a couple hours a day a few days a week) within 10 years you chances of seeing ill effects from your habit drops to 10% of a smokers (and continues to drop for the rest of your life. Is it safe to assume someone exposed to signi***antly less smoke for a signifigantly less period of time will recover signi***antly faster(I really dont know, I have not seen any studies even touching on this issue)? I'm sure you know this but I want to point it out anyway, unlike damage to your lungs, hearing loss is not reversable.

heres some key quotes i found about second hand smoke..

"Secondhand smoke causes approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths and 35,000 heart disease deaths in adult nonsmokers in the United States each year."

"Nonsmokers exposed to secondhand smoke at work are at increased risk for adverse health effects. Levels of ETS in restaurants and bars were found to be 2 to 5 times higher than in residences with smokers and 2 to 6 times higher than in office workplaces."

"Only 15% of smoke is inhaled by the smoker. The other 85% goes directly into the air to be inhaled by nonvoluntary nonsmokers."

"The American Lung Association reported that 20% of the population is at risk of developing lung disease from second hand smoke."

in case you dont know the scope of this,.. thats fifty nine and a half million americans. all because you want to be able to smoke indoors instead of simply stepping outside.

"Since 1999, 70 percent of the U.S. workforce worked under a smoke-free policy, ranging from 83.9 percent in Utah to 48.7 percent in Nevada.6 Workplace productivity was increased and absenteeism was decreased among former smokers compared with current smokers."


By deciding to go to noisy bars/clubs? short term exposure has little/no ill effect for most people, it is long term that you can expect to see a problem? Sounds like you are using the same reasoning for this issue as I am for smoking.

its different, because the music is PART OF THE REASON everyone goes to a club or concert or what have you.. smoke is not something that people go to a restaurant for. employees at these types of places, like i said before, wear earplugs more often than not.

and remember,.. the main push of this is to protect employees of these places. tho it is great for everyone

[mostasteless]

heres some key quotes i found about second hand smoke..

"Secondhand smoke IS ESTIMATED TO causes approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths and 35,000 heart disease deaths in adult nonsmokers in the United States each year."

"The American Lung Association reported that 20% of the population is at risk of developing lung disease from second hand smoke."

The data you cite was attained from a study by the EPA and the results have been challenged by the Congressional Research Service for the methods used in attaining the data, here is there repot:
http://www.forces.org/evidence/files/crs11-95.htm

Some of the problems they address are:
1)their results were announced before the study was completed.
2) The results were attained through meta analysis. My girlfriend ( a bioligy major) explained to me the problem with that. Basically with meta analysis you take the findings of other studies and puts them together, so if any of the studies are inaccurate it will throw off the entire study, also in doing a meta analysis you can pick and choose the studies that will alter your findings to what you want them to be.
3)The studies relied primarily on questionnaires to the case and control members, or their surrogates, the determine EST exposure and other information pertinent to the studies. As you may know questionaires are one of the most inaccurate wasy to perform a study, and this is multiplied by the fact that many of the questionnaires were filled out by surrogates making the information second hand and even more inaccurate.
4) the largest study they used in their meta analysys was the Fontham study which at the time was still incomplete. When the study was completed it showed a small increase in risk that the CRS referred to it as "a positive risk that was barely statistically significant."
5)The EPA based their numbers on a meta analysis of just 11 studies. The analysis showed no increase in risk at the 95% confidence level(the standard used in evaluating the results of a study).
6) To meet their already announced statistic of 3000 deaths the EPA had to double their margin of error.
7) The relative risk shown by the EPA's results was 1.19 (thats where the 20% number came from). A relative risk factor of less than 2.0 is usually said to be insignifigant and due to error or bias.

Also
In 1998 Judge William Osteen after reviewing the EPA's report declared it null and void; Judge Osteen record shows he more often than not sides with the government is tobacco cases and in 1997 ruled in favor of the EPA and their right to regulate tobacco. Two of the reasons he declared the study inaccurate are as follows:
1)"The record and EPA's explanations to the court make it clear that using standard methodology, EPA could not produce statistically significant results with its selected studies. Analysis conducted with a .05 significance level and 95% confidence level included relative risks of 1. Accordingly, these results did not confirm EPA's controversial a priori hypothesis. In order to confirm its hypothesis, EPA maintained its standard significance level but lowered the confidence interval to 90%. This allowed EPA to confirm its hypothesis by finding a relative risk of 1.19, albeit a very weak association. EPA's conduct raises several concerns besides whether a relative risk of 1.19 is credible evidence supporting a Group A classification. First, with such a weak showing, if even a fraction of Plaintiffs' allegations regarding study selection or methodology is true, EPA cannot show a statistically significant association between ETS and lung cancer."
2) he also stated "there is evidence in the record supporting the accusation that EPA "cherry picked" its data. Without criteria for pooling studies into a meta- analysis, the court cannot determine whether the exclusion of studies likely to disprove EPA's a priori hypothesis was coincidence or intentional. Second, EPA's excluding nearly half of the available studies directly conflicts with EPA's purported purpose for analyzing the epidemiological studies and conflicts with EPA's Risk Assessment Guidelines."

the complete ruling can be found here: http://www.forces.org/evidence/epafraud/files/osteen.htm


"Nonsmokers exposed to secondhand smoke at work are at increased risk for adverse health effects. Levels of ETS in restaurants and bars were found to be 2 to 5 times higher than in residences with smokers and 2 to 6 times higher than in office workplaces."
"Nonsmokers exposed to secondhand smoke at work are at increased risk for adverse health effects. Levels of ETS in restaurants and bars were found to be 2 to 5 times higher than in residences with smokers and 2 to 6 times higher than in office workplaces."

"Only 15% of smoke is inhaled by the smoker. The other 85% goes directly into the air to be inhaled by nonvoluntary nonsmokers."

Did these finding come from the same report? I did not read it (it's something like 600 pages). If not please show me where the data came from.


"Since 1999, 70 percent of the U.S. workforce worked under a smoke-free policy, ranging from 83.9 percent in Utah to 48.7 percent in Nevada.6
Thats a nice fact to know but how does it support your argument, becides saying "see everyone else is doing it"



Workplace productivity was increased and absenteeism was decreased among former smokers compared with current smokers."

What does this prove becides the fact that smokers are harming THEMSELVES by smoking. I am also curious to know if absenteeism in non smokers also decreased



its different, because the music is PART OF THE REASON everyone goes to a club or concert or what have you.
And some people go to these places to relax, have a drink, a smoke and listen to music.


employees at these types of places, like i said before, wear earplugs more often than not.

The effectiveness of normal ear plugs (not those big ones that cover your entire ear) if I remember correctly is sonething like 10dB drop max, if a band is playing at a bar the noise level is over 100dB; 100-10=90....still in the unsafe range but a big improvement. So explain to me why a big improvement is ok in this case but not when it comes to second hand smoke (see my previous post advocating the stricter regulations on air quality for ALL places of business).


and remember,.. the main push of this is to protect employees of these places. tho it is great for everyone

I think I have addressed this enough in this thread and I'm tired of typing.

[99SL2_Modder]

I don't know how statistically inclined you guys are, but you do realize that establishments have gained 15% in revenues since the ban, right?

That's not a loss, but a gain.

It works. End of complaining.

[thewake]

I will try to find some info on the the closure rate of prior years, and although it would only give you a rough idea, it should be enough to prove their is an effect.

It would provide more evidence. You should also try to find closure rates for the years following the immidiate post ban years. If the statistics show a definite decline then you would still need to look closer to see why the places closed.

It is, but from my experience and im sure yours as well it is much easier to find a non-smoking eatery than it is to find one that allows smoking. Your arguement was some places it is harder/impossible to find one.

It is only easier if you like fast-food. Most places that actually have a wait staff still allow smoking. At least most of the places I have been lately. A good number of the national chains still allow smoking even.

The best solution is to quit and then you could join our side of this argument. :)

[mostasteless]

I don't know how statistically inclined you guys are, but you do realize that establishments have gained 15% in revenues since the ban, right?

That's not a loss, but a gain.

It works. End of complaining.


Where did you find this info and what establishments are you referring to. Also is it safe to assume the businesses that manage to stay in business after taking the intiial hit will see some sort of increase because of less competition.

[WrxJC]

yeh, i havent actually READ this whole thread, but all i wanna say is...remeber PROHIBITION, if that didnt work, why are they trying so hard for cigarettes?? Ever been killed by a smoking driver?? It just all bullcrap to me. And those "truth" commercials about smoking, theyre not actual facts BTW.

[mostasteless]

It would provide more evidence. You should also try to find closure rates for the years following the immidiate post ban years. If the statistics show a definite decline then you would still need to look closer to see why the places closed.

I'm still trying to find unbiased information, either it is hard to come by or I am suck at teh web :)


It is only easier if you like fast-food. Most places that actually have a wait staff still allow smoking. At least most of the places I have been lately. A good number of the national chains still allow smoking even.

I am only speaking from experience but most of the diners im my area have become non-smoking over the last 2 years or so. But I will not argue with you on that because I'm sure yopu travel more than I do so have more experience.


The best solution is to quit and then you could join our side of this argument. :)

Easiest, but I don't know about best :mrgreen:

[2point4DSM]

And those "truth" commercials about smoking, theyre not actual facts BTW.

The truth commercials are actually paid for by the tobacco companies as part of their settlement. And why would they actually try to make any kind of believable truth commercial about their products.....

[thewake]

I'm still trying to find unbiased information, either it is hard to come by or I am suck at teh web :)

You and me both.

I am only speaking from experience but most of the diners im my area have become non-smoking over the last 2 years or so. But I will not argue with you on that because I'm sure yopu travel more than I do so have more experience.
I don't have exact statistics either way. I guess because I am sensitive a place with no current smokers, or smokers nearby who have been out for a smoke will make the place seem like it is not smoke free to me.

There is no really unbiased stuff out there that is easy to find. Perhaps if one of us was at a large reasearch university the library might have something.

[thewake]

yeh, i havent actually READ this whole thread, but all i wanna say is...remeber PROHIBITION, if that didnt work, why are they trying so hard for cigarettes?? Ever been killed by a smoking driver?? It just all bullcrap to me. And those "truth" commercials about smoking, theyre not actual facts BTW.

Perhaps you should read it. There is some enlightening information here.

Tobacco has a very well earned negative image. I may be old, but not quite old enough to remember prohibition, however this is not tobacco prohibition, it will remain legal to purchase and use in private.

I have needed serious medical attention (ER visit) because of cigarette smoke in the environment, it would be hard for me to post had I actually been killed.

I am also appalled at the casual nature smokers will litter and trash an area because of thier habbit. Especially when they drive.