Regarding the smoking ban
 

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/...935#post137935

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Good.

cont.

cont.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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::::::

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.

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.


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.


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.

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.


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:

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

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