New Jersey has fallen to the politically correct...

[Randy & Betty in Pa]

Yes with the new law pushed through by those politicians that have no concept of freedom another state of our nation declines into a place where government can step in, take control and tell a business owner who he or she may not serve. It's funny but men and women have spent years of money, sweat and tears building their business's to make of them what they can, then with one (politically FOUL swoop) smoking has been banned. Despite the fact that this will cause the demise of many neighborhood bars, taverns and restaurants. I would think it would be ample in America to post on the door of such establishments the fact that "This is not a smoke free facility" and allow people to use their right NOT to go into this persons business if one was so offended by a STILL legal action. Let the business owner decide the type of business he has...so long as it is based on legal principles and does not discriminate. These actions are initiated by people that choose to control others businesses despite the fact they most likely have never entered the premises in the first place. God Damn our politicians. I consider myself to be a curtious smoker and will not sit near non smokers and clearly leave my cigarettes displayed so non smokers can see that I do indulge.
I further find it a major afront is that the same politicians that are acting to control otherwise legal actions have decided to exempt the casinos from this action... Now Thats a bunch of Bull, and shows to me absolute corruption in the system... I mean casino's can certainly afford to obey the same laws that these idiots cast down on the rest of us I would think...
I smoke... I will continue to smoke as now it's a matter of principal... our children now find it cooler to smoke because it's the rebellious thing to do... I think I'll go to the house of Congress in Idiotn, D.C. and light up a cigarette while those idiots are doing their illegal prayer in the mornings... To those that support these LAWS to control your neightbors legal actions, seems some have forgotten about the freedoms of others... Non smokers have far more then equal treatment over the law... equal treatment is ones right NOT to go into any facility that you find offensive for any reason... equal rights for the owner is the right to opperate a business free of such harrasment...equal rights would be to allow us to accept responsibility for our own actions without intervention by others in regards to legal activities.... STOP MESSING WITH OUR RIGHTS... I reserve my RIGHT to be a fool.

I'm mad as hell... And ya know... as a veteran that served this nation I think I have THE RIGHT TO BE.... My freedoms may go away today but f*%& it... Yours might be next...

I think Barry MacGuire said it well... "WE'RE ON THE EVE OF DESTRUCTION"

Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!

R. from Pa

[Rkitko]

Powerful post, Randy.

I too worry about the "overreaching" of government in to regulation and what effects it may have in the future. I suppose only time will tell, as I can't predict what they'll try next, or if they'll try anything next like this. But, I do have to say, I'm not opposed to this legislation (though I do agree that exempting the casinos from the legislation was a dirty move...)

There are many things you can't do indoors in public settings. There are tons of regulations like this. Simply because cigarettes have been a part of our social fabric for so long (movies, television, etc.), people see it as a different choice -- something that's more of a "right" than other things. For example, nudists might claim that laws that criminalize "indecent exposure" are discriminatory and that was the legislation that opened the flood gates of too much government control.

I see this legislation as a health code. It's not about personal preference, though I do prefer to not go to establishments were there are people smoking. In 1996, the conclusive biological proof (which was assumed to be there all along) was established that smoking does cause cancer--we're not talking risk estimates here. It. causes. cancer. And you get the filter. Sitting in a restaurant with poor ventilation, I get all of the carcinogens. So this is about air quality, from my perspective. Air quality standards exist for both the indoors and outdoors. Industry has to meet air quality standards. Big buildings have to meet air quality standards (to avoid "sick building syndrome"). Why not small business and individuals?

I've heard both sides of this debate recently, actually. Though I'm not in New Jersey anymore, Washington state out here just passed legislation last November to ban smoking in public places. And it wasn't an act of some legislators trying to push this through--it was a referendum voted on by the people. And all Washington State counties agreed (liberal and conservative alike) that smoking was to be banned from public places. And you know what? Amazingly, the predictions of small town taverns, bars, and other establishments going out of business because people couldn't smoke in there anymore didn't happen! The only one the media could find wasn't all that good of an example (her business was going downhill for years. It turns out that she actually saw a slightly less downturn after the ban went into effect, compared to her nosedive before). Most other businesses in the state that once were smoke-filled actually report and increase in business.

As for choice... Before any such bans went into effect, I did try to only visit establishments that were non-smoking. But try finding me a New Jersey diner or bowling alley (both of which I frequented!) that is non-smoking. I sure couldn't.

And I hope, Randy, that this was simple hyperbole:
"I will continue to smoke as now it's a matter of principal."
Rebellion aside, I would hope this might have the opposite effect. Your health is the most important principle around.

Also, I know there are quite a few Rudies that do smoke, so I hope that I haven't offended anyone and I wish to engage in civil conversation over this topic. Specifically, I would like to expand upon the idea that the government is going too far with this legislation (even if it's voter-approved like in WA?) and the slippery slope it might (or might not) bring us.

Best wishes and good health,
Ryan

[janisian]

I still don't understand the following:
1. Why can't there be smoking restaurants/bars, and non-smoking? That way everyone could have their choice.
2. Alcoholism destroys families, just as secondary smoke. Kills, too, just like smoking. And destroys a lot of innocents through drunk drivers. Why are people still allowed to drink in public places when they'll have to drive home? (And yes, I know they're not supposed to serve drunks.)
3. Obesity kills, destroys families etc. Why are obese people permitted to order dessert from the menu, or high calorie foods?
It's all way too out of control, to my thought. Or perhaps, way too IN control.

[Gigglepottomus]

I guess what baffles me about smoking bans in major city's is that the fact of the matter is that you are probably a lot safer indoors in a restaurant or bar that allows smoking than you are outside on a city street. The exhaust you breath from the cars on the streets is not only in higher volume but also more toxic. So if people are so damn concerned about peoples health then why don't the ban the gas combustible engine?
Take a square piece of card board and cover it with a piece of plastic wrap then smear the plastic with Vaseline next hang it on the side of a building or on a street sign. Make a point to walk by it once a day and watch what the pollution trap collects and what you are breathing each day. Then please explain to me why their are laws for smoking but not driving.

[Rkitko]

Interesting thoughts, Janis.

I think the examples you provided destroy lives in different ways. They differ in kind and mode. This may be just semantics, I don't know (call me on it if you wish), but people are allowed to drink in public because the act of drinking in public is not what kills. It's the actions after that have potential to destroy families (drunk driving, domestic violence, child abuse)...

You might have a better example in obesity. Though again, the cake that person decides to eat immediately affects only their family unit. I'm glad the government is not sticking its nose that far in. The difference here is an obese person eating a slice of cake will not make some unrelated person five seats away also obese. Likewise with drinking, an alcoholic in a bar drinking a few extra beers will not transmit alcoholism to someone else in the bar.

Another point might be that the biological mechanisms behind alcoholism and obesity aren't as well understood as the biological effects of smoking. Some forms of alcoholism and obesity are entirely genetic, others aren't. That provides us with a complicated regulatory problem.

Hmm, I don't think I've done a very good job at explaining my points here. Perhaps I'll walk away and revisit this post later and try to clarify.

Best,
Ryan

[Dee]

Indoor smoking has been forbidden here in Ottawa for years now (no problem to me), but now the anti smokers are moving their campaign to the great out of doors. The entire Smyth Road campus of the Ottawa Hospital / Children's Hospital / Ottawa University teaching facility has banned smoking anywhere on their shared property. Smokers must now walk out to a public street to light up. Not sure how employees who smoke feel about it, but my guess is none too happy.

Gigglepottomus,

I have in the past tried to point out what you have about the polluted state of the air we breathe in cities every day, but anti smokers poo pooed me as ridiculous. The minuscule amount of tobacco smoke that would affect a person outdoors (if at all) is nothing compared to all the other pollutants we all breathe in every single day.

Janis,

As some one who is still trying to stop smoking, I like your idea of smoking and non smoking establishments. I've also long questioned the sanity of legal alcohol abuse / consumption, due to its radiant harmful effects on families and society as a whole.

Makes zero sense.

[Randy & Betty in Pa]

I think the issue is more about people trashing our freedoms under the guise of whats good or bad... As to the idea that you choose to go to smoke free restaurants or the like... I support that as one of your rights, but I do not believe a business owner can or should be mandated to trash out his own or others freedoms to cater to the politically correct. Consumers have the right influence the owners of business's that they frequent by simply expressing their opinions, but after all is said and done, so long as the business is not violating laws the government and the "DO-GOODERS" that are so obsessed with the state of my health have every right to go elsewhere. Many restaurants have more then adequite filtration/ventilation systems so as not cause injury to those that claim to be so bothered despite the system or distance of my indulging in a legal adult activity. As a non smoker your rights should be no more influential then mine... You have the right to decide to where you will eat, drink or spend your money. This Jersey law goes so far as to say that even outside a facility smokers cannot smoke within 25 feet of the building... Now what is that. The only thing going up in smoke in our nation is our freedom. As to smoke free facilities in New Jersey, they've been around for years, one just needed to look.
I just don't buy it. This entire issue is just another way to remove individual rights of American citizens... I don't need nor did I ask for others to legislate the way business's I support or my health and to those that think this is the right way to protect America Freedoms I think they need to take a closer look at what they are throwing away in the bath water... I agree with Janis on her points 100%... I would also point out that there are no smoking option flights available where flights could be provided with additional filtration for an additional fee... No, it's all very one sided...
What next??? The same people aren't done in trying to shape and control our America....



Best to all.... Smokem' if you got em..

R. from Pa

[Des]

Just another example of the police run state world we live in. This is all marshal law in disguise.

I remember a hushed report a few years ago where scientists stated that lung cancer was not the result of so called passive smoking, but largely due to car exhaust fumes. Given that, they should ban all vehicles too!

It gets even more stupid (as if the term ‘stupid’ did this any justice anyway), over here in the UK, they are talking about banning smoking whilst driving. When was the last time you saw an accident report stating “sorry officer, I hit that car because I was flicking my ash out of the window’. They are even talking about banning ‘hands free’ cell/mobile phone use in cars too, which apparently was the safer option to that of talking on the phone using your hands whilst driving. Now talking with both hands on the steering wheel is considered unsafe. Maybe next we won’t be able to talk to the passenger travelling in the car with us. Imagine a journey with screaming kids in the back and not being able to shut them up as we are not allowed to converse with them.

Back to the smoking…they now consider truck drivers unable to smoke in their cabs, as it is considered a ‘work place’ by the powers that be. A truck is also a home to most and many truck drivers own their trucks.

We are living in very scary times and it’s only going to get worse!

[Rkitko]

Randy,

The 25-foot rule is also present in the Washington State legislation. Police departments around the state confirmed they weren't going to go to any special lengths to enforce that law, since their job is not to be smoking police. I agree with that much and think it should be common curtosey to not smoke in front of building ventilation intakes. My campus actually just had a very extensive debate on acceptable locations to smoke.

And smoke free facilities certainly weren't within an hour's drive of me up in Sussex County when I was growing up. Think there was only one bowling alley in the county and it allowed smoking all times.

I think the problem with the "allow smoke free facilities to develop on their own" plan is that in small communities, virtually no smoke-free restaurants/bars/other establishments exist and none are likely to develop. "So why not move to a location where smoke-free facilities are?" Should I have to choose where I live based on whether or not I can go to a restaurant without getting a migraine from the smoke (actually happens to me...).

I still don't view this as an issue of freedoms being lost. Our democracy is a mix of free market ideology (no true free market society has ever existed, though) and socialism. From what I understand, socialism is about protecting society and individuals from themselves. Many of these laws exist in the US. What you're essentially arguing is a Libertarian viewpoint. Some Libertarians I know don't even like seatbelt laws or that controversial motorcycle helmet law that got repealed last year in Pennsylvania. I can't say I agree with that philosophy. There are some things about humanity that we need to be protected from. Greed, for one. Anti-trust and anti-monopoly laws could be viewed as legislation against one individual's greed. I know "protecting us from ourselves" is a shaky leg to stand on, but it's what I feel is right. I think our collective fear, though, is that in the wrong hands great harm could be done under that system. (aside: Don't forget that even attempted suicide is still considered a common law crime in some states. Just another thought...)

I also don't see this as a politically correct movoe. I supported the Washington referendum based on personal preference and air quality. And as for the car exhaust mentioned in another post, I agree. That stuff is even worse for you! Which is why I support mass transportation, drive less, and generally avoid congested cities. (I think all cities could learn a lesson from Portland, OR--what a great mass transportation system! Very few cars on the road compared to other cities of its size.)

Interesting point about commercial flights, though. I think the issue there is one of safety (open flame in a compressed cabin and in proximity to flammable oxygen in those masks? I think that's the issue there...).

I suppose what one sees as a slippery slope, I see as a benefit to society. I, too, fear the day when someone can tell me what I can and cannot do in my own home, but I think reason and logic would prevail. I do not think this piece of legislation is any step closer to Nineteen Eighty Four that what we had before this legislation. I just can't see that. Now the Patriot Act... ;)

[Rkitko]

I remember a hushed report a few years ago where scientists stated that lung cancer was not the result of so called passive smoking, but largely due to car exhaust fumes. Given that, they should ban all vehicles too!
I wonder which study this was and who funded it. Most of the research I've seen confirms that passive smoking is a important risk factor for lung cancer development. Toxicology is a fascinating, but complicated science.


“sorry officer, I hit that car because I was flicking my ash out of the window’.
That really boils my blood, too. There's a hotline around here to call when you see people litter. I usually call in and report the person's license plate when I see them throw a cigarette out the window. Bugs me a lot.

[lucille]

This was a sign in an office I used to work in. It took me ages to work out what it meant - I'm slow and naive. But back in dem dim dark ages, it was never an option to smoke at one's desk.

As a reformed smoker, and seeing a young mother die from lung cancer when it wasn't common for women to have lung cancer, I can only say - and this is very politically incorrect - I wish all of you who smoke would PLEASE try and kick the addiction. Particularly those whose voice is their instrument and living:(

I am continually surprised that governments are making it harder and harder to smoke in a social public place, as they make a fortune from taxing ciggies. But I think the issue is not taking away one's rights, but protecting the health of those who work in bars and restaurants. More and more people who work in these jobs are suing the employers for passive smoking ailments, who are in turn claim on their insurance for huge amounts. Maybe it is the insurance lobby that is behind it, as surely governments aren't worried about the voters' health:confused: Well here it isn't obvious from the poor state of our health services. IB, have the claims increased? The ailments range from bronchitis, asthma, emphasema, lung cancer and heart disease.

I think even if there were places dedicated to smoking, and the staff did not object, being smokers themselves, they would still make a claim if they contracted any of the above.

As for flying, I guess you just have to make stopovers to cater for your desperate need to have a smoke every couple of hours. The flight from London to Melbourne would be beyond it for me if I still smoked, and I did when I took one of these flights.

So, in conclusion AH SHUDDAP LUCILLE:D

But seriously ....

[Randy & Betty in Pa]

If this is a health care issue why are the attacks so thinly and directly aimed? Why is it that casino's are exempt because the law might impact the the business adversly? Why are Government vehicles exempt from pollution controls? Smokers have now become religated as to being second rate citizens... This is just another vailed attempt at controling others to conform... The answer to all our nations problems are not legislation filled with exceptions for those industries that can afford to pay for them...Incidently these legislators are the same ones that wish to govern what consenting adults can do behind closed doors, Who can marry who, These legislators are the same ones that feel they have the moral obligation to decide about abortions and whats right or wrong... the same legislators that have lied and led us into another Vietnam, and couldn't tell the truth if their lives depended on it. All of these controls are based solely on CONTROL, and all this control simply removes rights from American citizens from making free choices about their own lives regarding legal activities...I often wish that those that choose to preach aboult the health risks of smokers to others would show smokers the same curtosey that I make efforts to show them. If you are so anti-smoker then just avoid association with smokers, but these laws are simply based on control. if it was a serious health care issue smoking would have been made against the law by the idiots... But then the same idiots that pass such aggresious laws also realize that it's less about smoking then it is about money... I mean we all trust these politicians now don't we?

In closing.... THANK YOU FOR NOT BREATHING WHILE I SMOKE... It's a shame that tolerance is such a one side street with those that think they know whats best for others...:mad:

Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!

R. from Pa

[lucille]

As a smoker there were two things I could not abide. That was reformed smokers and born again christians. Still can't stand born agains :D

Randy I think it is always about money. However here in our state, casinos have a smoking ban. I think there are special gambling rooms which allow smoking, but I'm not sure. I think gambling is another blight on people, and when Victoria finally got casinos, I was dead against them, still am. But again, it is about money to the state governments.

The old saying applies to me "some of my best friends smoke", and I certainly don't eschew their friendship. In fact today we had a beautiful sunny warm Easter Monday (I only observe the fact that I get a day off), and I was sitting with my smoking friends having a glass of wine, and wanting a smoke! Interestingly though, most of my smoking friends never smoke inside their own homes. I will be most honoured to clink a glass with you at the Jan-nic, and possibly envying your smoking habit :)

[Irish Beth]

I am not aware of any increase in claims for asthma, lung cancer, bronchitis, or any related to exposure to smoke or second hand smoke. Most offices are non-smoking - I don't know any that are not.

If non-smoking restaurants and bars saw an increase in business when the went smoke-free I am amazed that more business are not flocking to this policy to increase their customer base. As a smoker, I do think restaurants should offer a choice - I would go to a non-smoking restaurant but I wouldn't hang there and keep spending money - I would eat and leave - so while the number of customers COULD increase - the dollars spent would decrease.

But that is just my opinion. I try to be considerate when I smoke. I don't smoke in other's homes or cars unless specifically invited to.

I get the point about comparing drinking and smoking as being not equal - but I do know that no one ever smoked a pack of cigarettes and got behind the wheel and killed a family of four.

My view is similar to Randy's - I do not want my rights limited. I will continue to be curteous and will adhere to whatever smoking policies are in place - but if smoking is banned everywhere then I will smoke when ever I can, where ever I can. Give me rules and I will play by them - take away my options and I'll invent my own rules.

IB

[Randy & Betty in Pa]

Yeeeeeahhhhhh Beth!!!!!!!!

You can smoke in our house or car anytime!!!!! See you in Chicago and Wisconsin in May :)

Thats my buddy Irish Beth ( A true non-pirate kind of pirate)

Best to all

R from Pa. (cough cough)

[Marcia Drummergal]

Yeeeeeahhhhhh Beth!!!!!!!!

You can smoke in our house or car anytime!!!!! See you in Chicago and Wisconsin in May :)

Thats my buddy Irish Beth ( A true non-pirate kind of pirate)

Best to all

R from Pa. (cough cough)

Is Beth coming to Chicago and Cedarburg? What did I miss?!

Marcia :)

[Rkitko]

I do not want my rights limited.
I can see how one might see this legislation as limiting their rights. And to be truthful, it may be. There is now a new restriction on your behavior. But I still don't see how this is any different from restrictions on other behavior... And I can't for the life of me figure out why people are so up in arms about this, except for the fact that it's another inconvenience.

I'd also like your thoughts on who's "right" (Libertarians would call it a privilege, since in theory they believe the only rights are granted by your creator... just an aside) is more important: My "right" to clean air indoors, free of cigarette smoke or your right to pollute it. Invariably, federal and state legislation has (since the Clean Air Act, at least) favored the right to clean air over the right to pollute, except when it's profitable to allow pollution (see: Coal Industry).

And Randy, in response to this:

It's a shame that tolerance is such a one side street with those that think they know whats best for others...
I often say that people should quit smoking just as I suggest (and hope) people eat right and exercise. I see these fad diets (glad the Atkin's thing is gone) and the average American diet and I can't believe people don't know more about what they're doing to their bodies. I'm not religious at all, but I do believe my body is my temple and I plan on treating it right. I can't think of anything more important. If you knew someone that was eating nothing but Easter marshmallow peeps--3 square meals a day worth--don't you think you'd know what's best for them (i.e., not eating so many peeps!)? I'm sure you've doled out some advice before based on your own experience and wisdom and I don't think there's anything wrong with that.

Wishing you happiness and good health,
Ryan

[lucille]

This subject is becoming too emotive for me. I just have two parting words

DANA REEVE

[gisli]

Well as an innocent bystander on this thread, I would like to say that Rkitko is doing quite well in presenting his argument here.

Not taking any stands but: Hear, hear Rkitko.

[Dee]

This subject is becoming too emotive for me. I just have two parting words

DANA REEVE
Well, not sure what you mean. How do you know smoke had anything to do with her lung cancer? The world we live in is so polluted, and so many chemicals in things we use and eat. And yes, the air we breathe is filthy - tho not from people smoking cigarettes by a long shot.

To think that not breathing secondhand smoke makes you safe from such diseases is a kind of denial and a rather over the top.

[Randy & Betty in Pa]

Well, not sure what you mean. How do you know smoke had anything to do with her lung cancer? The world we live in is so polluted, and so many chemicals in things we use and eat. And yes, the air we breathe is filthy - tho not from people smoking cigarettes by a long shot.

To think that not breathing secondhand smoke makes you safe from such diseases is a kind of denial and a rather over the top.

Dee thats the truth as I believe it... My personal belief is that air like global warming can't exist... If you can't see it or taste it, it's not real... That said this is now an official food thread... How do you like your air cooked?

best to all

R. from Pa

[Dee]

Generally I sidestep most hot topics Randy, but this one is personal since I do wish I could quit the things again (did for 12 years till my life began to go to hell in a handbasket a few years ago). However, for non smokers who I know are not able to understand smokers, perhaps "live and let live" applies best.