PDA

View Full Version : Smoking in New Jersey



pooltchr
01-17-2006, 07:06 AM
On the news last night, I saw a report that the Governer of New Jersey signed a bill banning smoking in almost all public places including bars, restaurants and bowling alleys. Notably exempted from the ban were the casinos in Atlantic City. Looks like big money still rules in New Jersey. I guess the casinos are afraid of losing business if they don't allow smoking. Why would the state think that it's ok to do this to some businesses, but not all of them?

This is not meant to be a debate over smoking vs non-smoking...but more a question of applying laws equally across the board.

Steve

Rich R.
01-17-2006, 07:37 AM
Steve, I would be willing to bet that there is a direct relationship between the way the politicians voted and the amount of campaign funds they receive from the people who run the casinos.
Votes can be bought.

JPB
01-17-2006, 08:11 AM
of course it is ridiculous. I don't like being around smoke anymore and like the fact that my state banned snmoking in restaurants in some ways. However, I know that the law is wrong and would not have voted for it. Private businesses should be able to allow smoking or not; it is none of the government's concern whatsoever. The right to allow smoking is a valuable property right and taking it away for no compensation is wrong. Yeah, I know the Supreme Court doesn't agree with me, LOL. The fact governments have gotten away with stealing the property of business owners is sad. And when they steal the property of restaurants and not casinos it exposes this sham for what it is.

In my state they banned smoking in pool halls but exempted bowling alleys. How did they come up with that one you ask? We will never know. What if the bowling alley has a couple of pool tables? It is nuts.

Ideally everybody would quit both smoking and political support for huge government doing things it has no business doing. I know that's a stretch tho.

Barbara
01-17-2006, 04:01 PM
Yeah Baby!! April 15th!!

The decided to allow smoking on the casino gaming floors because 1) the no-smoking bill would've never passed without this and 2) The looked at Delaware and saw how much business the race tracks with slots lost when that state went non-smoking.

Barbara

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote pooltchr:</font><hr> On the news last night, I saw a report that the Governer of New Jersey signed a bill banning smoking in almost all public places including bars, restaurants and bowling alleys. Notably exempted from the ban were the casinos in Atlantic City. Looks like big money still rules in New Jersey. I guess the casinos are afraid of losing business if they don't allow smoking. Why would the state think that it's ok to do this to some businesses, but not all of them?

This is not meant to be a debate over smoking vs non-smoking...but more a question of applying laws equally across the board.

Steve <hr /></blockquote>

pooltchr
01-17-2006, 07:11 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Barbara:</font><hr> 2) The looked at Delaware and saw how much business the race tracks with slots lost when that state went non-smoking.

Barbara <hr /></blockquote>

Now I'm starting to understand. The government will impose their restrictions on smaller businesses, not really caring that they might lose business....but the big businesses who pay big tax money get preferential treatment. If the ban isn't good for business at the casino's, what makes them think it will be good for bars, pool rooms and bowling alleys????

Like I said up front...it looks like the new law isn't being applied equally. I hope some smart business owner takes it to the state supreme court and gets the whole law thrown out as being unconstitutional.

JPB
01-17-2006, 07:33 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote pooltchr:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Barbara:</font><hr> 2) The looked at Delaware and saw how much business the race tracks with slots lost when that state went non-smoking.

Barbara <hr /></blockquote>

Now I'm starting to understand. The government will impose their restrictions on smaller businesses, not really caring that they might lose business....but the big businesses who pay big tax money get preferential treatment. If the ban isn't good for business at the casino's, what makes them think it will be good for bars, pool rooms and bowling alleys????

Like I said up front...it looks like the new law isn't being applied equally. I hope some smart business owner takes it to the state supreme court and gets the whole law thrown out as being unconstitutional. <hr /></blockquote>


Exactly Pooltchr. When you have the government devolve into a huge big spending anti-freedom collectivist kleptocracy what happens is that the citizens form groups to essentially bribe the government. They don't bribe it exactly, but they buy influence with donations etc... and square off against one another. When government is seen as the all caring mother people run to it for help and try to get fellow citizens hurt or at least get mommy's help at the expense of the other citizens. The anti-smokers have a lot of influence because smoking does in fact suck, and because the government thinks that because of socialized medicine it has a financial interest in whether its citizens get lung cancer. The casinos have a definite interest in keeping their business as they want it. So do the bars, but the casinos have more pull and more lobbying etc.... So because people stole money from their fellow citizens to fund health care and because smoking stinks, one group can forcibly take away the property of another group. The casinos had to spend money to defeat the attempt to hurt their business, which they should not have had to do. As we have to join groups to fight for our rights, because others will join groups to try to take more of our money away for their purpose. It is a mess.


And no, it isn't just a coincidence that smoking and gambling at negative EV casino games go together. /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif

Rich R.
01-18-2006, 04:27 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote pooltchr:</font><hr> Now I'm starting to understand. The government will impose their restrictions on smaller businesses, not really caring that they might lose business.... <hr /></blockquote>
Steve, I may be a little bit off topic here, but I have to say, don't be so sure these small businesses will be losing business just because of a smoking ban.

Shortly before the holidays, my wife and I went to the final day of a regional pool tournament in an area that has imposed a smoking ban. The place was packed all day long, with both pool players, fans and others who where there to have a drink and watch the Sunday football games. As the day went on, and the tournament was using fewer tables, the available tables were immediately put into use by the normal customers. When my wife and I left, every available table was in use, either by the tournament or by other customers. The bar and dinning area was also packed, at that time. I can't see how this place could have done any more business, if smoking was allowed.

Also, area, where I play in a league, started a smoking ban as of the first of the year. I have seen no drop in the pool room's business and, in fact, they have a waiting list for tables, when I am there.
Again, I have witnessed no loss of business in this room either.

My only regret is that the area where I live has decided to postpone a smoking ban for another two years. /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

From what I have seen, in my area, the smoking bans have not caused any loss of business, as predicted. In fact, I have heard some people say, they came to play pool because they no longer had to deal with all of the smoke.

pooltchr
01-18-2006, 05:58 AM
Rich,
It seems not every one agrees with you. Check out this link.

http://www.davehitt.com/facts/badforbiz.html

Steve

DickLeonard
01-18-2006, 06:01 AM
New York banned smoking in all public places, at that time their reason for the ban was that the states workmens comp carriers were going to stop insuring workers in business that allowed smoking on premises. To many non smoking people were dying of lung cancer which was attributed to their work environment. Their Insurers had to foot the bill. Thank God.####

pooltchr
01-18-2006, 06:51 AM
The government is very hipocritical when it comes to smoking. They subsidize tobacco farmers to grow it, collect huge amounts of tax revenue from the sale of tobacco products, and then tell people when and where they can use the product. If everyone quit smoking tomorrow, lawmakers across the country would be in a panic over what to do with their budgets with all the lost revenue from tobacco taxes.
I still think government has no business telling someone how to run their business. They CERTAINLY have no business telling some that they can allow smoking and others that they can't. If I owned a bar in NJ, I would be fighting this legislation tooth and nail. Either make it apply to everyone, or get rid of the law all together.
Steve

Rich R.
01-18-2006, 08:08 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote pooltchr:</font><hr> Rich,
It seems not every one agrees with you. Check out this link.<hr /></blockquote>
Steve, I can only report what I have seen with my own eyes. I have to admit, both my wife and I were surprised at what we have seen. We expected more of an effect, from the smoking bans in these areas.

BTW, after looking at the list, from your link, I have to question the information in that list.
There are many businesses listed that are showing that they lost 100% of their business to the smoking ban. Are you trying to tell me that these business didn't have one non-smoking customer? I can not believe that. I am currently a non-smoker, but I have made purchases in a smoke shop. I'm sure each of these businesses had non-smoking customers, but they are trying to manipulate the statistics. You can believe what you want. I believe what I have seen with my own eyes. I don't believe the information from your link.

pooltchr
01-18-2006, 08:16 AM
The ones that show 100% are the ones that were forced to close their businesses following the ban.
Steve

Gayle in MD
01-18-2006, 09:25 AM
Steve, this is one time I can honestly say that I agree with everything in your post, LOL.

People should have the option of whether they want to go out to a place where they can smoke, or a place which bans smoking. Personally, I think separate smoking areas would be sufficient, if the businesses spent enough money for ventilation, and smoke eaters. The one place where I think there should be no smoking is on the airlines.

Gayle in Md.

SpiderMan
01-18-2006, 11:45 AM
Gayle, this is one time I can honestly say that I agree with everything in your post, LOL.

I've never smoked, and wish everyone could stop, but the hypocricy of this legislation is boundless. I can decide for myself whether the benefits of an establishment that allows smoking outweigh my discomfort at breathing there.

Hey, what party did the co-sponsors of this bill belong to? Throw the bribe-taking crooks out! /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

SpiderMan

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> Steve, this is one time I can honestly say that I agree with everything in your post, LOL.

People should have the option of whether they want to go out to a place where they can smoke, or a place which bans smoking. Personally, I think separate smoking areas would be sufficient, if the businesses spent enough money for ventilation, and smoke eaters. The one place where I think there should be no smoking is on the airlines.

Gayle in Md. <hr /></blockquote>

pooltchr
01-18-2006, 11:45 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> Steve, this is one time I can honestly say that I agree with everything in your post, LOL.

People should have the option of whether they want to go out to a place where they can smoke, or a place which bans smoking. Personally, I think separate smoking areas would be sufficient, if the businesses spent enough money for ventilation, and smoke eaters. The one place where I think there should be no smoking is on the airlines.

Gayle in Md. <hr /></blockquote>

I will happily mark this day in big red letters on my calendar!!! /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif
Steve

SPetty
01-18-2006, 02:28 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> People should have the option of whether they want to go out to a place where they can smoke, or a place which bans smoking.<hr /></blockquote>Perhaps we should have that option, but we don't. There is not one pool hall that I know of in or near the city of Dallas where I can go to play pool that disallows smoking. If I want to play pool with others, I must play pool in a stinky smoky unhealthful atmosphere.

Gayle in MD
01-18-2006, 07:29 PM
Just hang on kiddo, you will soon be living in a smoke free county if what is happening here continues to spread. Tell ya the truth, it doesn't matter much to me since I am always in some stage of quitting. When I am not smoking, I wish they would outlaw it, then when I fall off the wagon, I am thinking, "This is stupid, I can't even have a smoke while I'm shooting," LOL. Personally, I think that if the bars, pool rooms, and restraurants would put in some decent ventilation, which they never seem to have, and decent smoke eaters, with smoking areas, it wouldn't be much of a problem for most people. It's a bad habit, or addiction, and I sure wish I had never started, but I don't blame people for complaining about it. When I am not smoking, I hate being around it also. I usually take a rose with me everywhere, and that really helps.

Gayle in Md.

JPB
01-18-2006, 08:22 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> I usually take a rose with me everywhere, and that really helps.

Gayle in Md. <hr /></blockquote>


How do you keep those lit? /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

SPetty
01-19-2006, 10:58 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> Personally, I think that if the bars, pool rooms, and restraurants would put in some decent ventilation, which they never seem to have, and decent smoke eaters, with smoking areas, it wouldn't be much of a problem for most people.<hr /></blockquote>I tend to think that would work as well. I wonder if they ever think of making the "outlaw smoking" law have that as an option? If you're willing to invest in that equipment and keep it properly operational, you may allow smoking - otherwise, you must ban smoking.

An interesting side note: I played in the first Hunter Tour stop of the year this past weekend <font color="purple">(with my best finish ever placing 13-16 out of 66 players - knocking eventual fourth place finisher Lisa Marr Brannen to the loser's bracket via a series of extraordinarily lucky rolls - going hill-hill before losing to Anna Kostanian, but I digress... /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif )</font color>, and they announced there that it was the last tourney that they'd allow the players to smoke at the tables. They're going to ask the players to not smoke during their match, and each player is allowed one break. Just like "the majors". One of our long time tournament directors, who has never smoked, has some major lung illness and emphysema likely as a consequence of second-hand smoke in the pool rooms.

Chopstick
01-19-2006, 11:20 AM
They passed a no smoking bill here in Flarda. A lot of places went bankrupt right away as a result. One of the owners of a big pool room chain here said they bought a lobbyist and had a condition added to the law. If less than a certain percentage of their business comes from food they are exempt. They made sure that their business would not be affected. They have to keep watch on their food to make sure they don't sell too much. They even have smoking police that go around and check places for people smoking in there. They audit your books to see how much food you sell.

It's all just plain silly. Why don't they just put up no smoking signs? That's what they did at the malls.

Rich R.
01-19-2006, 11:35 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote SPetty:</font><hr> I played in the first Hunter Tour stop of the year this past weekend <font color="purple">(with my best finish ever placing 13-16 out of 66 players - knocking eventual fourth place finisher Lisa Marr Brannen to the loser's bracket via a series of extraordinarily lucky rolls - going hill-hill before losing to Anna Kostanian, but I digress... /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif )</font color><hr /></blockquote>
I'm sorry for the off topic post, but I can't ignore this.

Congrats SPetty. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Deeman3
01-19-2006, 11:54 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote SPetty:</font><hr>
An interesting side note: I played in the first Hunter Tour stop of the year this past weekend <font color="purple">(with my best finish ever placing 13-16 out of 66 players - knocking eventual fourth place finisher Lisa Marr Brannen to the loser's bracket via a series of extraordinarily lucky rolls - going hill-hill before losing to Anna Kostanian, but I

Deeman3
01-19-2006, 11:54 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote SPetty:</font><hr>
An interesting side note: I played in the first Hunter Tour stop of the year this past weekend <font color="purple">(with my best finish ever placing 13-16 out of 66 players - knocking eventual fourth place finisher Lisa Marr Brannen to the loser's bracket via a series of extraordinarily lucky rolls - going hill-hill before losing to Anna Kostanian, but I digress... /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif )</font color>,

<font color="blue"> SPetty,

Very nice! Great to hear you did so well. Don't complain about the bad rolls and sure not about the good ones. We all get enough of both. /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif

SPetty, I knew her when she was just beating up on me. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif </font color>

Deeman

Gayle in MD
01-20-2006, 12:09 PM
LMAO... /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Gayle in MD
01-20-2006, 12:13 PM
WOW WOW WOW...I am impressed! Keep up the great shooting gal! I am proud of you!

Love,
Gayle

DickLeonard
01-20-2006, 01:13 PM
Spetty Congrats on your fine finish. ####

wolfdancer
01-20-2006, 02:56 PM
Gayle, I'm so glad to see that you have come out firing again, both guns smoking, in another thread.....I was so worried after reading your agreement, your non agression pact, with the man from Tobacco land, that they had found your button, an addiction to nicotine....and the lure of the dark side, had overcome you. I envisioned you campaigning for a Jeb Bush/Rice ticket in '08.
While I respectfully abstained from added any comments to this thread, since Steve did not want a smoking/non-smoking debate....this thread went beyond that...
The anti-smoking regs are unconstitutional?????
Somewhere hidden within the constitution, the framers, some of whom were tobacco farmers..protected smokers, while purposely omitting any protection for the health concerns of non-smokers?????
Is NJ's law unfair?....who cares....at least there are now some places that you can go in NJ, and not have to breathe in {a poisonous alkaloid C10H14N2 that is the chief active principle of tobacco and is used as an insecticide..Webster}
It's a start in the right direction.....probably the only way the bill could get passed....without opposition from the Majority party lobbyists.......the Casinos will be next...
And, and this is almost laughable, if the topic weren't so serious....they took away a "valuable property right" from business owners......hmmm....must be an intellectual property right????
Before any regs were introduced, one could not go to a restaurant, bar, movie, ride an elevator, bus, train, airplane, etc...without the hazardous haze of the vile, malodorous mushroom cloud of cigarette smoke engulfing them.......people like myself with bad allergic reactions had to avoid crowded spaces, or endure the effects....or just get up and leave, as I had to do many times,ruining a dining, theater experience, or just a nite out.
All a smoker is asked to do, is to step outside to feed their addiction.
Here's my question about smoking:
I don't think any caring parent, except one who is a super nicotine addicted idiot....would subject an infant to tobacco smoke???
So, I'm wondering at what stage of the child's lung developement, does it become ok? 1 month, 1 year, age 5, 10, or just when?....and is it ok to spew one's carginogin laced exhalations, from the depths of ones' blackened infected lungs,onto someone's else's child, or on a pregnant woman?... should she avoid all public places where these non caring people might gather?....which seems like an infringement on her basic rights....of course not her constitutional rights.......them's only for smokers.
And then the other guy piped in with his ridiculous circular reasoning why the gov't is interfering with this God-given right to smoke, at the risk to others....since they have this socialized medicine thing, the future health costs of these smokers is of concern....and added, that this is funded by monies stolen from non medicare recipients.
I guess you could look at it that way....I know that I object that I'm being taxed to educate these Columbine wannabies, that either shoot up their school, or wipe out their family, if someone hurts their feelings.
I wonder though if we had continued to be the only free nation without "socalised healthcare"..what would we do with our elderly that can't afford ins.? Make them sell their homes to pay, and then when that $$ runs out....just leave them out on the street to die, like they (used?) to do in India?...or maybe mass euthanasia, over age 62?...which would also solve the SS problems. Another right wing movement, endorsed this policy back in the late 30's early 40's, if memory serves me.....
Well, my Mom made it to 91, thanks to Medicare, probably ruined the actuarial tables for Ford Motor co. ...and I hoped she enjoyed every last penny that she stole from the right wing cretins, that object to any kind of needed, humanitarian program. Like the members of
Conservative Republican American's Party, or C.R.A.P.

Deeman3
01-20-2006, 03:12 PM
Wolfdancer,

I hope no one takes this the wrong way but on my couple fo visits to New Jersey, I would believe that a little cigarette smoke would add to the olfactory experience rather than detract from it. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Deeman
Now I'll have the Jersey mob on my ass....

wolfdancer
01-20-2006, 04:33 PM
Dee, now that ain't nice....your post was short, but I got a good laugh from it...all I can think about now is them garbage-laden barges being towed from NYC to NJ....with the accompanying aromatic treat.

pooltchr
01-20-2006, 05:07 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote wolfdancer:</font><hr>
Is NJ's law unfair?....who cares.... <hr /></blockquote>

This is one of the saddest things I have read on this forum!
Who cares???? Every damn one of us should care, and very passionately. If the government can pass a law that is selectively enforced, they can target or give a free pass to anyone on any other law they feel so inclined to pass.

There is a core foundation that has been around for a couple of hundred years in this country about Equal Protection under the law. When they can pass laws like this, equality just got shot full of holes. You say this is fine and a step in the right direction because you happen to be in favor of the law. When the next one is passed and goes in a direction you don't like, how will you feel then?

I stated right up front that this thread was not about smoking or non-smoking, but about passing laws that apply only to some and not to others. If it stands, we are all in big trouble. It ain't about smoking...it's about fair and just laws!
Steve

JPB
01-20-2006, 05:22 PM
"And, and this is almost laughable, if the topic weren't so serious....they took away a "valuable property right" from business owners......hmmm....must be an intellectual property right????"


So you don't think it is an important property right to do what you want with your business? What if another state made it illegal to ban smoking in a business. I.E if you own a business you MUST allow smoking, or your business is shut down. You are allergic and get very sick if you have to be around smoke. No exceptions whatsoever to the law though, because the state has decided it is in the best interest of the community. Your customers are all on oxygen tanks and can't be around smoke? Tough, smoking is allowed, period, no exceptions. Don't brush this example off as ridiculous. Explain why you don't think it is a property right for that business owner to ban smoking.

I don't like smoking in restaurants and such. I think it is unhealthy, I don't want to be around it and I don't want my kid to be around it. But big government is much, much, much more dangerous.

wolfdancer
01-20-2006, 05:48 PM
My thoughts on the matter, are that eventually the law will be applied to all public places....they just stuck their toes in the door with this one, or back doored the opposition...whatever works.
And unconstitutional, or not, it will make going out to public places, more enjoyable for the many who suffer allergies to tobacco smoke.The government already has many regs in effect for regulating businesses, like non-discrimination, the right to discriminate was also once thought to be a Constitutional right....as Georgia's Kentucky Fried Governor believed.
After being defeated several times in California, it was enacted originally as an OSHA reg. to safeguard the health of employees. Now it is the law......and please don't feign concern for the businesses, that may have been forced to close....you have no concern over the many businesses that Wal-Mart has ruined.
We have enacted a tough no smoking law here just this month...besides no smoking in public places...there is no smoking within "X" ft from a school.....and no smoking within 25 ft of an open doorway or window....Evenrtually your state's main industry, which has caused more deaths then the last three wars combined....will be forced to cut back production of it's WMD's
I'd be more concerned about wiretapping, internet "spying" and coming vehicle transmitters with roadside cameras...as they now have in England.....then being so overly concerned about having to step outside for a smoke.....I've been stepping outside for many years now to get a breath of fresh air, clear my lungs, and try to stop my eyes from watering.
And think of the billions of your dollars being siphoned of to provide health care for folks that come down with smoking related diseases. You're willing to give up all your privacy/rights, supposedly as a means of fighting terrorism; but this you'll take a stand on?????......that's one of your rights....as is mine to support any and all anti-smoking regs.
I see the other guy has added a reply....I usually repond to your posts, becuase while we may differ in opinion, I can see the validity of your side of the argument.....his, I won't read.....all I can think of, from his original post....was what would have happened to my Mom, if enough people shared his ideas?
Sorry, but many just people just can't afford health care....even your "supposed to be grateful" Wal-Mart employees.

Gayle in MD
01-20-2006, 06:29 PM
LOL, not to worry, if Rice, or another trigger happy Bush should run, and according to Albert einstein, none of us will have to worry, the world probably won't survive it.

I do think, though, that businesses that wish to provide separate, ventilated areas for their smoking customers, should be allowed to do so. While smoking is bad for all, IMO, and one should be considerate of others, a Martini with no cigarette, is the pits!

Gayle in Md.

JPB
01-20-2006, 08:39 PM
".....his, I won't read.....all I can think of, from his original post....was what would have happened to my Mom, if enough people shared his ideas?"


I think you secretly read them.

Yes, if my ideas were followed, there would be no welfare whatsoever. That would lead to some sad results of family or private charity didn't step in. I am not a hypocrite though, and have a consistent political philosophy, which most people - right, left dem or rep - do not.

Rich R.
01-21-2006, 05:05 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote wolfdancer:</font><hr>
Is NJ's law unfair?....who cares.... <hr /></blockquote>

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote pooltchr:</font><hr> This is one of the saddest things I have read on this forum!
Who cares???? Every damn one of us should care, and very passionately. If the government can pass a law that is selectively enforced, they can target or give a free pass to anyone on any other law they feel so inclined to pass.
<hr /></blockquote>
Steve, you are right. It isn't fair.

So I propose we pass a new law, which will bar smoking nation wide, in all public buildings, including offices, stores, restaurants, etc., with no exceptions.

Also, to be fair, when an employee of any business wants to step outside and have a smoke, he/she will have to clock out, from work, for the time they are outside smoking. After all, taking time for a smoke cheats their employer and non-smokers do not get the benefit of the smoking time, and we want to be fair, don't we?

I believe this law will be fair to everyone.

Steve, do I have your vote?

pooltchr
01-21-2006, 06:34 AM
Rich,
Don't expect the government to ban the use of tobacco...there is way too much tax money generated for them to ban it.

Maybe we should look at a ban on sex. After all, it's only the women who use the maternity benefits. Guys rarely have to use their medical benefits for ultra-sounds or pre-natal care. If women would stop getting pregnant, they wouldn't have to miss all that time at work!

At what point do you think we need to put an end to government regulation of our lives????
Steve

Rich R.
01-21-2006, 07:38 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote pooltchr:</font><hr> Rich,
Don't expect the government to ban the use of tobacco...there is way too much tax money generated for them to ban it.
<font color="red">Steve, you'll have to read my post again. I made no mention of banning the use of tobacco products. I only mentioned that they should not be used inside public buildings, where it will affect other people. That is the fair thing to do. </font color>

Maybe we should look at a ban on sex. After all, it's only the women who use the maternity benefits. Guys rarely have to use their medical benefits for ultra-sounds or pre-natal care. If women would stop getting pregnant, they wouldn't have to miss all that time at work!
<font color="red">"It takes two, to tango." The women wouldn't need the medical benefits if the guys didn't ........ you know. /ccboard/images/graemlins/blush.gif

Also, in that case Steve, I guess we have to look at all of the health benefits that smokers use, for smoking related illnesses, that non-smokers rarely use. To be fair, maybe they shouldn't be covered.

BTW, Steve, I know a number of men, who have used their paid sick time, to take time off from work to be with their wives when going for tests and after the birth of a child. It is quite common. You should ask about it, the next time your wife gets pregnant. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif </font color>

At what point do you think we need to put an end to government regulation of our lives????
<font color="red">I think we need to put an end to government regulation when the actions of a few, no longer endanger the health of many.
<hr /></blockquote>
All of these smoking bans are not jumping at us unexpectedly. If everyone couldn't see this coming 20 years ago, they were blind or stupid. There has been a constant trend toward more regulation of smoking in public places. Rather than trying to install the proper ventilating equiipment, to eliminate smoke and make smoking more acceptable, businesses chose to fight the regulations and claim it was their right to allow smoking. Now the time has come to have it all fall under government regulations, because they have proven that they are not responsible citizens. Don't blame the non-smokers for the ban. Blame irresponsible smokers and businesses.</font color>

pooltchr
01-21-2006, 11:07 AM
I made the sex ban suggestion only to make a point. When the government can take away one freedom (freedom of some businesses to allow or disallow smoking) it can be just the first step toward taking away the next one. Once they start, they don't want to stop.
But what REALLY gets to me about this particular law is how it is very selective with who it will be applied against. Small bars and restaurants...but not the big casinos. If it were really because of health related issues, it would apply to everyone. The fact that it was written to target a small group seems to indicate that it is more politically motivated rather than for the good of all the people. Is second hand smoke in a casino safer than that in a pool room?

You can not regulate everything.
Should we ban driving in the summer to protect us from all the high ozone levels in the atmosphere?
Should we ban nuclear plants because of radiation?
Should we ban the burning of coal to keep the air clean?
Should we ban alcohol sales to anyone with a driver's license?
Ok, I'm stretching it...but the point is once this kind of thing starts, it's too late to say no when they take it to the next step.
Steve

wolfdancer
01-21-2006, 12:23 PM
Steve, there was never going to be a voluntary effort by businesses to either protect their employees, or their customers, from any smoking related hazards. I can think of several other times the Gov't has "stepped in, and stepped on some folk's questionable Constitutional Rights"....child labor, segregation, job safety bills,etc.
When the anti smoking ord was proposed for the first time, and a public hearing was scheduled before the city council...I was co-managing a pool room. The other guy was also a non smoker, but we were asked to go and speak up against the proposal.
We got in line, but one of the first to speak was a retired Navy MD, a thoracic surgeon, who told of the results he had seen, from patients that were smokers. We kind of excused ourselves and left quietly.
I have friends who won't smoke in their house, because the wife or kids are non-smokers, yet think it perfectly allowable to smoke in a social gathering..So they respect their family's concerns, but...
If you believe that second hand smoke can harm others, why shouldn't their be regs. to limit exposure to it?
I still believe that had they excluded Casinos at this time, given the state's financial dependency on Gambling revenues, the law could not have been passed. Now it will only take a court challenge to get a ruling that Casinos can not be a special interest group, above the law.
The biggest danger to your rights, by the way, sits in the Oval Office.

pooltchr
01-21-2006, 01:42 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote wolfdancer:</font><hr> I still believe that had they excluded Casinos at this time, given the state's financial dependency on Gambling revenues, the law could not have been passed. Now it will only take a court challenge to get a ruling that Casinos can not be a special interest group, above the law.
<font color="red"> Agreed, and I suspect that a court challenge will be the way this law is thrown out. If you are in favor of smoking bans, you should be outraged that they did it this way. I'm not a lawyer, but common sense is going to say that a law written like this can not pass the test of constitutionality. </font color>
The biggest danger to your rights, by the way, sits in the Oval Office.
<font color="red">The biggest danger to our rights is ourselves. When we allow government, be it state or federal government, to do things like this, we give up our rights. We should be fighting the constant expansion of government control and power on EVERY front. Not just the ones we personally believe in. It's not the law that bothers me, it's the loss of freedom! I'm far less concerned that the white house might read my e-mail than I am that congress, or my state, or yours can pass laws like this one. </font color> <hr /></blockquote>

Rich R.
01-21-2006, 03:05 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote pooltchr:</font><hr> But what REALLY gets to me about this particular law is how it is very selective with who it will be applied against. Small bars and restaurants...but not the big casinos. <hr /></blockquote>
<font color="red"> Steve, on this point we agree. The ban should be in all public buildings, small and large businesses, nation wide. That would be fair to everyone.
I'm happy you agree. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif </font color>

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote pooltchr:</font><hr>If it were really because of health related issues, it would apply to everyone. The fact that it was written to target a small group seems to indicate that it is more politically motivated rather than for the good of all the people. Is second hand smoke in a casino safer than that in a pool room?<hr /></blockquote>

<font color="red">Steve, it is a health issue and it should apply to everyone. That is why you should be in favor of making the smoking ban nation wide. </font color>

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote pooltchr:</font><hr>You can not regulate everything.
Should we ban driving in the summer to protect us from all the high ozone levels in the atmosphere?
Should we ban nuclear plants because of radiation?
Should we ban the burning of coal to keep the air clean?
Should we ban alcohol sales to anyone with a driver's license? <hr /></blockquote>

<font color="red">All of the things you mentioned are real dangers, whether you want to admit it or not. They wouldn't have to be regulated by the government if these industries would police themselves, however, they don't. Regulations have been passed and, I assume, they will continue to get more strict, as the years go by. </font color>

pooltchr
01-21-2006, 08:53 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Rich R.:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote pooltchr:</font><hr> But what REALLY gets to me about this particular law is how it is very selective with who it will be applied against. Small bars and restaurants...but not the big casinos. <hr /></blockquote>
<font color="red"> Steve, on this point we agree. The ban should be in all public buildings, small and large businesses, nation wide. That would be fair to everyone.
I'm happy you agree. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif </font color>

<font color="blue"> Then why not just make all tobacco products illegal? </font color>

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote pooltchr:</font><hr>If it were really because of health related issues, it would apply to everyone. The fact that it was written to target a small group seems to indicate that it is more politically motivated rather than for the good of all the people. Is second hand smoke in a casino safer than that in a pool room?<hr /></blockquote>

<font color="red">Steve, it is a health issue and it should apply to everyone. That is why you should be in favor of making the smoking ban nation wide. </font color>

<font color="blue"> In your mind it is a health issue. In the minds of the politicians who passed the law, I don't think it is the health issue...I think it is a political move to win the approval of voters who are concerned about it. They don't care if you inhale second hand smoke...they do care if you vote for them or not. </font color>

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote pooltchr:</font><hr>You can not regulate everything.
Should we ban driving in the summer to protect us from all the high ozone levels in the atmosphere?
Should we ban nuclear plants because of radiation?
Should we ban the burning of coal to keep the air clean?
Should we ban alcohol sales to anyone with a driver's license? <hr /></blockquote>

<font color="red">All of the things you mentioned are real dangers, whether you want to admit it or not. They wouldn't have to be regulated by the government if these industries would police themselves, however, they don't. Regulations have been passed and, I assume, they will continue to get more strict, as the years go by. </font color> <hr /></blockquote>

<font color="blue"> Yes they are real, and they are dangerous. So we weigh the benefits against the cost. A little pollution is ok if it helps heat our homes. A little radiation is ok for the same reason. A little higher ozone level is ok if it means we can still drive to work each day. There is a cost attached to everything we do...we have to decide if the cost is too high or not.
Working on the 75th floor of a high rise office building is dangerous...but people do it every day. There is a benefit to having high rise buildings, and there is a potential cost of being in one in an emergency. You can't eliminate all risk from life. You risk your life a dozen times every day without even thinking about it. I feel I am just as well equipped to evaluate the risks as the government is.

Steve

</font color>

Drop1
01-21-2006, 09:57 PM
Probably because of some treaty agreement the ban on smoking in casinos owned by American Natives,could not be inforced. But I have never heard of"Bureau of Atlantic City Affairs" On the face of it,the Law is not applied equally.

Rich R.
01-22-2006, 06:50 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote pooltchr:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Rich R.:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote pooltchr:</font><hr> But what REALLY gets to me about this particular law is how it is very selective with who it will be applied against. Small bars and restaurants...but not the big casinos. <hr /></blockquote>
<font color="red"> Steve, on this point we agree. The ban should be in all public buildings, small and large businesses, nation wide. That would be fair to everyone.
I'm happy you agree. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif </font color>

<font color="blue"> Then why not just make all tobacco products illegal? </font color>

<font color="green">Although this is not a bad idea, it would take away your right to smoke. I don't want to take away your freedom. However, I would totally back a move to remove subisidies that the tobacco farmers receive. I don't really like my tax dollars going for this purpose. </font color>

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote pooltchr:</font><hr>If it were really because of health related issues, it would apply to everyone. The fact that it was written to target a small group seems to indicate that it is more politically motivated rather than for the good of all the people. Is second hand smoke in a casino safer than that in a pool room?<hr /></blockquote>

<font color="red">Steve, it is a health issue and it should apply to everyone. That is why you should be in favor of making the smoking ban nation wide. </font color>

<font color="blue"> In your mind it is a health issue. In the minds of the politicians who passed the law, I don't think it is the health issue...I think it is a political move to win the approval of voters who are concerned about it. They don't care if you inhale second hand smoke...they do care if you vote for them or not. </font color>

<font color="green">I really don't care what the politicians believe, on a personal basis. I don't have a lot of respect for most of them anyway. I care if they support an issue that I feel is important to me, regardless of their reason for supporting it. I'm sure you support politictians for similar reasons, although your issues would be different. </font color>

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote pooltchr:</font><hr>You can not regulate everything.
Should we ban driving in the summer to protect us from all the high ozone levels in the atmosphere?
Should we ban nuclear plants because of radiation?
Should we ban the burning of coal to keep the air clean?
Should we ban alcohol sales to anyone with a driver's license? <hr /></blockquote>

<font color="red">All of the things you mentioned are real dangers, whether you want to admit it or not. They wouldn't have to be regulated by the government if these industries would police themselves, however, they don't. Regulations have been passed and, I assume, they will continue to get more strict, as the years go by. </font color> <hr /></blockquote>

<font color="blue"> Yes they are real, and they are dangerous. So we weigh the benefits against the cost. A little pollution is ok if it helps heat our homes. A little radiation is ok for the same reason. A little higher ozone level is ok if it means we can still drive to work each day. There is a cost attached to everything we do...we have to decide if the cost is too high or not.
Working on the 75th floor of a high rise office building is dangerous...but people do it every day. There is a benefit to having high rise buildings, and there is a potential cost of being in one in an emergency. You can't eliminate all risk from life. You risk your life a dozen times every day without even thinking about it. I feel I am just as well equipped to evaluate the risks as the government is.
</font color> <hr /></blockquote>

<font color="green">The big question is, at what point does "a little" become too much and start causing problems. In some of the industries you mentioned, that point was crossed many years ago. I am not saying all of these industries should be totally shut down. All of these things must be monitored closely and the best way to monitor them, whether you like it or not, is through government regulation. The industries have proven that they will not monitor themselves properly.


As I don't care to follow the path of others on the non-pool forum, this will be my last post on this subject. We have gone around the circle enough, to make both our views known.
Reply if you want the last word. That is fine with me, but I'm done. </font color>

pooltchr
01-22-2006, 08:31 AM
Rich, I understand your points. When smoking comes up, there will always be two sides. I respect your opinion, and am not trying to debate the issue. I just think that in this case, they went about it the wrong way. It's the way the law is written, and not the intent that bothers me.
I agree...we can let it rest.
Steve