OT: NJ smoking ban this weekend...surprise!

[gethsemane]

Originally posted by hoerni Right, which means smokers are inflicting property damage on everyone else in the bar (smokers on not). BTW, if anyone really believes that you have the right to smoke, then challenge the law. Rights are granted by the consitution (either state or federal) No law can trump a consitution in our legal system. So you are free to follow suit and challenge the consituionality of the smoking ban. In fact and quick google shows that people have done just that: NYS & NYC Challenge - On 4/9/04 a federal judge ruled the ban constitutional Arizona - Judge dismissed the case Denver Co - they're considering a lawsuit And finally, they are trying it in NJ - stay tuned for this one. Some others are in the system, but I don't think anyone has overturned one of these laws yet.

 

 

no, rights are not granted by state or federal constitutions.

 

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

 

rights are only being enumerated in the constitution, not granted.

[Gristlefist]

Originally posted by hbar The same logic applies both ways. Pre ban: Smokers say if you don't like smoke, go to a smokeless bar. What? You can't find one? Awww... Post ban: Non-Smokers say if you don't like smokeless bars, go find a smoking bar. What? You can't find one? Awww...

 

 

Yeah, see, that's why I said you SMOKE NAZIS are up your own *sses. "Logic" Ha ha ha!

 

Pre-ban: you can CHOOSE to make your bar smoking or not and you can CHOOSE to go to a smoking bar or non-smoking bar. There aren't any? Then it must be because NO ONE WANTS IT.

 

Post ban: you're VERBOTEN BY LAW to smoke in a bar or allow smoking in a bar.

 

GET IT?

 

Only a sheizkopf NAZI says "The same logic applies both ways" when he's comparing CHOICE and POLICE STATE.

 

But you're going to save the world, right? For the Master Race? For the Dictatorship of the Proletariate? For the God-Chosen King? There's always a self-righteous excuse for these creeps to take away your choices for your own good. Narcisistic greedy Pigs.

[troubbble]

Am I to understand that under the ban there would be no such thing as a bar that allows smoking? If this is true, then this ban is complete bull{censored}. At least before, a non-smoker could find a non-smoking bar. It's hardly ideal, but it's a little more fair than banning smoking in all bars.

[gil1]

Right, the constitution primarily acts to limit government, not give people rights.

So those suits basicly stated "yes, the states have the right to limit this action, smoking in public. The constitution does not withhold the state's right to act in this matter."

Because thats what laws do. If people are behaving in a way that is selfish and impinges on other people's right to peace and health, the law steps in and stops it. That's why we have society.

[gethsemane]

Originally posted by gil1 Right, the constitution primarily acts to limit government, not give people rights. So those suits basicly stated "yes, the states have the right to limit this action, smoking in public. The constitution does not withhold the state's right to act in this matter." Because thats what laws do. If people are behaving in a way that is selfish and impinges on other people's right to peace and health, the law steps in and stops it. That's why we have society.

 

 

but to say that smoking is selfish is a stretch. you also need to justify why the states should make smoking in bars illegal. i agree that they can, but that's not the point.

[gil1]

Well, It's two separate things.

First there's the courts stating that it's constitutional for states to enact smoking bans in public places. That's to say, the action is consistent with our system. The states have a right to restrict actions which they see as harmful to the public peace and safety.

Then there is the concept that it impinges on people's peace and safety. And apparently enough people feel that public smoking is enough of an infringement on people's peace and safety that the issue has been raised to the point of a ban.

This is a common type of balance that societies have to make.

Almost all areas have noise ordinances - people can't inflict excessive noise on other people. Similarly with pollution and brush burning.

You can't screw in the streets, or drive on the sidewalk, or drink while driving.

Every society has limitations on people's behaviour based on how it effects other people.

Now, when they limit what you can do in your own house, that maybe considered different.

But by virtue of being a business, and open to the public, bars, restaurants, malls, all have to deal with a reasonable consideration of the area being a public gathering place, and therefore necessarily have more restrictions on the environment.

[preservation]

you can smoke all you want, but i don't want to inhale that crap or reek of it just b/c you've got a problem sucking down cancer sticks.
its my freedom to NOT have to be affected by that garbage.

[ck3]

Originally posted by Help!I'maRock! when i was in austin, the TABC was at the hotel i was staying at. there is a bar in the hotel, so they were accosting people who were drinking there.

[Wyatt]

Originally posted by gethsemane but to say that smoking is selfish is a stretch. you also need to justify why the states should make smoking in bars illegal. i agree that they can, but that's not the point.

 

 

The reason they should is because some of the people exposed to both first- and second-hand smoke end up on Medicaid or wards of state if they do come down with terminal cancer. This costs every taxpayer, but it is better than being heartless and saying..."tough luck." And, believe it or not, there are quite a few poorly educated people who still don't comprehend the dangers of second-hand smoke; IK mean they have never even heard the argument, let alone informed themselves about it.

 

It is not the reason most of these laws get passed, which is generally people trying beat big tobacco, but it is the valid point they make to argue their point. I don't like to see the government use its power to legislate social behavoir anymore than I like to see it legislate morl behavior.

 

A majority of smokers, even those that quit young, have noticebaly shortened their lives. There is no positive spin for the product and it has absolutely no value. So, if tobacco dies one day, I could care less.

 

Of course, the majority of the people were younger when they were exposed and at the time they "didn't give a damn about the health risks." It's always when someone is older, and often wiser, that they look back at how foolish they might have been. I mean look around, generall;y smokers are either pooor or naive college/HS students who are just to ignorant to understand.

 

The laws seem popular enough, none have been reversed by voter revolt.

 

-Y.

[sub rosa]

I don't give a {censored} if someone is a smoker but I do think the smoking ban is the best {censored}ing thing to happen.

I don't smoke and don't need to breath other peoples smoke in a public place like a bar. Why should I have to stay away from bars because the minority 'need' to smoke everywhere they feel? Answer: I don't.

[CurtisM]

I kinda have mixed feelings on this. As a bit of a social libertarian, i dont think the government should be doing this kind of thing. At the same time, i really like the effect of it. Especially at restaraunts. Before the ban, the smoking and non-smoking sections were close enough that you could often be just a few feet from people smoking while having your dinner, and that makes me sick. Ive always been really sensitive to second hand smoke, and i hate it. I guess i wish bars/restaraunts would make that decision themselves.

[hoerni]

Originally posted by gethsemane no, rights are not granted by state or federal constitutions. Amendment IX The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. rights are only being enumerated in the constitution, not granted.

 

 

Okay, that's probably the more correct way of saying it. I probably should have said guaranteed, not granted.

 

Either way, you don't have the right to smoke in pulic and a federal judge in NJ agrees - There will be no injunction against the ban; it will go ahead as scheduled.

[Jack Luminous]

Not only lung cancers but all kinds of cancers are increasing in the general population. Reasons are yet unknown and authorities aren't talking about it in fear of alarming everyone. A friend of mine is a cancer researcher at the Gustave Roussy Institute (one of the biggest cancer research center in Europe). I try to avoid the subject when I meet him because it's so scary. BTW, the effect of second hand smoke on adults are really minimal and do not lead to a statistically significant increase of cancer risk at normal doses, despite the (wrong) official propaganda.

So, in conclusion, there's a fairly good chance you'll catch cancer in a not so far future, lungs or anything else, even if you don't smoke and despite any kind of smoking ban. There you go...

Originally posted by Alex D I for one have looked at the studies and the density of 2nd hand smoke and size to weight (children mainly) are no where near the needed amount (air to smoke ratio or density)of 2nd hand smoke that has been shown (not proven) to cause cancer in adults. There are real questions about children and their lack of lung space though that shouldn't be ignored (smaller lung surface ratio), but we are talking larger humans with larger organs. And time and again these studies show a much greater density of smoke is needed to affect adults in the same way as children (which are by far the most studied group among 2nd smoke studies). What in fact has been shown is that non-smoking adults that have no contact with smokers are a increasing population of people with cancer (10-15% last year had lung cancer with out 2nd or first hand smoke exposure). This would tend to suggest that there is a much larger problem that goes unchecked. Reason givin are the radactive isotope that was release to the world during WWII (wasn't present in bones in the dead prior to bomb being dropped) that wasn't there before, and the other is environmental pollution from industry (industrial revolution pollution). I just got out of a statical anaylisis class that invloved just this idea(and studies), and it is far from conclusive that smoking in bars (ventalated) in any away affects the 2nd hand person. I know this is not what people want to hear, but with a closier look it just isn't so cut and dry. So I feel that smoking should be considered and treated as a pollutant and we should as non-smokers be a people who imbrace that enviromental clean air and water for all if the goal.Not stopping smoking in bars but to stop it everywhere cause it a pollutant, not because I don't like it or "feel" it may give me cancer without having a clear cut study that show what is exactly needed to both avoid and get cancer(hell stress can cause cancer so personal belief is also a cause, and a personal cause at that) But the sad truth is that no one is standing up to ask why lung cancer is growing with out tobacco explosure. But that must be to much work, becasue it is alot easier to pass laws that affect just one group without the the other being affect, kind of facist when it still a legal product to buy and consume. oh ya and it completely takes responisiblity out of my hands to clean up there own state,city,county or even country and puts it squarly on the shoulders of the people who smoke. So it not my lack of action to clean up environmental cancer concerns, it's those damn smokers who are giving me cancer, ya right

[Jack Luminous]

Originally posted by gil1 Right, no one made these people smoke. If people want to smoke, they can do it where it doesn't effect other people. At home.

 

 

Truth is it doesn't affect other people, unless you're less than 3 years old. Bars are not places for little children.

 

 

Originally posted by gil1 Part of being in society is restraining offensive behaviours so they don't screw up other people.

 

 

Smoking in public wasn't considered offensive at all by anyone a couple of decades ago. So now it is ? That's what government-led propaganda at full steam will do to you.

[hoerni]

Originally posted by Jack Luminous Truth is it doesn't affect other people, unless you're less than 3 years old. Bars are not places for little children.

 

 

No, but restaurants are. And there are plenty of bar/restaurants too where children are allowed.

 

 

Smoking in public wasn't considered offensive at all by anyone a couple of decades ago. So now it is ? That's what government-led propaganda at full steam will do to you.

 

 

Sounds more like government paranoia to me. What do you think the government would gain by outlawing smoking? Extra fines?

[Jack Luminous]

Originally posted by hoerni No, but restaurants are. And there are plenty of bar/restaurants too where children are allowed.

 

 

I don't know. You don't go that often with your kids to the restaurant. It's not like they're breathing second hand smoke all day long. Better not bring them outside either with all those SUV gas fumes... At their height, little heads are not too far off from exhaust pipes. I have a 18 months old daughter BTW. I don't smoke at home until she grows older. I enjoy going to the bar around the corner of my street to have a smoke while sipping a glass of Bordeaux.

 

 

 

Originally posted by hoerni Sounds more like government paranoia to me. What do you think the government would gain by outlawing smoking? Extra fines?

 

 

Paranoia has nothing to do with it. If the gov has anything to gain is not the point. It's more about a general social trend since the 70 toward a more rigid society. It's called "return of the moral order", just in case you never heard about it. Like you know : "the best way to not catch AIDS is to avoid sex before marriage." and such other similar bull{censored}.

[hoerni]

Originally posted by Jack Luminous I don't know. You don't go that often with your kids to the restaurant. It's not like they're breathing second hand smoke all day long. Better not bring them outside either with all those SUV gas fumes... At their height, little heads are not too far off from exhaust pipes. I have a 18 months old daughter BTW. I don't smoke at home until she grows older. I enjoy going to the bar around the corner of my street to have a smoke while sipping a glass of Bordeaux.

 

 

I don't get why it's okay to annoy cause and cause property damage even the dosage may be low.

 

Yes, you are right about the auto emissions too. That's why it's better to look for parks away from busy streets. That's also why the government should be improving emissions standards instead of giving SUVs a big loophole.

 

 

Paranoia has nothing to do with it. If the gov has anything to gain is not the point. It's more about a general social trend since the 70 toward a more rigid society. It's called "return of the moral order", just in case you never heard about it. Like you know : "the best way to not catch AIDS is to avoid sex before marriage." and such other similar bull{censored}.

 

 

"Return of the Moral Order"? Sounds downright Orwellian. Where did you get this from.

 

BTW, which law was passed addressing pre-marital sex? Last major decision I remember was one striking down sodomy laws.

 

Yeah, the christian right (oooh, there's an oxymoron) want to impose there beliefs on everyone, but that's just one group. (although I will agree with you that they are behind the really stupid abstinence only education)

[Jack Luminous]

Originally posted by hoerni I don't get why it's okay to annoy cause and cause property damage even the dosage may be low. Yes, you are right about the auto emissions too. That's why it's better to look for parks away from busy streets. That's also why the government should be improving emissions standards instead of giving SUVs a big loophole.

 

 

Everything is a question of dosage. Even water can kill you if you drink too much at once.

 

 

 

Originally posted by hoerni "Return of the Moral Order"? Sounds downright Orwellian. Where did you get this from.

 

 

It's happening since a good 25 years. Just look around and think about how was life in 1970. now compare...

 

 

Originally posted by hoerni BTW, which law was passed addressing pre-marital sex? Last major decision I remember was one striking down sodomy laws.

 

 

It was just an example. Don't try to engage me on a war of words. W has voted a lot of credits for funding abstinence programs in schools. What do you think about that ? Why not fund powerful air conditioning in restaurants if it's such an important health concern ? They should ban BBQ too because it's highly carcinogen.

[hoerni]

Originally posted by Jack Luminous Everything is a question of dosage. Even water can kill you if you drink too much at once.

 

 

Right, and if they were funneling water, that might be a good argument. As it stands you have the right to drink as much or as little water as you like in most bars and restaurants. (As I recall, the last time someone was forced drink to much water, the ones doing the forcing were presecuted).

 

It's happening since a good 25 years. Just look around and think about how was life in 1970. now compare...

 

 

I can't really remember much before I was 6 honestly. Everything ebbs and flows. Think about the current Immigration reforms and the Patriot Act and then look at the Alien and Seditiona Acts. Things get worse and they get better.

 

It was just an example. Don't try to engage me on a war of words. W has voted a lot of credits for funding abstinence programs in schools. What do you think about that ?

 

 

Didn't you read my last post? I'll quote it as " really stupid abstinence only education". I think that sums up how I feel about it. Truthfully there doesn't seem to be much that W. has done right. He's gutted most of the government for the advantage of big business (or based on his misguided beliefs that everyone should follow his religion)

 

Why not fund powerful air conditioning in restaurants if it's such an important health concern ? They should ban BBQ too because it's highly carcinogen.

 

 

I don't get the AC thing... Are we talking about heat exhaustion now?

 

Again, you can eat as much BBQ as you want without it affecting my health or even personal annoyance level. Just don't force me to stand in the smoke while you cook that stuff.

[Jack Luminous]

Originally posted by hoerni I don't get the AC thing... Are we talking about heat exhaustion now?

 

 

Sorry I didn't use the correct word (english is not my mother tongue). I was talking about ventilation.

 

 

Originally posted by hoerni Again, you can eat as much BBQ as you want without it affecting my health or even personal annoyance level. Just don't force me to stand in the smoke while you cook that stuff.

 

 

Rest assured second hand smoke won't affect your health at all unless you work as a bartender or waiter in a smokey bar/restaurant 18 hours a day. Now, concerning your personal annoyance level, it's a whole different issue. Personally, I don't want the law to regulate my annoyance level, I take care about it myself. And concerning BBQ, it's not so much about the smoke while cooking but more about the meat/whatever you cook on it. It's charged with carcinogen combustion byproducts and really unhealthy to eat.

[gil1]

Originally posted by Jack Luminous Truth is it doesn't affect other people, unless you're less than 3 years old. Bars are not places for little children.

 

 

Nope, it is harmfull for other people. And the majority of people find it offensive. That's why we don't smoke.

 

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/secondhandsmoke.html

 

Secondhand Smoke Fact Sheet

 

March 2006

 

Secondhand smoke, also know as environmental tobacco smoke, is a mixture of the smoke given off by the burning end of a cigarette, pipe or cigar and the smoke exhaled from the lungs of smokers. It is involuntarily inhaled by nonsmokers, lingers in the air hours after cigarettes have been extinguished and can cause or exacerbate a wide range of adverse health effects, including cancer, respiratory infections, and asthma.1

 

*

Secondhand smoke has been classified by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as a known cause of cancer in humans (Group A carcinogen).2

*

Secondhand smoke causes approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths and 35,000-62,000 heart disease deaths in adult nonsmokers in the United States each year.3

*

A study found that nonsmokers exposed to environmental smoke were 25 percent more likely to have coronary heart diseases compared to nonsmokers not exposed to smoke.4

*

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

*

Since 1999, 70 percent of the U.S. workforce worked under a smoke-free policy, ranging from 83.9 percent in Utah to 48.7 percent in Nevada.6 Workplace productivity was increased and absenteeism was decreased among former smokers compared with current smokers.7

*

As of 2005, 9 smoke-free states prohibit smoking in almost all workplaces, including restaurants and bars (CA, CT, DE, ME, MA, NY, RI, VT and WA).8

*

Secondhand smoke is especially harmful to young children. Secondhand smoke is responsible for between 150,000 and 300,000 lower respiratory tract infections in infants and children under 18 months of age, resulting in between 7,500 and 15,000 hospitalizations each year, and causes 1,900 to 2,700 sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) deaths in the United States annually.9

*

Secondhand smoke exposure may cause buildup of fluid in the middle ear, resulting in 700,000 to 1.6 million physician office visits per year. Secondhand smoke can also aggravate symptoms in 400,000 to 1,000,000 children with asthma.10

*

In the United States, 21 million, or 35 percent of, children live in homes where residents or visitors smoke in the home on a regular basis.11 Approximately 50-75 percent of children in the United States have detectable levels of cotinine, the breakdown product of nicotine in the blood.12

*

New research indicates that secret research conducted by cigarette company Philip Morris in the 1980s showed that secondhand smoke was highly toxic, yet the company suppressed the finding during the next two decades.13

 

This isn't a "Moral Order" issue. This is a matter of people not poisening each other.

 

It's the same thing that keeps people from {censored}ting in the streets - public sanitation.

 

You want to {censored} in your living room? Go right ahead.

[sub rosa]

Originally posted by Jack Luminous Truth is it doesn't affect other people, unless you're less than 3 years old. Bars are not places for little children.

 

 

Um, yes, yes it does. If I don't want smoke in the air I breath in a bar or pub or whatever, and its there, then its affecting me. If I come home after a night out and my hair stinks of smoke due to the inconsiderate few, then it is affecting me.

 

If you smoke, do it in private.

[Jack Luminous]

Nope it isn't. It is only harmful for less than 3 years old children and maybe for people working all day long in smokey environment like bartenders. Your post doesn't contradict anything I stated. I wasn't talking about second hand smoke as an abstract concept, but more as in everyday reality. Is a law necessary ? Will it improve the overall health ? I don't think so. Oh yeah.... 30 years ago, noone found smoking offensive. Now it's different. Have you ever wondered why ?

Originally posted by gil1 Nope, it is harmfull for other people. And the majority of people find it offensive. That's why we don't smoke. http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/secondhandsmoke.html Secondhand Smoke Fact Sheet March 2006 Secondhand smoke, also know as environmental tobacco smoke, is a mixture of the smoke given off by the burning end of a cigarette, pipe or cigar and the smoke exhaled from the lungs of smokers. It is involuntarily inhaled by nonsmokers, lingers in the air hours after cigarettes have been extinguished and can cause or exacerbate a wide range of adverse health effects, including cancer, respiratory infections, and asthma.1 * Secondhand smoke has been classified by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as a known cause of cancer in humans (Group A carcinogen).2 * Secondhand smoke causes approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths and 35,000-62,000 heart disease deaths in adult nonsmokers in the United States each year.3 * A study found that nonsmokers exposed to environmental smoke were 25 percent more likely to have coronary heart diseases compared to nonsmokers not exposed to smoke.4 * Nonsmokers exposed to secondhand smoke at work are at increased risk for adverse health effects. Levels of ETS in restaurants and bars were found to be 2 to 5 times higher than in residences with smokers and 2 to 6 times higher than in office workplaces.5 * Since 1999, 70 percent of the U.S. workforce worked under a smoke-free policy, ranging from 83.9 percent in Utah to 48.7 percent in Nevada.6 Workplace productivity was increased and absenteeism was decreased among former smokers compared with current smokers.7 * As of 2005, 9 smoke-free states prohibit smoking in almost all workplaces, including restaurants and bars (CA, CT, DE, ME, MA, NY, RI, VT and WA).8 * Secondhand smoke is especially harmful to young children. Secondhand smoke is responsible for between 150,000 and 300,000 lower respiratory tract infections in infants and children under 18 months of age, resulting in between 7,500 and 15,000 hospitalizations each year, and causes 1,900 to 2,700 sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) deaths in the United States annually.9 * Secondhand smoke exposure may cause buildup of fluid in the middle ear, resulting in 700,000 to 1.6 million physician office visits per year. Secondhand smoke can also aggravate symptoms in 400,000 to 1,000,000 children with asthma.10 * In the United States, 21 million, or 35 percent of, children live in homes where residents or visitors smoke in the home on a regular basis.11 Approximately 50-75 percent of children in the United States have detectable levels of cotinine, the breakdown product of nicotine in the blood.12 * New research indicates that secret research conducted by cigarette company Philip Morris in the 1980s showed that secondhand smoke was highly toxic, yet the company suppressed the finding during the next two decades.13

 

[dot-dot-dot]

Threads like this always go the same way; on one side you have people who don't want others' activities to impact on them, and on the other side you have drug addicts and people who like to call other people nazis.

[Jack Luminous]

Originally posted by sub rosa Um, yes, yes it does. If I don't want smoke in the air I breath in a bar or pub or whatever, and its there, then its affecting me. If I come home after a night out and my hair stinks of smoke due to the inconsiderate few, then it is affecting me. If you smoke, do it in private.

 

 

I was talking about health, not about your hair stinking. If you work at McDo, you hair will smell like french fries. Second hand smoke doesn't affect your health.