It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NEWS: New Jersey Proposes Public Smoking Ban

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 14 2005 @ 11:12 PM
link   
New Jersey lawmakers have proposed a public smoking ban similar to the bans other states have recently imposed. The ban would include the Atlantic City casino's which could be damaging to their business and also to the state economy. The measure was passed 7-0 by a Senate committee and now heads to the NJ full Senate.
 



story.news.yahoo.com
Gamblers would not be allowed to smoke on Atlantic City casino floors or inside fraternal organizations under a measure passed Monday by a New Jersey Senate committee.

Lawmakers voted 7-0 for the measure, which also covers restaurants, bars and offices.

"No one has the right to engage in conduct that harms others," Fred Jacobs, commissioner of Health and Senior Services for the state, said at a hearing before the

Representatives from the Casino Association of New Jersey said a ban would drive away gamblers and harm the state's economy.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


This proposed ban would undoubtedly hurt the economy, in more ways than just the casino's although they would be a huge factor. As a non-smoker, I cant say I'd mind smoke-free restraunts, bars, etc. but I'm not sure it's worth the hit the economy could take. I'm curious how these bans affected states that already have this measure in place, like Delaware and California.

Related News Links:
www.newsday.com
www.philly.com




posted on Mar, 14 2005 @ 11:17 PM
link   


The ban would include the Atlantic City casino's which could be damaging to their business and also to the state economy.

What you fail to realize is that if they ban smoking in those establishments it might bring in more non-smokers who have more money to spend as they do not have a smoking habbit. Business complained about the smoking by-law in Toronto too but it never panned out. Business actually went UP in establishments without smoking rooms not down as they said. Some places have smoking rooms as well and those businesses that do not have them now want to ban smoking rooms to level the playing field and it's a good idea. Smoking rooms have been found to be only 70% effective at venting the particulates and free radicals..

Another thing you are also not considering is the cost of business from the health care side. Always got to consider all angles of a story.

[edit on 14-3-2005 by sardion2000]



posted on Mar, 14 2005 @ 11:20 PM
link   
Problem is, the smoking bans don't hurt the economy. In NY, where there is a similar law, businesses showed an increase in business when the law was in effect.

I don't know how it will affect casinos, I doubt that people are going to not go to Atlantic City because of this.



posted on Mar, 14 2005 @ 11:22 PM
link   
Are smoking rooms allowed in NY??



posted on Mar, 14 2005 @ 11:31 PM
link   
Smoking is only legal in private buildings and Cigar Bars in NY. I think Native Reservations are allowed to make up their own rules. I don't know if any of them Comply.

It would be interesting if the newly proposed Indian Casinos in southern NY went thru, and people from New Jersey were to come to NY to gamble and smoke.



posted on Mar, 14 2005 @ 11:38 PM
link   
Yeah it will be interesting. Native reservations and Vetrans Clubs are exempt I believe in Toronto that is.

It's funny how much noise private busniesses made before the by-law went into effect and now we are more then a year into it and complaints are only heard by the smokers and the smaller business are talking about banning smoking rooms now instead of rolling back the by-law (which considering our mayor would be nearly impossible
)
No one is talking about rolling back the by-law because they realize they make MORE money! Smokers are in the minority. Why should they get special treatment when it has been proven time and time again to kill people through passive smoking(ie Second hand smoke)

fyi I am a smoker again
Gonna try a quit so let me tell you this ban effects me too and I support it!

[edit on 14-3-2005 by sardion2000]



posted on Mar, 15 2005 @ 12:07 AM
link   


Increasingly, data from states with smoking bans show that restaurant business has increased.

In Massachussetts, revenue from the state's 5 percent meal tax rose after a smoking ban took effect July 5.

New York City's restaurant and bar business also has surged since its smoking ban took effect in 2003, but the city has experienced a general resurgence after the recession and the 2001 terrorist attacks.

Rhode Island, for example, exempted gambling areas, and the Dover Downs racetrack and casino reported a 24 percent drop in income during the first year of Delaware's smoking ban.


www.philly.com...

Surprisingly it has helped the economies of some of the states with the ban in place. The casino in Delaware reported a drop, possibly it just affects gambling and restaurant/bar businesses different. One thing that does keep me out of the casino's is the smoke, so perhaps the non-smokers that come will offset the loss of some smokers. Either way, there are going to be some irate smokers here in Jersey when they read this.



posted on Mar, 15 2005 @ 12:29 AM
link   
That may be true, but Casino's make up how much of the GDP compared to the millions of restaurants,bars,pool halls,internet cafes etc etc. We need a good decade of data in order to evaluate how it impacts and one of the things that need to be evaluated is the health of workers. That is a major hidden cost for allot of companies with health plans. I would think they would want to minimize that cost, unless they really are as shortsighted as I suspect most of them to be(corporate exec. hacks)

ProudAmerican why are you surprised? It isn't the 50s anymore when half the country smoked. Now they are pretty much in the minority and allot of people are becoming pregijusticed against smokers and for good reason too so it stand to reason that those types of people will come back after the ban hits. Some bitch and complain like no tomorrow, I used to be one of those who bitched when I was a bit younger.

[edit on 15-3-2005 by sardion2000]



posted on Mar, 15 2005 @ 12:35 AM
link   
While I respect the people's right to smoke, I don't respect someone's right to do something if it causes other bodily harm. That is what smoking done. It needs to be banned in public areas outright.

thanks,

drfunk



posted on Mar, 15 2005 @ 12:57 AM
link   
Actually in NYC, even though it is illegal to smoke in bars, the bartenders usually let you do it after midnight. The inspectors usually don't come that late. So even though it looks good on paper, bars know it's better to let people smoke whenever they can.



posted on Mar, 15 2005 @ 01:12 AM
link   
I find it hard to believe that anyone that wants to go to a casino will or will not go into the casino because of cigarette smoke. There's plenty of things I like to do and cannot smoke at but still do any way.



posted on Mar, 15 2005 @ 01:15 AM
link   
It seems to me that the greater issue, here, is being overlooked. It does not matter if you smoke or not. It does not matter if second hand smoke is dangerous or not. It does not matter if the new law will be enforced or not. None of this matters! What we have here is a government attempting to impose its will on its people. The question that needs to be asked about this situation is: “Does the sate have the right to tell private businesses what they can or cannot do on their land?”

At what point does the individual turn over the issue of his personal well being to the government? It is my opinion that, if I were so inclined, I should have the right to open a restaurant that served food laced with arsenic, so long as everyone who entered the establishment knew that they were going to consume unhealthy doses of the substance.

There greater issue here is this: Does the government have the right to protect you from yourself?



posted on Mar, 15 2005 @ 01:19 AM
link   


What we have here is a government attempting to impose its will on its people.


Ah yes the freedom aspect. How could I have forgotten
How dare I believe that I and people like me should not have to subject other people to toxic substances. Give me a break.... The greater issue with Tobacco is and always will be HEALTH issues. Second Hand smoke prolonged or not can cause a host of medical problems. Smoking in Public place should have never become a right. What about the right of a non-smoker hmm? How bout that of a non-smoking employee? I guess your answer to that would be for them to find another job, but you see without a ban alot of bartenders and waitress will not have that option.



posted on Mar, 15 2005 @ 01:27 AM
link   
You are all making a tremendous mistake in underestimating the influence of the casinos in general. Not the Native American ones. The Atlantic City ones, Trump et al.

A totally seperate thread would be necessary to make you aware of the design of casinos. To put it all into one small sentence: the point of a casino's design is to keep the gambler in the casino for as long as possible. There are no clocks or windows on the floor, horrendous cell phone service to prevent nagging phone calls from interrupting you, and yes the old oxygen pumps to prevent you from falling asleep. The liquor is watered down because a passed out drunk does not bet. And you guessed it, cigarettes are allowed, encouraged (ever see a slot machine without an ashtray near it?) and sold on the floor.

A smoker who is gambling and can not smoke inside, will have to leave repeatedly. People who are leaving might not come back, and the time you spend outside is not spent gambling.

The casinos wield tremendous clout, especially with elected officials. They do have rather large lobbying operations you know. Lobbying firms do involve themselves in elections you know. The casinos also have clout financially. Revenue, taxes, blah blah blah. You know the deal.

There will be opposition from bars, pool halls, bowling alleys and the like as well.

Does it have a chance of passing? Sure. But I would wager that an exception of some sort will be made regarding casinos in Atlantic City. In fact, not only would I wager on it, I'd go all-in. Money goes a long way when it comes to politicians.



posted on Mar, 15 2005 @ 01:37 AM
link   
If it is truly a health issue, then the laws of capitalism should be able to take care of it. Your personal health is your own business. If you don't like the smoke, don't go there! If there are enough people who agree that second hand smoke is bad for you, then the business will lose money when all the health conscious people go somewhere else. It worked for McDonald's. They decided in most states that they wanted to be family oriented. They got rid of smoking sections, and it did not hurt them. The decision was based on economics and not politics.

No one is forcing people to enter an establishment that exposes them to toxins. They have to decide that the risk is worth it, themselves.

Here is an interesting idea: If you think that you are so incompetent that you need the government to make health choices for you, then why not let them take care of your personal budget? If you should not have the right to enter an establishment that allows you to be poisoned, you should not have the right to enter an establishment that allows you to squander away all your personal income. All casinos should be banned, because people are not smart enough to realize that casinos steal all their money!

When should we consider the masses too ignorant to think for themselves?



posted on Mar, 15 2005 @ 01:59 AM
link   
10 over 6 you're arguing with a smoker and such arguments do not apply to me. It is a Health issue, and it's not the masses I'm worried about, it's the employees. Oh yeah you're going to say then don't work there, but you see without a smoking ban for certain people that is impossible. You see Capitolism is flawed, it never takes into account the human aspect(ie the Hidden Costs). And anyway money not spent at casino's is spent elsewhere. Just cause it may hurt casinos matters not as the "Free Market" will adapt. Btw there is no such thing as a pure capitolistic market, its a fools dream just as pure Democracy and pure Communism. It's all idealogy really.

[edit on 15-3-2005 by sardion2000]



posted on Mar, 15 2005 @ 02:00 AM
link   

All casinos should be banned, because people are not smart enough to realize that casinos steal all their money!

When should we consider the masses too ignorant to think for themselves?


Sadly you are correct. Most states have begun to consider the masses too stupid to think for themselves. For well over a century it has been common knowledge that a pool hall is going to be a place filled with men smoking cigars and cigarettes. It was an adult's choice whether or not to enter the establishment. Granted, there have been health breakthroughs that have shown us the effects of smoke, and I believe that all adults should be made aware of this. I ignore children specifically because many of these establishments are open for adult use only, e.g. bars. A responsible adult should be capable of deciding whether or not to enter an environment that contains smoke.

If the demand for smoke free pool halls was so massive as some of you seem to think it is, explain to me why more of them do not exist. An entrepenreur can open a business and run it as he wishes. If the demand for smoke free pool halls rose to such a level, surely an entrepreneur would open one up and all of those people concerned about their health while in the other ones would patronize his establishment instead. That is the nature of a capitalist economy, is it not? Supply and demand. The demand for these establishments to be smoke free simply does not exist. If it did, private enterprise would have supplied it long ago. This is a job belonging to private enterprise and customers, not government.

Nonetheless, I still believe it will pass in a halfway sense, barring A.C.



posted on Mar, 15 2005 @ 02:07 AM
link   
Well considering I have been living under a smoking ban I can tell you that not all people who play pool smoke
Infact at the local pool hall business has roughly doubled and I never have a problem finding a game anymore up there. A smoke free environment is good too. Oh yeah since when do minors get rejected from pool halls.
Thats where I spent alot of my later teenage years


FYI In Ontario it is still legal to smoke in Casinos and Veterans Clubs. So yeah NJ is going to do the same thing most likely...

I cannot for the life of me see why people would oppose such a measure. It has been proven to actually HELP the economy NOT hinder it.



posted on Mar, 15 2005 @ 02:09 AM
link   
The problem with this type of bill or law, is not that it could hurt the economy or alienate smoking patrons. The problem with this law is that the government should not be the one making this decision for the business owners.

A business owner of a restaurant, bar, casino, ect. is the one who should decide whether they want to run a smoking or non-smoking facility! Customers and potential customers don't have to patronize a business that allows its customers to smoke, if they don't wish to. If the enough people refuse to go to a place that isn't non-smoking, the business owner will have to, either, find a way to accommodate both the smokers and non-smokers, become a non-smoking business, or go out of business. That is the way any business works, Not enough customers, No more business.

Why does the government feel the need to constantly interfere in things that they have no right to interfere in?

Customers have the right NOT to patronize a business if they dislike its business practices.
A business has the right NOT to accommodate those customers who fail to respect their policies.
A customer DOES NOT have the right to force a business to alter their policies.
A business DOES NOT have the right to force a person to patronize their establishment, if they don't want to.

So why should the government be given the right to dictate whether a business can be smoking or not?
Do people now think that they have the right to demand service and/ or accommodation from any business they choose?
Why can't non-smokers simply NOT go to establishments which allow smoking?

Surely, if there are as many people opposed to smoking in public places as is claimed, the businesses who allow smoking will not be able to compete with those who do not, and will either have to conform to the majority's will, or fold.
By allowing the government to make this decision, people are giving up their right to make yet another decision for themselves, presumably, because they think everyone is too inept to know what is best!



posted on Mar, 15 2005 @ 02:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by 10 over 6
It seems to me that the greater issue, here, is being overlooked. It does not matter if you smoke or not. It does not matter if second hand smoke is dangerous or not. It does not matter if the new law will be enforced or not. None of this matters! What we have here is a government attempting to impose its will on its people. The question that needs to be asked about this situation is: “Does the sate have the right to tell private businesses what they can or cannot do on their land?”

At what point does the individual turn over the issue of his personal well being to the government? It is my opinion that, if I were so inclined, I should have the right to open a restaurant that served food laced with arsenic, so long as everyone who entered the establishment knew that they were going to consume unhealthy doses of the substance.

There greater issue here is this: Does the government have the right to protect you from yourself?


Good post! You beat me to the punch, but I'm glad someone else shares my concerns on this.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join