tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12206743.post113302864672502363..comments2023-11-03T04:41:48.839-04:00Comments on The Center of NJ Life: The costly indoor smoking banSharon GRhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07467317912222026022noreply@blogger.comBlogger147125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12206743.post-89900284916495483092008-03-06T14:43:00.000-05:002008-03-06T14:43:00.000-05:00I am a non-smoker also, however, i donot agree wit...I am a non-smoker also, however, i donot agree with the indoor smoking ban. I belive it should be up to the owner's discression to allow or to ban smoking in their establishment. This way people that do not like to be around smoke should go to a bar that does not allow it. We lost half of our customers when this law went into affect. I personally beileve that its people right to choose what they do with their health, and smokers are not the only people that are selfish. Everyone in a way is being selfish here. This whole problem would be solved if there was smoking and non smoking bars. not one or the other.get over ithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18384766313437564712noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12206743.post-60811268544097648992007-09-27T10:41:00.000-04:002007-09-27T10:41:00.000-04:00It's amazing to me that I wrote this post almost t...It's amazing to me that I wrote this post almost two years ago, and I'm still getting comments on it. <BR/><BR/>morgoth, besides the fact that you need a spellchecker and a punctuation primer, you have no idea what you're talking about. Read up on how things are truly going for business owners, then, let's chat.Sharon GRhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07467317912222026022noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12206743.post-1407134252583718512007-09-26T00:00:00.000-04:002007-09-26T00:00:00.000-04:00lol you argument needs work alchol kills 3 times t...lol you argument needs work alchol kills 3 times the number of people world wide to the point in some countries 1st or 2nd offense drunk friving is punishiable by death. But dont you smoke in there thats bad lol. oh yeah while your at it ban traffic because every single study done comparatively to smoke places that at 2 packs per hour in traffic. I would like to ban your SUV because its bad for me. <BR/><BR/>This can be solved so easy if i own a bar that allows smoking i place a giant sign that reads.<BR/>"this establishment allows smoking and is dangerous to your health if you donot wish to be effected by this smoke DONOT enter or apply for any job here"<BR/><BR/>the old argument i work here and its bad for me is like me getting a job at the toxic waste dump then suing them to remove it because its bad for my health. get real every bar i know except for those places that are really an eating establishment are suffering horribly. bars that have been profitable for 100 years are going out of buisness. Its been a year where are these magical no smoking customer they were promised? ha they are right where they were before because they dont like bars not the smoke but the bar thats why they never went.morgothhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15851839566010209928noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12206743.post-3221200482600910172007-03-06T12:35:00.000-05:002007-03-06T12:35:00.000-05:00Wine like little girls? Traditionally it's made fr...Wine like little girls? <BR/><BR/>Traditionally it's made from grapes. (Girl scouts are used to make cookies, though.)Rob S.https://www.blogger.com/profile/07331286524477806963noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12206743.post-18335781027427826352007-03-06T07:07:00.000-05:002007-03-06T07:07:00.000-05:00Yeah, good luck with that "rising up" thing. "Free...Yeah, good luck with that "rising up" thing. <BR/><BR/>"Free" doesn't mean imposing your will on others. Smoking forces others to deal with your smoke- so it ain't just you. What facts are we not facing?Sharon GRhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07467317912222026022noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12206743.post-22665206280881474522007-03-04T22:26:00.000-05:002007-03-04T22:26:00.000-05:00I think this whole no smoking in public places is ...I think this whole no smoking in public places is a bunch of bull..for if someone does not like the smoke than too bad for this is the good ol' usa an we have the rights to smoke where we want when we want..the last time i remember that this is the country of the free need i say more..An the big thing that makes me so angry of the this stupid act is that i like to go to bars to hang out with people but i don't drink so instead i would jus smoke my cigs but now i can't even enjoy a nice smoke while sittin back at a bar with my friends an lots of people i know don't even go to the bar all cause thease stupid health freaks that have nothing better to do with thier lives but wine like little girls so grow up an face the facts you's don't control the world an soon or later us smokers will rise up against you self centered pieces of garbage.nwhitemikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00257149904186008000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12206743.post-1137855046798237072006-01-21T09:50:00.000-05:002006-01-21T09:50:00.000-05:00Hi Anon., Gov. Codey signed the bill last weekend,...Hi Anon.,<BR/> Gov. Codey signed the bill last weekend, but it goes into effect 90 days after signing. It will be in effect April 15.Sharon GRhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07467317912222026022noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12206743.post-1137808034461099712006-01-20T20:47:00.000-05:002006-01-20T20:47:00.000-05:00I am opposed ot the ban on principle [govt. involv...I am opposed ot the ban on principle [govt. involvement] but in favor because I detest smoke. It doesn't matter--When I went to a diner it was smoking as always. Is the bill not going into effect for another year or is it not even law yet?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12206743.post-1137784990531634492006-01-20T14:23:00.000-05:002006-01-20T14:23:00.000-05:00By the way, Eric -- if you are who I think you may...By the way, Eric -- if you are who I think you may be, say hi to Tina and Michele.<BR/><BR/>If you're not, then, um, greet a Tina and a Michele of your choosing.<BR/><BR/>(My word verrification is the Law and Order scene-change sound effect! <I>Jjung!</I>)Rob S.https://www.blogger.com/profile/07331286524477806963noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12206743.post-1137773702531499012006-01-20T11:15:00.000-05:002006-01-20T11:15:00.000-05:00Welcome, Eric A. Thanks for signing your name.Ther...Welcome, Eric A. Thanks for signing your name.<BR/><BR/>There are several mentions of workers in this quagmire, I know it's hard to find. The sad part of this whole thing is the Casino exemption, where 40,000 workers don't get the protection that other employees in Our Fair State get. S1089 is the bill to try to close that hole- write your state senator today!Sharon GRhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07467317912222026022noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12206743.post-1137736495171117782006-01-20T00:54:00.000-05:002006-01-20T00:54:00.000-05:00Um, that should be "not wading," Eric. My bad.Um, that should be "not wading," Eric. My bad.Rob S.https://www.blogger.com/profile/07331286524477806963noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12206743.post-1137736131750065412006-01-20T00:48:00.000-05:002006-01-20T00:48:00.000-05:00Bored now.Bored now.Greg!https://www.blogger.com/profile/18212939468839687765noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12206743.post-1137735570673685862006-01-20T00:39:00.000-05:002006-01-20T00:39:00.000-05:00Actually, Eric, I've mentioned the workers a numbe...Actually, Eric, I've mentioned the workers a number of times, and others have as well. But I certainly can't blame you for wading through all these posts. And thanks for signing your name. It's good to know who's who.Rob S.https://www.blogger.com/profile/07331286524477806963noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12206743.post-1137735454596179592006-01-20T00:37:00.000-05:002006-01-20T00:37:00.000-05:00Get this straight:There’s another Rob in the threa...Get this straight:<BR/><BR/>There’s another Rob in the thread. While he is a friend of mine, and most likely has a similar opinion of you, HE IS NOT ME. Do not treat him with the same unpleasantness you spewed in my direction. He’s only posted a couple of times, and is not the one you’re so angry with.<BR/><BR/>He's the one who asked you why you're anonymous. I stopped asking a while ago. I know all I care to know about you.<BR/><BR/>Believe it or not, the smoking ban is not all about you and your beliefs. Our conversation has been a big distraction from the issue at hand.<BR/><BR/>Those clarifications made, I’m not going to take my toys and go home, as you so imaginatively put it. I’m going to continue to talk with my friends and grit my teeth while you call them stupid in their own blog, not yours. They don’t need my help to deal nuisances like you. And as you keep reminding us, they’re certainly within their rights to throw you out at any time.Rob S.https://www.blogger.com/profile/07331286524477806963noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12206743.post-1137729774835697532006-01-19T23:02:00.000-05:002006-01-19T23:02:00.000-05:00why the anonymity? as opposed to you, with your ni...why the anonymity? as opposed to you, with your nickname of "rob s" which is supposed to be what? completely revealing and open?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12206743.post-1137727397631816892006-01-19T22:23:00.000-05:002006-01-19T22:23:00.000-05:00Its funny that throughout this discussion no one s...Its funny that throughout this discussion no one seems to mention the folks that work in this hypothetical bar.<BR/><BR/>IIRC correctly a number of the original smoking bans were put in place because the bar workers - the people who would be most affected by secondhand smoke - were the issue.<BR/><BR/>The workers have no choice in the matter - either they inhale smoke or they quit their jobs which seems a bit unfair. <BR/><BR/>Eric A.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12206743.post-1137723459851005942006-01-19T21:17:00.000-05:002006-01-19T21:17:00.000-05:00I'd also like to commend Greg on his use of the Si...I'd also like to commend Greg on his use of the Simpsons to illustrate his point. Springfield has such a rich supply of characters and situations that their use in analogies is a stroke of genius. Bravo, Greg.Rob S.https://www.blogger.com/profile/07331286524477806963noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12206743.post-1137721496539548612006-01-19T20:44:00.000-05:002006-01-19T20:44:00.000-05:00Wow. I go away for a few days, and look what you'v...Wow. I go away for a few days, and look what you've done with the place.<BR/><BR/>I have to laud Greg!'s <A HREF="http://centernjlife.blogspot.com/2005/11/costly-indoor-smoking-ban.html#c113764985300386468" REL="nofollow">comment</A> from 12:50AM today. It best explains the difference between at-home private property rights and public-place-as-private-property rights. You open your doors up to the public, you have certain responsibilities. I couldn't have said it better than Greg!, and I won't try. <BR/><BR/>Listen, fans and friends, I think we've got to agree to disagree. All that can be said of substance has been said, and the name-calling has gotten out of hand. <BR/><BR/>For the record, opponents and foes, the smoking ban is law in Our Fair State. Gov. Codey <A HREF="http://www.nj.com/search/index.ssf?/base/news-2/1137390245116940.xml?starledger?nnj&coll=1" REL="nofollow">signed it</A> and it goes into effect April 15. The first legal challenge was easily <A HREF="http://www.nj.com/search/index.ssf?/base/news-2/1137217509186860.xml?starledger?nnj&coll=1" REL="nofollow"> shot down,</A> easily. And the bill to include casinos, who lobbied like crazy to be excluded, has already been <A HREF="http://www.nj.com/search/index.ssf?/base/news-2/113765011419090.xml?starledger?nnj&coll=1" REL="nofollow">introduced</A>; It's S-1089, for those of you inclined to write your state senators about it. <BR/><BR/>I want to thank everyone for the comic relief and the relavent discussion.Sharon GRhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07467317912222026022noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12206743.post-1137719396386418522006-01-19T20:09:00.000-05:002006-01-19T20:09:00.000-05:00It's relevant to me, as I am in favor of regulatio...It's relevant to me, as I am in favor of regulations that protect the health and safety of workers and patrons.<BR/><BR/>I ascribe to greg's opinion that the owner takes responsibility when they open their establishment (as greg described so well with his maggot infested cat meat example). Clearly there are a lot of people who share this view (as evidenced by the comments here and general support for emergency exits and maggot-free food).<BR/><BR/>However, there is debate as to whether second-hand smoke poses enough of a risk to workers and patrons to require a ban on indoor smoking (again, assuming one belives in health and safety regulations in the first place). I think those people would be interested in the information I linked to. It contains arguments from both sides that warrant consideration.Andrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09255481635057727250noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12206743.post-1137715206959997432006-01-19T19:00:00.000-05:002006-01-19T19:00:00.000-05:00Anonymous - Meet you halfway? No. But drop it as...Anonymous - <BR/><BR/>Meet you halfway? No. But drop it as an "agree to disagree" situation - probably. You're not converting anyone, so why bother to continue?<BR/><BR/>Pointless...<BR/><BR/>Oh - and why the anonymity?<BR/><BR/>--*RobRobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16022809874805899998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12206743.post-1137711828852409832006-01-19T18:03:00.000-05:002006-01-19T18:03:00.000-05:00Andrew,Thanks for the link. that's really interest...Andrew,<BR/><BR/>Thanks for the link. that's really interesting stuff.Rob S.https://www.blogger.com/profile/07331286524477806963noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12206743.post-1137711211842880442006-01-19T17:53:00.000-05:002006-01-19T17:53:00.000-05:00andrew said"It is clear from reading the page that...andrew said<BR/><BR/>"It is clear from reading the page that there is still a lot of debate about how harmful second-hand smoke is. "<BR/><BR/>that debate is irrelevant....<BR/><BR/>its only relavent if - you are ordered by law to be in a smoking environment (jury duty would be one example, out of many).... <BR/><BR/>this latest ban involved bars, restaurants, and other private owned indoor businesses...<BR/><BR/>the air quality would only be relevant if - you are forced to breath smoke or fumes, or toxins in the general atmosphere (out in the streets, the parks, out in public land) or public buildings, which we all have claim to make the rules on ...no one is claiming that factories should be able to pollute the open atmosphere, nor polute public or private air that is adjacent to said factory....<BR/><BR/>on private land, where air quality is confined to that room, or building, you have no obligation to be there....at any point you can weigh and measure in your mind, various details about a private property (air quality, atmosphere, appearance, quality of products produced there, cutomer service, what have you) , and decide whether or not you want to 1. stay 2. ever go there in the first place, or 3. never go back.... same with emplyment there....<BR/><BR/>do you not see the difference between the public owned sector, and the private owned sector, and the dynamics of how they works ?....<BR/><BR/>call me stubborn all you want...yea, im stubborn about government control over private property...i guess that makes me a maniac?.... but trusting government would make me what? brilliant?... <BR/><BR/>i wouldnt have to ask stupid questions like "who has forced you to go to a restaruant where they allow tobacco, and forced you to be there breathing second hand smoke?" if it wasnt for stupid people whos whole argument is based in a belief that that people are forced to smell second hand smoke....<BR/><BR/><BR/>kind of hard for you to answer that question what such a question would reveal your flawed position.. so i understand all of your reluctancy...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12206743.post-1137709398391998332006-01-19T17:23:00.000-05:002006-01-19T17:23:00.000-05:00thats the problem youre having...you want to break...thats the problem youre having...you want to break everything down to nuances, when this stuff should be tracable back to sound principles...<BR/><BR/>you probably think its great that government regulates in the name of "public safety" when the nuance is second hand smoke on private land...but let bush spy on you in the name of "public safety" on your priv property and youre outraged....<BR/><BR/>both should outrage you, because both are used for government expansion....thats how the machine works.... <BR/><BR/>these politcians get in there and it's "we can look out for public safety when it comes to smoke, so we certainly can do it when it comes to suspected terrorists on phone calls...its for our security!! our safety ! everyone has a right to safety!"<BR/><BR/>isnt that the same as this latest ban... "everyone has a right to clean air! to safety! if youre not an "evil" bar owners who likes smoke, you have nothing to fear! we are only taking property rights from bar owners !"<BR/><BR/>that last part sounds similar to the notion of "if youre not a terrorist why worry if our gov is spying on you!"<BR/><BR/><BR/>im sure youll be myopic AGAIN and only see "smoking" and "wire tapping phones", and NOT see the connection in PRINCIPLE between both instances of government intrustion in the name of "the public interest"...<BR/><BR/>shit, the soviet union was based on whats best for the "public interest"... and it manifested into gov tyrany<BR/><BR/>but you just dont see it...<BR/>and youre just pissed off because your arguments arent sound... like i have some obligation to meet you halfway in a debate? you want me to do what? concede to you? concede what? all your arguments are without sound basis....<BR/><BR/>so....<BR/>lets check the quitters tot' board.... <BR/><BR/>(drumroll)<BR/><BR/>and the total quits for rob so far is........................................<BR/><BR/>(ahh who my kiddin? youll be back threatening to "take your toys and go home again" because i wont agree with your ignorance..Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12206743.post-1137709104749848652006-01-19T17:18:00.000-05:002006-01-19T17:18:00.000-05:00Wow. That's all I keep saying when I read these co...Wow. That's all I keep saying when I read these comments. Wow.<BR/><BR/>Several people have mentioned the second-hand smoking debate. There is a <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second-hand_smoke" REL="nofollow">good Wiki page</A>, with a a nice synopsis and links to many studies. I can think of one anoymous commenter who will be all over the first paragraph about Hitler's anti-tobacco league. I sure this will be held up as proof that the indoor smoking ban will lead us directly to facism.<BR/><BR/>It is clear from reading the page that there is still a lot of debate about how harmful second-hand smoke is. The EPA and WHO both concluded that regular exposure is a health risk.<BR/><BR/>One thing I found interesting is that Ireland has an indoor smoking ban. There's a joke there somewhere about how much time the Irish spend in bars, but I'm not makin' it!<BR/><BR/>Also interesting were studies that found an increased cancer risk in pets of smokers. One of our cats came to us after living close to ten years with a smoker. It died of lung cancer. (Anectdotal, of course, but that's why the studies caught my eye.)Andrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09255481635057727250noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12206743.post-1137697880323285252006-01-19T14:11:00.000-05:002006-01-19T14:11:00.000-05:00[sigh]Okay, Sunshine, I give up. There's no point ...[sigh]<BR/><BR/>Okay, Sunshine, I give up. There's no point in my trying to apply any sort of logical reasoning here. As far as I can tell, rational thought is not in any significant way involved in your views. I can come to no other conclusion. Someone attempts to make a point, to draw some distinction or explore a nuance of reasoning, and you respond by trotting out exactly the same things you said before. You're not actually using them to refute or even really address any of the points someone else might have made. You're just repeating them.<BR/><BR/>Oddly, following your posts here reminds me of the frustrating experience of listening to the evasive mechanical repetitions of White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan.<BR/><BR/>Scary, huh?Greg!https://www.blogger.com/profile/18212939468839687765noreply@blogger.com