Smoke Free NJ

[Rich Pawlak]

I maintain that we need to learn from the lessons and examples of Los Angeles and NYC. Retsaurant patrons adjust and bar patrons choose their vice. When it comes down to it, people will opt for dining and drinking over smoking.

[Daniel]

If will still mantain.. If someone can show me a study that shows the health of Restaurant Workers has improved, I would be happen to give another freedom up.. But not before... A study that tells me there is less smoke in the air when people arent smoking, is not going to do it..

Edited January 6, 2006 by Daniel (log)

[tommy]

where was everyone when they said you're not allowed to smoke in theaters? and all of the other places you can't smoke (which includes every place in the state other than bars and your home. and outside, most places, but not all)?

Edited January 6, 2006 by tommy (log)

[jwjojo]

I think the scientific community goes with the locigal assumption that if you take away a toxic substance, the person exposed to the toxic substance will fare better. No study needed. The question of whether it is toxic or not is at issue..not if withdrawn will one do better. Once something is proved to be toxic, it would be unethical to continue to expose humans to the substance in the name of science. Daniel....science wins on this one. In the same vain, if society knows of a toxic substance, it would be unethical to continue to expose humans to the substance. But of course you will come to your own conclusions. Good luck with that.

[tommy]

When it comes down to it, people will opt for dining and drinking over smoking.

←

of course people will eat and drink instead of smoking. that's not the issue. the question that people are raising is: will it negatively impact businesses.

these discussions always include so much noise that they tend to deteriorate very quickly. i give this thread another 12 hours or so.

[menton1]

Eureka!! NY Times, Feb 2005.

In Barrooms, Smoking Ban Is Less Reviled

But a review of city statistics, as well as interviews last week with dozens of bar patrons, workers and owners, found that the ban has not had the crushing effect on New York's economic, cultural and political landscapes predicted by many of its opponents.

Employment in restaurants and bars, one indicator of the city's service economy, has risen slightly since the ban went into effect, as has the number of restaurant permits requested and held, according to city records, although those increases could be attributed in part to several factors, including a general improvement in the city's economy.

...

There are still those cursing the ban as an affront to their civil liberties, and some bar and restaurant owners say that it has undoubtedly caused a decline in business. City officials say they doubt that contention, pointing to data from the first year of the ban showing that restaurant and bar tax receipts were up 8.7 percent over the previous year's. They said they were still waiting for more detailed and current data from the state.

But a vast majority of bar and restaurant patrons interviewed last week, including self-described hard-core smokers, said they were surprised to find themselves pleased with cleaner air, cheaper dry-cleaning bills and a new social order created by the ban.

Add to this the increase in liquor license applications, and the evidence is stacking up...

[Kim WB]

Daniel, I worked for Senator lautenberg when he sponsored one of the first proposed smoking bans,in airplanes. I know that 5 years after than ban went into effect, there were studies done which clearly illustrated the improvement in respitory capacity of stewardesses...I am not a google searcher, but I'm sure you can find it. This would be applicable to your current arguement. I supect that since the NY banis justa year old, there has not been the time to complete a viable comprehensive study.

And regarding lobbyists, in my opinion, the tobacco and restaurant organizations have dumped millions into this legislation..but this is a time when, I think, public sentiment will prevail over lobbyists efforts. I agree that the Casino exception was a complex issue of unions, SJersey politics and big bucks lobbying.

[Lreda]

You all know I couldn't keep quiet for long. Without a doubt this will cause me loss of revenue. 11 years ago when I opened I made my dining room non-smoking and allowed smoking in the bar with 4 booths for smokers allowed. I've spent $2500. on ventilation in the bar to make sure smoke didn't drift into the dining room. This will cost me revenue from the cigar mokers and cigarette smokers that will frequent less and when there stay shorter instead of going outside. The regulars who will be undetered and smoke outside will stay longer as they have to go outside which will now cause me to pay more overtime to bartenders. This without a doubt is a lose, lose situation for me.

[hitmanoo]

Guys, I would appreciate it if we all maintain a tone of civility here and be respectful of others opinions, while allowing each other to agree to disagree and not making ad hominem attacks on people ("whiners", etc). I've already removed posts that don't add any significant new thoughts to the discussion and are simply incindiary or have political content. If we can't manage to be respectful and civil, I'm going to be closing this topic.

Shall we try this again?

←

This entire argument over the harm done by cigarettes is irrelevent, so long as our government continues to keep cigarettes legal.

It is the government's responsibility to protect people from toxins it knows to be harmful. It is not the responsibility of restaurants or businesses at large.

Our government continues to peck away at the problem rather than focus on or solve the true problem. If you want to take down a tree, you have to take out the roots. Sheering a few brances doesn't cut it.

[Cook456]

I wish I could remember where I read the article, but I read it just last week .

It stated that being in a smoked filled room for 7 hours affects that person as though they had smoked 4 cigarettes.

I, for one, would be perfectly happy if it's banned. At least I can breathe easier.

[richl2214]

While we're at it why have they not decided to ban alcohol in bars. That is the REAL killer. Or grease? If you havene't been to an eating establishemnt lately you be hard-pressed to not find a man or woman who looks like their heart is going to explode if they ingest one more jalapeno popper.

I have no problem with banning smoking in an eating establishment. However, your average gin mill on the corner who's idea of food is the warm Nut-Hut machine or a fingerprint-covered plastic jar full of beef jerky should be left well enough alone. Cigarettes and cigars ARE food in these types of places!

[tommy]

While we're at it why have they not decided to ban alcohol in bars.  That is the REAL killer.  Or grease?  If you havene't been to an eating establishemnt lately you be hard-pressed to not find a man or woman who looks like their heart is going to explode if they ingest one more jalapeno popper.

←

a person's exploding heart will most likely not hurt waitstaff or customers in the process. you're comparing apples to oranges. as far as making a case for drinking killing others, it's important to note that drunk driving is, indeed, against the law. i don't know why this distinction isn't crystal clear to those involved in the debate.

[richl2214]

While we're at it why have they not decided to ban alcohol in bars.  That is the REAL killer.  Or grease?  If you havene't been to an eating establishemnt lately you be hard-pressed to not find a man or woman who looks like their heart is going to explode if they ingest one more jalapeno popper.

←

a person's exploding heart will most likely not hurt waitstaff or customers in the process. you're comparing apples to oranges. as far as making a case for drinking killing others, it's important to note that drunk driving is, indeed, against the law. i don't know why this distinction isn't crystal clear to those involved in the debate.

←

Point taken, but my arguement was more along the lines of government intrusion on what's "best for us" since we are not smart enough to "know better." Again, my problem with the law is that it doesn't allow alcohol only establishments to dictate whether they are smoking or completely non-smoking.

Obesity is a severe burden on this country and although the exploding heart doesn't directly affect me it strains the medical care system tremendously. However, so does alcohol and tobacco.

[Anonymouze]

Obesity is a severe burden on this country and although the exploding heart doesn't directly affect me it strains the medical care system tremendously. However, so does alcohol and tobacco.

- for rich and cook and others like him...

As the walking working talking "Super-morbidly" obese (at least I think I'm alive, though sometimes I do wonder why or if this is just a strange kafka-rian dream) let me state so do cancer patients, bulemics, anorexics, drug users and everyone sooner or later, "strain the medical care system"...

BUT that is NOT the point, the point is smoking does affect other people dining/working or just in a room directly, at that moment, be it infants or senior citizens it has no discretionary powers who's lung to enter or not.

AND also sad news for 75% of you folks who live in the U.S.

Obesity is also defined as a BMI (body mass index) over 30 kg. Patients with a BMI between 25 and 29.9 are considered overweight, but not obese.

More than half of the U.S. population is overweight. (this is an old statistic it has risen since...) But being obese is different from being overweight. An adult male is considered obese when his weight is 20% or more over the maximum desirable for their height; a woman is considered obese at 25% or more than this maximum weight. Anyone more than 100 pounds overweight is considered morbidly obese. So if you are a woman and you are the average height 5'5" and over 150 you are overweight (180+ to be obese)! (most folks I KNOW are either one or the other!) and if you're a man and you're 6' 0" and over 180 you are overweight (215+ to be obese)!

So who is to say who is REALLY a strain on the health system.

It all comes down to common courtesy and common sense. SIMPLE.

[Taboni]

It all comes down to common courtesy and common sense. SIMPLE. 

Or if you (the restauranteur) have enough money to buy off the politicians like the casinos have.

Edited January 7, 2006 by Taboni (log)

[fiftydollars]

As a tobacco smoking enthusiast, I oppose any and all attempts to curtail the practice. I wish I could turn back the hands of tobacco time to the days--oh so many pack-years ago--when smoking was allowed everywhere; not just in restaurants, bars and the like, but also in hospitals, classrooms, and all domestic and international flights.

I can concede, particularly after any visit to Nevada, that perhaps not all people can appreciate the wonder that is tobacco. But, tobacco is quite simply delicious. Nowhere else but in this noble leaf can one find such flavors and aromas. Likewise, tobacco smoking yields sensatory pleasures unattainable by any other means.

Smoking is great.

Try it!

I think you'll like it...

[jwjojo]

This thread has stopped making sense a page ago.

[Jason Perlow]

So which begs the question, does that mean you won't be able to smoke cigars at the bar at JR tobacco outlet anymore on RT 10 in Whippany? Or will they have some sort of special dispensation by virtue of being a cigar shop, like the place in the Arthur Avenue Retail Market?

[pete ganz]

I understand protecting employees from second hand smoke, and completely agree with it. But what about the situation I mentioned upthread, where a single owner is also the only bartender. Shouldn't he be permitted to allow smoking if he so chooses? I'm sure this would only apply to relatively small number of bars.

[Anonymouze]

I stopped smoking cold turkey in 1980, so can you 25 years later! I'd be glad to help you. However we need to have this bill passed it will help anyone who is a victim of second hand smoke. Here is a link that may help you learn more from the American Cancer Org. My step-father died of complications of cancer, my younger sister had cancer in the 80's, my grandmother had cancer and I strongly believe these cancers came from smoking or being exposed to second hand smoke in all cases. Let's hope this bill passes, I agree write your representatives, email them or call them!

http://www.cancer.org/docroot/NWS/content/..._to_Smoking.asp

[steakas]

I can see a ban doing both bad and good. Me being a smoker don't like smokers around me when I dine. I never smoke at a dinner table; I just think it's poor manners. However, when I do go to a bar (e.g., waiting for a table) I do like a smoke while sipping a drink. If a ban does happen I will have no desire to sit at a bar again. Maybe when I do quit one day I'll feel differently.

I feel a ban will hurt the bar scene. People will walk outside to get their nicotine fix, but if a night-out consists of 4 hours, while spending 1 hour outside, that's three hours of drinking. So, it will hurt bar owners. Me... I haven't hung out at a bar in NYC since the ban, simply for the reason I cannot drink, smoke, sit and relax at the same time. It's simply not enjoyable for me.

The good thing: people will smoke less. I suppose the ban is helping me to be a healthier person.

[ahr]

Smoke Free NJ

On Monday, January 9th, the NJ Assembly will vote on an important piece of legislation to make workplaces and public places smoke-free, including restaurants and bars. The only workplace exemption is casino floors.

Interested supporters should call:

NJ Assembly Speaker Albio Sires (201)854-0900

NJ Assembly Majority Leader Joseph Roberts

                                                (856)742-7600

Supporters of the ban can also go to:

    www.smokefree.net/nj

Any message they write will be forwarded to their legislator.

If you want a smoke free environment in NJ restaurants then let your opinion count.

←

Above is the post at the head of this thread (emphases mine).

The pros and cons of the specific legislation aside, is eGullet supposed to be a forum for political advocacy, even that of its managers?

[Jason Perlow]

At this point, I think that all points pro and con for the law have been made, and there isn't that much more to talk about, so we're going to be locking the thread. Thanks.

[rozrapp]

The Assembly voted in favor of the ban this afternoon 64-12. Cody will sign it into law before leaving office next week.

http://www.nj.com/newslogs/starledger/inde..._01.html#104083

[richl2214]

This was only a matter of time and I am suprised that NJ lagged so far behind in doing this. I wholeheartedly agree with banning smoking in eating establishments. It's just common courtesy. It's however unfortunate that they are including the "Gin Mills" that don't serve food and cater to cigarette and cigar smokers. After the ban is in effect I definitely wont be going to those places anymore. Hope they can stay afloat but I doubt all will be able to. Hopefully some of these alcohol only bars will find a work-around.