January 12, 2006


Filed under: Uncategorized — Jim @ 8:52 pm

Cigarette Pack.jpgAnother giant step has been taken towards the Californication of New Jersey. In a matter of days, Acting, and soon to be Former Governor Codey will sign this piece of Nanny-State Legislative Crap into law. Yes, it’s New Jersey’s very own Anti-Smoking Law.

The new law bans smoking in virtually all indoor places with public access or in which people are working. It includes restaurants, bars, and even private clubs that serve liquor (including fraternal organizations and veterans’ Posts**). It comes on the heels of a similar law that passed in New York City in 2003.

I said my piece about the New York City Legislation here, and there is no point in repeating it, except to point out that, as was the case for the New York law, the ultimate hook on which the Jersey law hangs is a stated “concern for the workers” who are exposed to secondhand smoke.

Assuming for the sake of discussion that secondhand smoke poses a significant health hazard (and, once the hysteria is stripped away, this is far from clear), and further assuming that exposure to secondhand smoke is any more dangerous than working in a bus garage, the stated health concern was bogus in New York and even more so in New Jersey.

Both the New York and New Jersey laws have an exemption for Cigar Bars. Where’s the concern for the health of the people who work in Cigar Bars? Don’t bother looking; it’s not there. However, New Jersey goes one better in proving the “concern for workers” rationale to be pure baloney, in that the New Jersey law contains an exemption for casinos. I can tell you that there are legions of people who work in Jersey’s casinos. What about their health? Ooopsy!

Here’s the deal. As for the cigar bars, as I noted in the post linked above, the beautiful people who want to dictate how everyone else should live enjoy a cigar with their cocktails. And, as for the casino exemption, I needn’t remind anyone that, in this state, one does not fool around with casinos and casino revenue. Know what I mean? In addition, I suspect that the aforementioned beautiful people also like to smoke while they gamble.

Look, I can fully understand and appreciate why many non-smokers prefer to eat and drink in a smoke-free setting.. In fact, the majority of good restaurants in New Jersey are already smoke free (I heard the figure 67% in a radio newscast), but they are smoke-free because the owner determined that being smoke-free is good business. Why should a business owner who decides that, for him, permitting smoking on the premises is good business be prohibited from making that choice? The economics would sort all this out, without the “help” of government dictating matters of personal choice.

Instead of the sledgehammer approach taken by New Jersey, I would propose a simple law that would require every restaurant and bar to conspicuously post one of following three signs at the front door:

This is a smoke-free establishment; or
This establishment offers a smoking section; or
Smoking is permitted in this establishment.

Simple. Everyone would be free to choose where to eat and/or drink, based on his or her smoking or non-smoking preference or (as is the case with many people) his or her indifference to it all. And, the owners’ choice of which sign to post would be dictated by the dollars or lack thereof that would be a consequence of those collective choices.

**There may be some wiggle room in the statute for private clubs when used by members and staffed entirely by volunteer members, but that remains to be seen.


  1. I’ve heard that Legion Halls, etc., that aren’t open to the general public and don’t pay the bartenders (i.e., are staffed by volunteer members as you said) are exempt. True? I hope so, although my usual haunts fall outside that description.

    Comment by Shamrock — January 12, 2006 @ 9:47 pm

  2. I’m just waiting for Illinois to do the same thing. It’s comin…I know it. It incenses me.

    Comment by Pammy — January 12, 2006 @ 10:55 pm

  3. That’s a sad defamation of a damn good song.

    Comment by caltechgirl — January 12, 2006 @ 11:41 pm

  4. “Simple. Everyone would be free to choose”

    That is the whole point, choice is anathema to a Transnational Progressive here after to be called Transnazi,

    Keep in mind a Conservative Government “may” be Totalitarian, but a Socialist Government MUST be so.

    Comment by Dan Kauffman — January 13, 2006 @ 3:12 am

  5. It’s already a State Law in FL. I think its been a couple years, definitely before NY. Here it deals with food. Any spot that doesn’t serve food or serves some insignificant amount, it does not apply. If a Cigar Bar serves food… then it applies. No exemption for them. Being Florida, we just have outside seating. All establishments are doing what they can to provide it. You can smoke at outside seating. You can’t do that in the Great White North. The only problem with that is if you’re a Non-Smoker, and want to sit outside, you have to sit in the smoking section. So everyone kind of appears to get screwed in this deal, but its how they’ve tried to work with it.

    I’m not saying its right or wrong, this is just what it is here.

    Comment by Bou — January 13, 2006 @ 7:08 am

  6. As long as the idiots in this state keep electing Dhimmocrats to office, this is the result. **sigh**

    Comment by Jerry K — January 13, 2006 @ 9:03 am

  7. Study after study shows that people don’t like smoke wafting over toward them in restaurants when they’re trying to enjoy their deep-fried onions shaped like flowers the size of 5-gallon paint buckets.

    Comment by dogette — January 13, 2006 @ 9:27 am

  8. Jim! Don’t you see that your government CARES about you? Left alone to make your own decisions, you might fuck up. Some people just can’t handle freedom, and that’s where government steps in. It’s for your own good.

    Saving you from yourself is government’s JOB, for crying out loud.

    Comment by Acidman — January 13, 2006 @ 3:02 pm

  9. They just banned smoking in coastal Georgia, you can still smoke anywhere in South Carolina. Marlboro’s are 26.00 a carton here.

    Comment by Catfish — January 13, 2006 @ 3:17 pm

  10. jimbo…..rollllllllllll.. another one, just like the other one and i sure would like a hit.

    Comment by chef of da future — January 13, 2006 @ 6:41 pm

  11. . “Marlboro’s are 26.00 a carton here.”

    And on Nevsky Prospekt the main tourist drag of St Petersburg Russia you can buy a cartoon of Marlboro Reds for about $7.50 a carton or 75cents a pack.

    Guess who is making all the money on high tobacco prices?

    Comment by Dan Kauffman — January 13, 2006 @ 8:40 pm

  12. I was perusin’ FARK the other day, and ran acrossed a link to a news story where a couple of morning DJ’s organized a protest outside of the capital, I believe, with several strippers who were pissed because they said that’d kill their business. I don’t recall reading where anybody got nekkid to protest, but they did draw a fair amount of attention I gather.

    Comment by RedNeck — January 14, 2006 @ 7:33 am

  13. The Daily Doormatt covered the Strippers’ Demonstration.

    Comment by Jim - Parkway Rest Stop — January 15, 2006 @ 10:59 am

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Leave a comment

Powered by WordPress