Smoking Ban in New Jersey
 

The New Jersey Assembly just passed the smoking ban in all bars and restaurants, exempting only cigar bars and casinos. The Governor is expected to sign the bill into legislation that will probably take effect in 90 days.

Is this a good or a bad thing? Did it really affect business in New York? How will it affect your travel plans?

P.S. Yes, it's a slow morning. :-) ((b))

The smoking ban has a somewhat weird effect on bar behavior, I've noticed here in Florida. It used to be that the smokers stayed at the bar and the fresh air junkies would go outside occasionally (or leave altogether). Now it's the opposite. Bar crowds have reversed, with the smokers either staying away altogether or drinking and rushing outside between food courses (how annoying is that?) for a quick smoke.

Also, restaurants with patio seating have become a magnet for smokers. They often stink so much that non-smokers decline to sit outside. Flip flop for sure!

Fail to understand why the states that do this always want to exempt the casinos....same thing going on around here as well...big push to ban smoking in all bars but let the casinos have free smoking. Seems idiotic to me. The places with the most smoke, stink, nasty air are casinos. They should be the FIRST place to be impacted by a ban. I realize that the states are just trying to protect a big revenue source but why should they be treated differently from the local mom and pop bar and grill? I really think that each establishment should make their own rules about smoking and let the market decide.

I have to agree with the posts above by Joan and Curt.

Here in NY the smoking ban has been disasterous for me.

No, I'm not a smoker, but now most bars are smoke-free enough (there's still some "cheating" going on) that I'm often going into the bar after a dinner for a drink or two!

And now, seriously -- sales tax reports/receipts from restaurants and bars are UP in NY state. Yes, there have been some "casualties" of businesses going under ... I have some, but not much, sympathy for them. What food service operator can't see the writing on the wall? With 70%+ of the population NOT smoking, would you pursue your market from the 30%- or the 70%+ share?

These bans are a result of operators not doing enough to segregate smoking from non-smoking. Some so an admirable job, many do a pzpoor job, almost holding those who want non-smoking (of which many ARE smokers) in disdain. So all food service operators end up paying for the sins of the few. I think smokers should be able to enjoy a meal too.

My travel plans are unchanged. If a restaurant anywhere does not care about my comfort enough to provide a (relatively) smoke-free area, then they obviously don't care if I spend money there or elsewhere.

In Massachusetts, a few years ago, restaurateurs were SO sure that the new smoking ban would doom them, since smokers would avoid their places. Guess what -- smokers managed to find other places to smoke, and business actually went UP because of all the nonsmokers who had apparently been avoiding smoky venues! So letting the owners set policies would have backfired on them.

Having a smoking section in a restaurant is like having a peeing section in a pool.

We've had a ban on smoking in bars and restaurants in California for quite awhile now. Like other places, people predicted doom and gloom for restaurants, bars, and tourism in general. That didn't happen.

The reason the casinos are exempt are simple.

Over 30% of all gamblers smoke. Ban smoking and the gamblers will avoid your casino.

The casinos that tried to go smoke free went out of business.

Casinos generate mucho moola for the state.

The casino exemption is only for their floor areas, not bars and restaurants. Although I am not a smoker and don't particularly like to breath someone else's smoke, I am against the smoking bans. We have become a nation of government control. If I want to drive without my seat belt, ride a cycle without a helmet, smoke in a smoking section of a restaurant then it is my business. Can you believe that I was pulled over in Central Park in Manhattan and received a ticket for not wearing my seatbelt? IMHO That was a total waste of police time.

I can't believe there are still people out there that don't wear their seatbelt!

The point is NOT if we should wear seatbelts or not. Of course we should! The point is how much control should the government have. I just happen to believe in less government control.

Concerning smoking/sealt belts and "Government control"...isn't it much more about Insurance companies and the costs?
If no one wears a seat belt and they all have injuries in a fender bender, insurance companies deal with personal injury, personal injury lawyers get involved and you know what that means!
If someone smokes for 50 years then gets lung cancer, they sue Phillip Morris for their problems. Lawyers, money comes into the mix.

Of course, there is so much more involved but I think it is much more about the money involved than "government control"..

Personally, I enjoy a smokeless environment no matter where I go. While we lived in NY, I never noticed a drop in business in any of the places we went, because they could no longer smoke inside.
I think it can only be a good thing in the long run.

I think the biggest "casualty" of the smoking ban has been the increased amount of sidewalk traffic outside popular bars. This has impacted the residents of the neighborhoods with a high density of bars (East and West Village, Chelsea, etc.) because of the added noise from packs of tipsy smokers and discarded cigarette butts. There has been a lot of press lately about residents in these neighborhoods standing up to the state liquor board and protesting additional liquor licenses for new bars wanting to open in these neighborhoods.

I am personally a social smoker, and I've found that the ban has encouraged me to smoke less. In the winter it gets too cold to go outside for frequent smoke breaks. In the warmer months, you have to find a smoking buddy to come outside! It's also kind of nice to not come home at night reeking like an ash tray. When I go to other states where smoking is allowed in bars and restaurants, I'm surprised by how much I dislike smelling it while I eat.

SusieQQ, while I respect your opinion, not wearing a seatbelt can have serious consiquences to someone who has nothing to do with your decision.

What if you and I had a wreck and you were not wearing your seatbelt and did not survive an otherwise survivable crash?

I would have to live with your death for the rest of my life. My insurance would also bear the brunt of your decision.

When this happened in New York all the smokers claimed they would stop going out and resturant business would be down. In fact, the opposite happened - and restaurant/bar business is up overall - probably because they're now more pleasant places to be.

So - it's helping increase profits - as well as benefiting the health of other patrons and staff.

It's great that another state is joining the 21st century.

I have just one word about the smoking ban in NJ..... YAY!

Great news!

The old idea that smoking is a personal choice is obviously being debunked. It is a personal choice- only if all smokers live in a bubble and pay out of pocket for their healthcare.

Otherwise, smoke affects non-smokers, both from a health standpoint, as well as a financial standpoint. Smokers have more health problems, which leads to health care costs going up, which leads to higher Medicaid/Medicare/Insurance costs.

True about smoking and healthcare costs, but obsesity is a FAR bigger problem.

Obesity is a much bigger problem, which is why many insurers cover gastro-bypass surgery.

Mah1980 hit the nail on the head. It is not about the smokers it is about the non-smokers. In essence when someone smokes they force everyone in there general vicinity to breath their smoke as well. I don't care if someone chooses to smoke until there lungs fall out, that is their choice but when someone smokes indoors it effects everyone else in the building. Overeating on the other hand only affects the person doing the eating. Smoking laws are not for the smokers but the non-smokers! In Florida it has been determined that the smoking ban has not caused restaurant business to decline.

I was responding to the comment that smoking costs us all in health insurance costs. As does obesity.

Is it my imagination or are there a lot more benches on the sidewalk in New York than there used to be? This makes walking around, at least in the daytime, more pleasant. If this is a result of the smoking ban, it's one I had not anticipated.

You're absolutely right, Kath. I for one think that obesity should be banned in NJ too.

Anybody?

Leona, How great! Let's put guards up at the tunnels and bridges and turn back the obese. And shut down all those fast food places.I don't want to have higher insurance costs brought on by all those medical bills that have to be financed for obese related illnesses. Also, let's ban alcohol while we're at it.

And low rider jeans.

"Overeating on the other hand only affects the person doing the eating."

Obviously you've never sat next to an obese passenger on an airline flight. :-o

The smoking ban is simple. While YOU have a right to smoke since cigarettes are legal in this country, you DO NOT have the right to endanger my health. Obesity is a major problem, yes, but an obese person in a bar does not endanger my health. I will not get lung cancer from standing next to them.

Smokers do realize that second hand smoke is dangerous, do they not? On a related note, I live in MA so I'm fortunate not to have to deal with smoking at bars and restaurants. I just got back from a week long sales meeting in VA where there is no smoking ban. We were at the resort/conference center the entire time and there was lots of smoking. I can definitely feel the effects. So good for NJ!

How about for a moment we forget that smoking and second-hand smoke kills tens of thousands of Americans every year and costs non-smokers billions of dollars?

Oh, perhaps we shouldn't forget those facts.

Smokers are "inconvenienced" by bans? WHO CARES??


(And P.S., bar business in New York City has never been better, and NYC had more tourists in 2005, 41 million, than any other year in history.)

I would hope that all smokers would earn huge wages, pay lots of taxes and die suddenly and painlessly at 61 11/12 years for the benefit of all nonsmokers.
M

Mike, dude, you do NOT mean that I know.

Smoking is a drug addiction. I know this first hand.

mikemo,
That was a horrible comment.

GT, smoking is an addiction that can be cured if the smoker wants to quit. In the meantime, please do not inflict it on the rest of us.

Or as I tell people who annoy me with their smoke, "Why should I accept your second-hand smoke when I gave up my own?" It is very difficult but anyone who truly wants to quit can.

A smoking ban doesn't require the pathetic, whining addicts/travelers/residents to quit smoking, only to quit poisoning the people around them indoors.

Too much to ask??

While society (thru insurance premiums) pays for poor judgment in many arenas, the obese do not cause potential deadly illness to those who come in contact w/them as smokers do w/their second hand smoke. At least the obese do not force feed people at nearby tables!! :)

Confront reality: read the great info in the NYT's online this week re: Type 2 Diabetes.
Smokers and diabetics life spans are limited - natural selection in the 21 st Century, lol.
M

HI mikemo--actually it is not exactly natural selection, as I understand the term. Natural selection is done w/you, so to speak, once you reproduce and the consequences of these disorders happen post-childbearing years....

Claro, that's why I added the "lol".
M (MD, NBME, ABIM, ABNM, ABR)
PS: Seen "it all" in my 40 years in medicine

WA voters just passed the smoking ban recently. One of the local bars is apprently going to do whatever it is they need to do to become a private "club" The owners are taking "applications" from customers,along with a $1 "lifetime fee". They also had to make all six employees owners-giving them all a 1% stake. I thought this was a really interesting way to go ,but it's legality is already being questioned.

The day the ban was in place, another bar measured off the 25 ft radius from the door-and ended up pitching a "smoking tent" complete w/traffic cones right in the middle of a busy street! That was shut down in about 10 minutes by the police.
I have no idea where alot of the bar goers smoke now. I guess in their cars?

The days of hanging at a bar are long behind me, but I always hated stinking like smoke when I left. Since I just moved here from Jersey recently, I'll have to ask friends where everybody from the "Southside Grill" smokes now. I see a long line of bar patrons down Main Street.

I personally found the "peeing in the pool section" by anonymous extremely funny!

The New Jersey ban also includes private clubs (Elks, Moose, Knights, private golf courses, etc.) They would have to turn the bar into a "cigar bar" then wouldn't have to pay for membership as cigar bars are exempt. ((b))

Leona, I no longer smoke and haven't smoked for some time.

I agree about anonymous and how funny that was. He/she is one of my fellow citizens of MA. As a transplant, lo these many years, but a transplant nonetheless, I have to say that people here are just funnier than other places. I don't mean to insult anyone else, but it is something that DH and I have consistently noticed over the years....Also borne out by the prominence of 2 MA funny guys on national TV--Conan and Jay Leno... :)

Author: Kath said on
Date: 01/10/2006, 04:11 pm
And low rider jeans (should be banned)

I agree and also those tattoos just above the butt crack that sticks out of the jeans!!!!