hm....
what if the pool hall does not have employees and is only run by "owners"
Secaucus Fats said:
what if the pool hall does not have employees and is only run by "owners"
no smoking as of 4-15... ways to get around?
- Thread starter wannaplaySOME?
- Start date
Just my wee opinion...
In Scotland, where 'The Ban' was only introduced a couple of weeks ago, every public place must comply. This includes restaurants, casinos, bus & train stations, airports, bars, hotels in fact, everywhere that people are employed.
Ironically, the only exemptions are prisons (where you might end up if you don't pay a 'smoking fine') and 'the smoking room' in Scottish Parliament.
I've always been sympathetic to non-smokers (I smoke) and would respect anyone who requested that I don't smoke near them. But... when I started smoking 15 years ago, there were billboards, magazine & newspaper adverts, cigarette sponsered sporting events etc, etc all promoting cigarette brands AND smoking.
My point is: I didn't vote for the ban. I thought that I lived in a democracy. I voted for a government which never mentioned that a public smoking ban was part of their policy. So what's next? Who knows...
Anyway, until a director of Philip Morris is 'voted' into power in Edinburgh, I'll smoke outside the poolroom in the wind/rain/snow/cold - typical Glasgow weather - so that the rest of you can live that wee bit longer.
Have a heart, and just a little sympathy. We're not bad people just coz we smoke!
x
BS
In Scotland, where 'The Ban' was only introduced a couple of weeks ago, every public place must comply. This includes restaurants, casinos, bus & train stations, airports, bars, hotels in fact, everywhere that people are employed.
Ironically, the only exemptions are prisons (where you might end up if you don't pay a 'smoking fine') and 'the smoking room' in Scottish Parliament.
I've always been sympathetic to non-smokers (I smoke) and would respect anyone who requested that I don't smoke near them. But... when I started smoking 15 years ago, there were billboards, magazine & newspaper adverts, cigarette sponsered sporting events etc, etc all promoting cigarette brands AND smoking.
My point is: I didn't vote for the ban. I thought that I lived in a democracy. I voted for a government which never mentioned that a public smoking ban was part of their policy. So what's next? Who knows...
Anyway, until a director of Philip Morris is 'voted' into power in Edinburgh, I'll smoke outside the poolroom in the wind/rain/snow/cold - typical Glasgow weather - so that the rest of you can live that wee bit longer.
Have a heart, and just a little sympathy. We're not bad people just coz we smoke!
x
BS
Here is the law. I think it is a moot point because it looks like it includes private clubs. It is not a hard read it should make sense to you.wannaplaySOME? said:
CHAPTER 383
AN ACT concerning smoking in indoor public places and workplaces and revising parts of
statutory law.
BE IT ENACTED by the Senate and General Assembly of the State of New Jersey:
C.26:3D-55 Short title.
1. This act shall be known and may be cited as the "New Jersey Smoke-Free Air Act."
C.26:3D-56 Findings, declarations relative to smoking in indoor public places, workplaces.
2. The Legislature finds and declares that: tobacco is the leading cause of preventable
disease and death in the State and the nation, and tobacco smoke constitutes a substantial health
hazard to the nonsmoking majority of the public; the separation of smoking and nonsmoking
areas in indoor public places and workplaces does not eliminate the hazard to nonsmokers if
these areas share a common ventilation system; and, therefore, subject to certain specified
exceptions, it is clearly in the public interest to prohibit smoking in all enclosed indoor places
of public access and workplaces.
C.26:3D-57 Definitions relative to smoking in indoor public places, workplaces.
3. As used in this act:
"Bar" means a business establishment or any portion of a nonprofit entity, which is devoted
to the selling and serving of alcoholic beverages for consumption by the public, guests, patrons
or members on the premises and in which the serving of food, if served at all, is only incidental
to the sale or consumption of such beverages.
"Cigar bar" means any bar, or area within a bar, designated specifically for the smoking of
tobacco products, purchased on the premises or elsewhere; except that a cigar bar that is in an
area within a bar shall be an area enclosed by solid walls or windows, a ceiling and a solid door
and equipped with a ventilation system which is separately exhausted from the nonsmoking areas
of the bar so that air from the smoking area is not recirculated to the nonsmoking areas and
smoke is not backstreamed into the nonsmoking areas.
"Cigar lounge" means any establishment, or area within an establishment, designated
specifically for the smoking of tobacco products, purchased on the premises or elsewhere; except
that a cigar lounge that is in an area within an establishment shall be an area enclosed by solid
walls or windows, a ceiling and a solid door and equipped with a ventilation system which is
separately exhausted from the nonsmoking areas of the establishment so that air from the
smoking area is not recirculated to the nonsmoking areas and smoke is not backstreamed into
the nonsmoking areas.
"Indoor public place" means a structurally enclosed place of business, commerce or other
service-related activity, whether publicly or privately owned or operated on a for-profit or
nonprofit basis, which is generally accessible to the public, including, but not limited to: a
commercial or other office building; office or building owned, leased or rented by the State or
by a county or municipal government; public and nonpublic elementary or secondary school
building; board of education building; theater or concert hall; public library; museum or art
gallery; bar; restaurant or other establishment where the principal business is the sale of food for
consumption on the premises, including the bar area of the establishment; garage or parking
facility; any public conveyance operated on land or water, or in the air, and passenger waiting
rooms and platform areas in any stations or terminals thereof; health care facility licensed
pursuant to P.L.1971, c.136 (C.26:2H-1 et seq.); patient waiting room of the office of a health
care provider licensed pursuant to Title 45 of the Revised Statutes; child care center licensed
pursuant to P.L.1983, c.492 (C.30:5B-1 et seq.); race track facility; facility used for the holding
of sporting events; ambulatory recreational facility; shopping mall or retail store; hotel, motel
or other lodging establishment; apartment building lobby or other public area in an otherwise
private building; or a passenger elevator in a building other than a single-family dwelling.
"Person having control of an indoor public place or workplace" means the owner or operator
of a commercial or other office building or other indoor public place from whom a workplace
or space within the building or indoor public place is leased.
"Smoking" means the burning of, inhaling from, exhaling the smoke from, or the possession
of a lighted cigar, cigarette, pipe or any other matter or substance which contains tobacco or any other matter that can be smoked.
"Tobacco retail establishment" means an establishment in which at least 51% of retail business
is the sale of tobacco products and accessories, and in which the sale of other products is merely
incidental.
"Workplace" means a structurally enclosed location or portion thereof at which a person
performs any type of service or labor.
C.26:3D-58 Smoking prohibited in indoor public place, workplace.
4. a. Smoking is prohibited in an indoor public place or workplace, except as otherwise
provided in this act.
b. Smoking is prohibited in any area of any building of, or on the grounds of, any public or
nonpublic elementary or secondary school, regardless of whether the area is an indoor public
place or is outdoors.
C.26:3D-59 Exceptions.
5. The provisions of this act shall not apply to:
a. any cigar bar or cigar lounge that, in the calendar year ending December 31, 2004,
generated 15% or more of its total annual gross income from the on-site sale of tobacco
products and the rental of on-site humidors, not including any sales from vending machines, and
is registered with the local board of health in the municipality in which the bar or lounge is
located. The registration shall remain in effect for one year and shall be renewable only if: (1)
in the preceding calendar year, the cigar bar or lounge generated 15% or more if its total annual
gross income from the on-site sale of tobacco products and the rental of on-site humidors, and
(2) the cigar bar or cigar lounge has not expanded its size or changed its location since
December 31, 2004;
b. any tobacco retail establishment, or any area the tobacco retail establishment provides for
the purposes of smoking;
c. any tobacco business when the testing of a cigar or pipe tobacco by heating, burning or
smoking is a necessary and integral part of the process of making, manufacturing, importing or
distributing cigars or pipe tobacco;
d. private homes, private residences and private automobiles; and
e. the area within the perimeter of:
(1) any casino as defined in section 6 of P.L.1977, c.110 (C.5:12-6) approved by the Casino
Control Commission that contains at least 150 stand-alone slot machines, 10 table games, or
some combination thereof approved by the commission, which machines and games are available
to the public for wagering; and
(2) any casino simulcasting facility approved by the Casino Control Commission pursuant to
section 4 of P.L.1992, c.19 (C.5:12-194) that contains a simulcast counter and dedicated seating
for at least 50 simulcast patrons or a simulcast operation and at least 10 table games, which
simulcast facilities and games are available to the public for wagering.
C.26:3D-60 Hotel, motel, lodging establishment, smoking permitted, certain areas.
6. a. The person having control of a hotel, motel or other lodging establishment may permit
smoking in up to 20% of its guest rooms.
b. Nothing in this section shall be construed to require a hotel, motel or other lodging
establishment to provide a nonsmoking room to a guest if all the designated nonsmoking rooms
are occupied.
C.26:3D-61 Signage, requirements.
7. a. The person having control of an indoor public place or workplace shall place in every
public entrance to the indoor public place or workplace a sign, which shall be located so as to
be clearly visible to the public and shall contain letters or a symbol which contrast in color with
the sign, indicating that smoking is prohibited therein, except in such designated areas as
provided pursuant to this act. The sign shall also indicate that violators are subject to a fine.
The person having control of the indoor public place or workplace shall post a sign stating "Smoking Permitted" in letters at least one inch in height or marked by the international symbol
for "Smoking Permitted" in those areas where smoking is permitted.
b. The provisions of this section shall not be construed to prevent a lessee of the workplace,
or space within the building or indoor public place, from enforcing the smoking restrictions
imposed by the owner or operator of a commercial or other office building or other indoor public
place.
C.26:3D-62 Violations; fines, penalties; enforcement.
8. a. The person having control of an indoor public place or workplace shall order any person
smoking in violation of this act to comply with the provisions of this act. A person, after being
so ordered, who smokes in violation of this act is subject to a fine of not less than $250 for the
first offense, $500 for the second offense and $1,000 for each subsequent offense. A penalty
shall be recovered in accordance with the provisions of subsections c. and d. of this section.
b. The Department of Health and Senior Services or the local board of health or the board,
body or officers exercising the functions of the local board of health according to law, upon
written complaint or having reason to suspect that an indoor public place or workplace covered
by the provisions of this act is or may be in violation of the provisions of this act, shall, by
written notification, advise the person having control of the place accordingly and order
appropriate action to be taken. A person receiving that notice who fails or refuses to comply
with the order is subject to a fine of not less than $250 for the first offense, $500 for the second
offense and $1,000 for each subsequent offense. In addition to the penalty provided herein, the
court may order immediate compliance with the provisions of this act.
c. A penalty recovered under the provisions of this act shall be recovered by and in the name
of the Commissioner of Health and Senior Services or by and in the name of the local board of
health. When the plaintiff is the Commissioner of Health and Senior Services, the penalty
recovered shall be paid by the commissioner into the treasury of the State. When the plaintiff
is a local board of health, the penalty recovered shall be paid by the local board into the treasury
of the municipality where the violation occurred.
d. A municipal court shall have jurisdiction over proceedings to enforce and collect any
penalty imposed because of a violation of this act if the violation has occurred within the
territorial jurisdiction of the court. The proceedings shall be summary and in accordance with
the "Penalty Enforcement Law of 1999," P.L.1999, c.274 (C.2A:58-10 et seq.). Process shall
be in the nature of a summons or warrant and shall issue only at the suit of the Commissioner
of Health and Senior Services, or the local board of health, as the case may be, as plaintiff.
e. The penalties provided in subsections a. and b. of this section shall be the only civil
remedy for a violation of this act, and there shall be no private right of action against a party for
failure to comply with the provisions of this act.
C.26:3D-63 Supersedure of other law, etc.
9. The provisions of this act shall supersede any other statute, municipal ordinance and rule
or regulation adopted pursuant to law concerning smoking in an indoor public place or
workplace, except where smoking is prohibited by municipal ordinance under authority of
R.S.40:48-1 or 40:48-2, or by any other statute or regulation adopted pursuant to law for
purposes of protecting life and property from fire or protecting public health, and except for
those provisions of a municipal ordinance which provide restrictions on or prohibitions against
smoking equivalent to, or greater than, those provided under this act.
C.26:3D-64 Rules, regulations.
10. The Commissioner of Health and Senior Services, pursuant to the "Administrative
Procedure Act," P.L.1968, c.410 (C.52:14B-1 et seq.), shall adopt rules and regulations to
effectuate the purposes of this act.
Repealer.
11. The following are repealed:
P.L.1981, c.318 (C.26:3D-1 et seq.);
P.L.1981, c.319 (C.26:3D-7 et seq.);
P.L.1981, c.320 (C.26:3D-15 et seq.);
P.L.1985, c.184 (C.26:3D-23 et seq.);
P.L.1985, c.186 (C.26:3D-32 et seq.);
P.L.1985, c.318 (C.26:3D-38 et seq.);
P.L.1985, c.381 (C.26:3D-46 et seq.);
P.L.1985, c.185 (C.26:3E-7 et seq.); and
P.L.1998, c.35, s.1 (C. 30:5B-5.3).
12. This act shall take effect on the 90th day after enactment
Approved January 15, 2006.
Last edited:
Blue_Suede said:
Or you could try to quit and maybe ad a few quality years to your life. My grandmother was born in Glasgow by the way, I was there a few years ago. We are related to Robert Logie Beard the actual inventor of the TV who I believe was also from Glasgow.
Private Club is a good idea put smokers where they want to kill themselves and where other's want to be killed. please don't bring your children!
Club names could be:
Cancer Club
Death Inc.
Reverse Intelligence
Smokers Un-anonymous
Addicts R Us
Club names could be:
Cancer Club
Death Inc.
Reverse Intelligence
Smokers Un-anonymous
Addicts R Us
Well, the only obvious loophole I could find was:
The key wording here is "Generally accessible to the public".
One could argue that if you charge a yearly membership fee and only allow members to enter, then it is not accessible to the public...
However, that seems to be moot as:
This means you'd have to figure a way to not have anyone performing and services or labor... I really don't know how you'd get around that.
Perhaps a computerized system of "signing" in using their private pass which will log hours and bill them..but all this seems a bit overboard and would hurt sales more than smoking imho.
Anyway though, if you managed to make the place not publically accessible and make sure there is no one doing any services or labour, you should be fine....
The key wording here is "Generally accessible to the public".
One could argue that if you charge a yearly membership fee and only allow members to enter, then it is not accessible to the public...
However, that seems to be moot as:
This means you'd have to figure a way to not have anyone performing and services or labor... I really don't know how you'd get around that.
Perhaps a computerized system of "signing" in using their private pass which will log hours and bill them..but all this seems a bit overboard and would hurt sales more than smoking imho.
Anyway though, if you managed to make the place not publically accessible and make sure there is no one doing any services or labour, you should be fine....
catscradle said:
You are very correct, great point and a truer statement has not been made, the term unconstitutional is less with the smoker and more with the owner.
Fact is more none smokers rights are violated by the smoking, which regardless of the health effects DOES cause many to go home coughing with burning and irritated eyes, and smelling like crap. I consider smoking no different then me throwing a drink into the face of smoker, sorry I enjoy that and it's my right....right? WRONG, it invades your space in the same way as smoke invades my lungs, nose, eyes, and cloths.
That being said, owners deserve the right to make a choice to allow or not allow smoking or other things. I don't take my family out to a nude bar, it's a bad atmosphere, but I certainly would not want a blanket law outlawing it completely. Thats the owners right as long as he clearly states thats the type of bar he has, now why couldn't a person open a smoking bar the same as a nude bar...neither serve all the public, but serve a certain part of the public.
You can't always have blanket laws for everyone, But I am a firm believer in majority rule, and in that case I feel smoking is on it's way out anyway regardless of top down laws. But sadly the public at hand has lost it's ability to rule itself and stand up and force owners into banning smoking individually, because I'll tell in most cases including the casinos the majority of customers and employees want no smoking.
And I hate smoke, I can't even be in the same room with smokers, I get sick cough and my eyes get highly irritated, they tear up, get red etc. I can smell smoke on cloths from 20 feet away and it bothers me. But yet I still think owners of certain clubs and bars should have the right to choose, or at the very least have a vote with your own customers, I think even non smokers would agree with that.
Power to the people! sorry smokers you still lose in that case, but at least you'll have some bars and places that may allow smoking unlike the all or nothing laws pushed on owners.
Doesnt always work.
The "majority rules" doesnt always work for society as a whole. If that was the case we would still have slavery.
From the laws being proposed in Missouri the issue is workplace enviroment in terms of hazardous workplace. Workman's Compensation claims are costing the state millions of dollars due to second hand smoke. So they are trying to be proactive and save money. Non-smokers are about 75-85% of the population. I think this is a national movement that will eventually be everywhere. Just have to deal with it.
The "majority rules" doesnt always work for society as a whole. If that was the case we would still have slavery.
From the laws being proposed in Missouri the issue is workplace enviroment in terms of hazardous workplace. Workman's Compensation claims are costing the state millions of dollars due to second hand smoke. So they are trying to be proactive and save money. Non-smokers are about 75-85% of the population. I think this is a national movement that will eventually be everywhere. Just have to deal with it.
Am i, well i am, stupid or what but after reading all comments again i can't say anything bad against smokers or non-smokers. Undeniable fact is that both types excist and if we want to continue living together and share our hobbies we have to find a way to at least be in same room every now and then.
What seems to be missing is, unfortunately, common good will of understanding opinions from both sides. Of course smoking is bad for ones health, but also nagging about that rises ones blood pressure and that's not good either.
Living in modern society and with its rules actually creates more boundaries between individuals than what it takes away even those rules are meant to be serving people...do i smell something being wrong...
What seems to be missing is, unfortunately, common good will of understanding opinions from both sides. Of course smoking is bad for ones health, but also nagging about that rises ones blood pressure and that's not good either.
Living in modern society and with its rules actually creates more boundaries between individuals than what it takes away even those rules are meant to be serving people...do i smell something being wrong...
Flex said:
This is insane man. This is a pool message board and a discussion about smoking. There is NO PARALLEL TO ABORTION. I don't care about your choice, that's your choice. I didn't ask and i don't care. You are concerned with saving every baby in the world but don't care about anyone else forced to inhale smoke?
This is a horrid arguement imo. The supply demand arguement is dumb as well. i agree that smoking and drinking go together. But it is my opinion that with good legislation ,a nd over time, that will change.
You guys always talk abou tbringing pool oout of the slums and here is help yet you cry. With no smoke in pool rooms parent can bring their childrem without feeling like they are harming their children, or that they are enablers etc.
Maybe this will work towards the next generation not smoking as much as past generations.
degenrat said:
Although you sound like a man, by the use of your terms and manner of expression, you may not be a man. but a woman, or whatever...
Nevertheless, it's all too common for the man who has impregnated a woman to want her to get an abortion. Those men are simply irresponsible, and wish to be free of the logical consequences of their sexual activities, and so, do their best to force, psychologically or otherwise, the mother to abort her child. How do I know this? Because I've heard it from the mothers who have been subjected to this pressure, and from the fathers who have engaged in it.
You seem not to care if the baby's life is snuffed out. I hope that's a misimpression on my part. As for whether other people don't want to be bothered by smoke, I agree nobody should be forced to inhale it. Does that mean draconian laws from a nanny state need to be inflicted on the whole population? According to many, apparently so. Where will it all stop? I've no clue. However, our society is becoming less free with the passage of each law like this one. Is that good? I don't think so.
Have a nice day.
Flex
Again you are arguing with me over abortion rights and that is not what i aminterested in. my opinion on the matter is irrelevant as related to pool or smoking(the actual topics at hand)
but jsut real quick again, to show your hypocracy: . "Does that mean draconian laws from a nanny state need to be inflicted on the whole population? "
Laws relating to killing non smoking living humans are draconion but abortion rights/laws are what?
Do you see where you are confused? If you want one, then in principle you want the other. if you want the govt. to protect life in one case then why not the other?
is it because you are a smoker?? i truly don't understand.
but jsut real quick again, to show your hypocracy: . "Does that mean draconian laws from a nanny state need to be inflicted on the whole population? "
Laws relating to killing non smoking living humans are draconion but abortion rights/laws are what?
Do you see where you are confused? If you want one, then in principle you want the other. if you want the govt. to protect life in one case then why not the other?
is it because you are a smoker?? i truly don't understand.
MacGyver said:
"This has got to be the most stupid argument that is actually popular."
You are comparing apples to oranges.
If all the Non smoking advocates had pestered their pool room owners to make it non smoking or take their business elsewhere, I think you would have seen it long ago. As I pointed out, this law has nothing to do with the health or safety of customers or employees. If it did, there would be no expmptions. It is a political move, pure and simple, and the business owner gets stuck simply because some polster told some politicians that passing this law would get them more votes.
Nothin'to do with this discussion but i was so inspired that end up changing my avatar just because of this smoking/non-smoking thing.
Purdman
Banned
Hey, where is this going?
1. Is there a way around this?
2. If you make it a private club, I know you can then permit smoking, however, how do you do this and how much does it cost?
3. Also, for those of you that live in states with this already enforced... apparently NJ is also enforcing that you cannot smoke within 25 feet of the building? is this like this in the other states?
This was the origional post! I don't know where you all are trying to go with this pro life, drunk driving, smokers rights, non smokers rights, or any other of this horse schit. I think the man's question has been answered. Please stop arguing about unrelated stuff. Go put your opinion on this other crap in the non pool related section. JMHFO Purdman
1. Is there a way around this?
2. If you make it a private club, I know you can then permit smoking, however, how do you do this and how much does it cost?
3. Also, for those of you that live in states with this already enforced... apparently NJ is also enforcing that you cannot smoke within 25 feet of the building? is this like this in the other states?
This was the origional post! I don't know where you all are trying to go with this pro life, drunk driving, smokers rights, non smokers rights, or any other of this horse schit. I think the man's question has been answered. Please stop arguing about unrelated stuff. Go put your opinion on this other crap in the non pool related section. JMHFO Purdman
degenrat said:
Here's the deal. You qualified my comments on the be-safe-at-all-costs-crowd and showing how laws that criminalize behavior considered to be more or less normal, like speeding, for instance, with excessively heavy fines and jail terms vis-a-vis abortion being termed a "pregnancy management decision" (that coming from the Clinton White House...) to be "insulting."
I think laws regulating traffic speed in our country are often times arbitrary and unreasonable, as do a very high percentage of people who drive, if their behavior behind the wheel on highways is any indication of that, for the traffic flow is very often 10 to 15 mph higher than the speed limit. To criminalize that behavior by the unjust imposition of up to a $5,000 fine and/or six month jail term (signs posted to that effect are often in place on the George Washington Parkway in Virgnina, near D.C.) is draconian.
For you to qualify my reasonable remarks as "insulting" is just asking for it.
My comments are in no way hypocritical, and favor the rule of law. Laws which encourage lawless behavior, such as unrealistically slow speed limits, are harmful to society in the long run.
And "laws" which legalize the willful killing of unborn children are unjust to the core.
In my life I have smoked two cigarettes, don't like them, never did, both my parents smoked a lot. Although I don't smoke them, the aroma of cigarette smoke (not stale smoke though) is a very agreeable one to me. Do I like breathing it? No, nor do I like the smell that gets in clothing and so on.
However the legislation that has been passed in many places makes it practically impossible to smoke in public. As for the adverse health effects of smoking, they are wellknown. But hey, ingest too much salt and it will kill you. Should salt be banned? Of course not. Just wait, the nanny state's next target will be food.
Do you like steak? I love it, charbroiled, burnt on the outside and rare in the middle. Someone is going to come up with a study that "proves" that the char on the steak causes cancer. Just wait. However, we eat and are exposed to many different things that aren't good for us if we get too much of them. Sugar is another baddie... The issue to a large degree is the threshold of exposure to a substance, which in the second hand smoke debate is entirely omitted by those who want to advance their agenda.
Almost universally those who seek to illegalize behavior such as smoking, or drinking, or riding a bicycle without a helmet, or wearing a seat belt, and so on, want governmental solutions to problems that the government should stay out of.
That's what I'm really concerned about.
Flex
That's the point, we are getting where we don't have to any more. Maybe if smokers had some consideration in the first place managing their addiction in public, we would not have to have laws. Your aviator may make the point best, why laws have to be passed, thank you.pete-biker said:
Purdman said:This was the origional post! I don't know where you all are trying to go with this pro life, drunk driving, smokers rights, non smokers rights, or any other of this horse schit. I think the man's question has been answered. Please stop arguing about unrelated stuff. Go put your opinion on this other crap in the non pool related section. JMHFO Purdman
You seem to like using vulgar language, unfortunately. Perhaps you should also offer an apology to Melissa, the original poster, for calling her a man.
Flex
macguy said:
You're welcome, i'm glad if that helped.
Seriously, this whole argument is strongly in two groups and what is mainly forgotten is the fact that with a respect AND tolerance from both parties we wouldn't be in a situation that normal behavior must be ruled by laws instead of it being normal.