Proposed Bill To Ban Smoking At NJ Be...

Proposed Bill To Ban Smoking At NJ Beaches and Parks

There are 76 comments on the CW11 New York WPIX-TV story from Sep 19, 2009, titled Proposed Bill To Ban Smoking At NJ Beaches and Parks. In it, CW11 New York WPIX-TV reports that:

A new bill could prohibit New Jersey smokers from lighting up both indoors and in some outdoor locations.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at CW11 New York WPIX-TV.

discusseded

Campbellsville, KY

#41 Sep 27, 2009
u cannot own me wrote:
<quoted text> Lord, wonder who was desperate enough to separate the trash into separate piles to count each item..must ne a nasty job if condoms are still pitched. some people will do anything for a buck LOL
Lot of it is volunteer work, as I understand it.

Probably involved motivations you wouldn't understand.
discusseded

Campbellsville, KY

#42 Sep 27, 2009
Los Angeles County apparently passed a similar law just recently.

“~ Reality IS Perception ~”

Since: Aug 07

Rockaway!

#43 Sep 27, 2009
discusseded wrote:
<quoted text>
You know, when I started reading about the butt litter issue, it made me wonder if there really IS a "proper receptaclep". Not bashing anyone here, just musing.
If the tobacco companies can be persuaded to--I mean, if the FDA would only opt to make filters biodegradable and tobacco much less toxic, it would have a major impact on global litter issues. If, further, they mandate design that makes the cigarette go out on its own, just short of the butt...I think a combination of those three steps would be pretty useful if people are going to continue to smoke.
I also think they should gradually reduce the maximum for nicotine content until people begin finding themselves free of the addiction.
It is understandable why you would wonder if there is a proper way to discard cigarette butts. You commented on the toxins that are still left and which continue to emit.

There are less people smoking today and years ago the butt problem was much worse. We have all survived it,
thusfar ;-).

Hope you had a good weekend.
discusseded

Campbellsville, KY

#44 Sep 28, 2009
Just ran into this one. They say it graces cigarette packs in Brazil. This sort of thing might make smokers think more when they get to their butts. Maybe before they start.

It should be on ashtrays.

http://www.tobaccolabels.ca/gallery/brazil/ar...

“~ Reality IS Perception ~”

Since: Aug 07

Rockaway!

#45 Sep 28, 2009
discusseded wrote:
Just ran into this one. They say it graces cigarette packs in Brazil. This sort of thing might make smokers think more when they get to their butts. Maybe before they start.
It should be on ashtrays.
http://www.tobaccolabels.ca/gallery/brazil/ar...
Sorry, but I find this reprehensible.

“There is no such thing”

Since: May 08

as a reasonable person

#46 Sep 28, 2009
BleuJei wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, but I find this reprehensible.
And in bad taste.
mazed

Campbellsville, KY

#47 Sep 28, 2009
BleuJei wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, but I find this reprehensible.
Perhaps, but also valid.

The shock tactics are necessitated by the more-than-reprehensible product and tactics of the tobacco industry.

Seeing cigarette butts lying all over the place, hearing smokers and nonsmokers alike cough and hack because of smoking, reading time after time of the industry's selective targeting of children--all of these things have been "normalized" by industry tactics so that none of them shock people as they should.
mazed

Campbellsville, KY

#48 Sep 28, 2009
Lil Ticked wrote:
<quoted text>And in bad taste.
And cheating minors of their freedom of choice in such a major health issue before they are prepared for making such a choice is in good taste?
mazed

Campbellsville, KY

#49 Sep 28, 2009
Here is the URL for some info on the LA County law. It is from a pro-regulation cite--simply because that was the first thing google found me, not because of my position--and is offered for the information contained and not to push the bias.

http://snus-news.blogspot.com/2009/09/los-ang...

“~ Reality IS Perception ~”

Since: Aug 07

Rockaway!

#50 Sep 28, 2009
mazed wrote:
<quoted text>
Perhaps, but also valid.
The shock tactics are necessitated by the more-than-reprehensible product and tactics of the tobacco industry.
Seeing cigarette butts lying all over the place, hearing smokers and nonsmokers alike cough and hack because of smoking, reading time after time of the industry's selective targeting of children--all of these things have been "normalized" by industry tactics so that none of them shock people as they should.
A "shock tactic" facilitated by your anti-smoking cronies, but, by no means, necessitated. It is pure HYPERBOLE.

I understand that you seek to eliminate tobacco altogether, but you are overstepping your boundaries. Monitor yourself and those who you are in your charge but keep your nose out of everybody else's business. It's best that way ;-).
mazed

Campbellsville, KY

#51 Sep 28, 2009
BleuJei wrote:
<quoted text>
A "shock tactic" facilitated by your anti-smoking cronies, but, by no means, necessitated.
Actually, by a nation willing to offend in the interest of preventing a lifetime of addiction to a lethal habit.

To the extent that their efforts to slow recruitment of smokers and to increase instance of cessation works, and would not have without such graphic labels, it is hard to argue that it was NOT necessary in order to achieve those ends.

Inadequate, probably, but not unnecessary.

The page with that picture is part of a gallery that will give you some idea how much more seriously other countries take the requirement that cigarette packages convey the extreme consequences of smoking.

“~ Reality IS Perception ~”

Since: Aug 07

Rockaway!

#52 Sep 28, 2009
mazed wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, by a nation willing to offend in the interest of preventing a lifetime of addiction to a lethal habit.
To the extent that their efforts to slow recruitment of smokers and to increase instance of cessation works, and would not have without such graphic labels, it is hard to argue that it was NOT necessary in order to achieve those ends.
Inadequate, probably, but not unnecessary.
The page with that picture is part of a gallery that will give you some idea how much more seriously other countries take the requirement that cigarette packages convey the extreme consequences of smoking.
You certainly have your script down pat ;-).

“~ Reality IS Perception ~”

Since: Aug 07

Rockaway!

#53 Sep 28, 2009
mazed wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, by a nation willing to offend in the interest of preventing a lifetime of addiction to a lethal habit.
To the extent that their efforts to slow recruitment of smokers and to increase instance of cessation works, and would not have without such graphic labels, it is hard to argue that it was NOT necessary in order to achieve those ends.
Inadequate, probably, but not unnecessary.
The page with that picture is part of a gallery that will give you some idea how much more seriously other countries take the requirement that cigarette packages convey the extreme consequences of smoking.
I mean no disrespect but you really need to mind your own business.
mazed

Campbellsville, KY

#54 Sep 28, 2009
BleuJei wrote:
<quoted text>
I mean no disrespect but you really need to mind your own business.
Ah, well, as Dr. Fairbanks says, "You can't have a private smoke in a public place."

So long as I can't go anywhere without having to walk through several clouds of offensive smoke and deal with the scratchy eyes and throat that go with that, I'd have to say that regulating smoking as far from the center of my existence is absolutely my business.

When conversation turns to an area where my own government is not keeping up with those of other countries, it makes perfect sense for me to point out the differences.

The idea is to find things that work.

“There is no such thing”

Since: May 08

as a reasonable person

#55 Sep 28, 2009
Thats right screw freedom who needs it.
All products sold should be able to be used by everyone safely. Get rid of the "ESRB" ratings we don't need them since EVERYTHING is going to be rate "E" for everybody. G rated nation of idiots here we come.
WHy don't people understand? Minors are going to smoke, have sex, drink and do all sorts of things regardless of whether or not it is legal or illegal.
Banning cigarettes, alcohol, or even "R" rated movies will not stop them from experimenting.

“There is no such thing”

Since: May 08

as a reasonable person

#56 Sep 28, 2009
mazed wrote:
<quoted text>
And cheating minors of their freedom of choice in such a major health issue before they are prepared for making such a choice is in good taste?
http://www.j83.com/print/large/smoggy.jpg
Anti-smokers priorities
http://citizentom.files.wordpress.com/2009/01...
http://www.golivewire.com/forums/peer-onsitb-...
Enjoy.
:)
mazed

Campbellsville, KY

#57 Sep 28, 2009
Lil Ticked wrote:
Thats right screw freedom who needs it.
All products sold should be able to be used by everyone safely. Get rid of the "ESRB" ratings we don't need them since EVERYTHING is going to be rate "E" for everybody. G rated nation of idiots here we come.
WHy don't people understand? Minors are going to smoke, have sex, drink and do all sorts of things regardless of whether or not it is legal or illegal.
Banning cigarettes, alcohol, or even "R" rated movies will not stop them from experimenting.
All of which means what, exactly, in terms of NJ wishing to have smoke-free beaches?
Freedom

Niles, MI

#58 Sep 28, 2009
mazed wrote:
Ah, well, as Dr. Fairbanks says, "You can't have a private smoke in a public place."
You and that socialist have it all wrong...you can't have public smoke in a private place.

Tell us oh hopelessly socialistic one...what form of government is most likely to declare private property "public" anything?

Perhaps you might quote the constitution to support your sides insanity?
mazed wrote:
So long as I can't go anywhere without having to walk through several clouds of offensive smoke and deal with the scratchy eyes and throat that go with that, I'd have to say that regulating smoking as far from the center of my existence is absolutely my business.
First your kind declared private property "public" and then after you kick out the smokers and in many cases the owner...you have the audacity to complain about outdoor smoke?

If you respected others wishes you would simply use your right to freedom of association by going where there are others who are like minded.

Such an easy concept is never good enough for the self righteous as they are not happy with places of their own...they demand them all.
mazed wrote:
When conversation turns to an area where my own government is not keeping up with those of other countries, it makes perfect sense for me to point out the differences.
Sure...you turn to other socialistic control freaks for ideas. Surprise surprise.
mazed wrote:
The idea is to find things that work.
You and your new bunch of self righteous control freaks are simply repeating history. History has shown that people like yourself come and go just like the tides.

Popes have tried to ban tobacco...and Hitler did as well. I'm sure in your self righteous mind you actually think you are something new.

And some people actually wonder why history repeats itself.

“There is no such thing”

Since: May 08

as a reasonable person

#59 Sep 28, 2009
mazed wrote:
<quoted text>
All of which means what, exactly, in terms of NJ wishing to have smoke-free beaches?
It means pretty much the same thing as your links to dead babies in ashtrays.
You want relevence then keep it relevent.

“~ Reality IS Perception ~”

Since: Aug 07

Rockaway!

#60 Sep 29, 2009
mazed wrote:
<quoted text>
Ah, well, as Dr. Fairbanks says, "You can't have a private smoke in a public place."
So long as I can't go anywhere without having to walk through several clouds of offensive smoke and deal with the scratchy eyes and throat that go with that, I'd have to say that regulating smoking as far from the center of my existence is absolutely my business.
When conversation turns to an area where my own government is not keeping up with those of other countries, it makes perfect sense for me to point out the differences.
The idea is to find things that work.
Well, if the provision allowed for smoking as well as nonsmoking establishments, you might have my attention. But, since you are one who cares not for peoples' freedom to choose whatever legal activity is afforded them, I can not sympathesize nor relate to your mindset.

There is NO reason people can not, in an adult-like manner, reach a mutual compromise.

I would not intentionally offend your senses with my smoking but I will not accept being treated as an outcast or lesser human being because I smoke.

I work full-time, attend college full-time, have supported myself and my two daughters to the best of my ability. I am PRODUCTIVE. I deserve to relax outside of my home without having to put outside. It is very degrading, you know?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Belmar Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Howell homeless camp for sale; occupants must move 6 hr Jewish4ever 1
News Lakewood's tale of two enclaves: Orthodox influ... Sat USS LIBERTY 6
News Coming Soon: How one elite Orthodox school and ... Apr 19 watching u 3
call in Apr 15 roger 1
News New look for Max's Famous Hot Dogs in Long Branch Apr 11 jeepman 1
May in Spring Lake (Mar '13) Apr 4 ambientshots 2
Review: Natalie Pavone Esg Attorney (May '11) Feb '18 Gayle 4

Belmar Jobs

Personal Finance

Belmar Mortgages