Good news, from New Jersey? Is such a thing possible?

Well, in a twisted sort of way (the way I like to look at the news), it is. New Jersey is one of those places where the democratic process is polluted by people who have a penchant for voting to get rid of their own rights, and the state makes me very nervous. Anyway, the state government (elected, of course, by these same voters) recently decided to ban smoking nearly everywhere. But stupidly, they exempted casinos and not restaurants.

This means that my hero today is the New Jersey Restaurant Association! Who'd have ever known I could fall in love with a powerful lobby, but I have, because they've sued the state, and asked a court to overturn the smoking ban as unconstitutional. Much to my delight, the Bloomberg writeup mentions my favorite New Jersey restaurant, Lorenzo's:

April 13 (Bloomberg) -- An anti-smoking law that New Jersey starts enforcing Saturday is causing tempers to rise at Lorenzo's, a Trenton landmark where politicians and the well- connected gather for cigars and steaks.

A party of men stormed out last month after owner Armando Frallicciardi Jr. asked patrons to refrain from smoking on Friday and Saturday nights in anticipation of the new law.

``You're dealing with a lot of egos,'' says Frallicciardi, an occasional cigar smoker who says the ban will cost his 84-year- old restaurant $36,000 in annual revenue. ``Cigars are associated with power, and we've been a place where the powerful have gathered for years.''

The New Jersey Restaurant Association, which represents about 1,200 owners of the state's 23,000 eating and drinking establishments, was part of a group that last month sued to overturn the ban. They argue that the state put them at a competitive disadvantage by exempting Atlantic City casinos from the law signed by former Governor Richard Codey in January.

The lawsuit calls for an immediate injunction that would prevent the ban from going into effect April 15. A hearing on the request is scheduled for today in U.S. District Court in Trenton.

The problem is, non-smokers now outnumber smokers, and all too often people who don't do something are happy to get rid of their right to do what they don't do.

I'm not. Just because I don't smoke does not mean I want to lose the right to smoke, any more than I'd want to lose any other right I fail exercise. The people behind the smoking ban won't stop there, either. The next target is the home, and (as I've pointed out before; hey, so has Dennis!) the Achilles heel is "the children." The latter must always be saved. From evil or something; don't ask me what, because I remember being a child, and it was anything but an innocent experience. (I can't remember an innocent child, but I'll never forget the lectures about how innocent they were.)

Well, at least bars and casinos aren't frequented by children!

Ah the good old days . . .

Not that it's any of my business, but I'll stick my neck out here and venture that the kid above might be a bit too young to smoke. As a moral conservative, I'm inclined to go with H.L. Mencken:

I never smoked a cigarette until I was nine.