poolhall smoking

[grindz]

I know this has been covered before but I thought of something new. I've managed to out run the nuts for the last 3 years and not catch a cold until yesterday. So I wanna go practice but I can't because smokey poolhalls make the cold worse and last longer.

Anyways I was dating a girl that runs marathons and she has asthma a little. So she wouldn't go inside a smokey poolhall because it messed her lungs up.

My question is this. What if 10 top pros couldn't go inside a smoking poolhall due to medical reasons? What if the pro couldn't afford a table at home or couldn't fit one at home to practice on?

Let's hear a logical explanation from the people that think smoking indoors is ok?

I see Florida as being pretty far away from a smoking ban due to a lot of strong demographics in the state that will fight it tooth and nail to the end. In light of that you may have a great opportunity there with what you have found to be a need. Where there is a need there is an opportunity.... provide a solution to the need and you may have, if not long term, probably at least mid term financial success possibilities.

Open your own room... you have a built in 'house pro' ..... could have weekly challenges to open road challengers for draws... you have sales skills....

Look at recent threads to see new rooms that have opened for ideas. It's a good time to get a good long term inexpensive lease. Streaming is mainstream, run with it. So many possibilities. You know how to work to achieve results... we can see it in your game. Sky is the limit.

td

 

[IbeAnEngineer]

IMHO whether or not a pool hall is smoking or non-smoking should be left up the the owner of the pool-hall. How about letting the person who is investing all of the money and time into the business decide who to cater to the smokers or the non-smokers. If you do not like smoke go to a non-smoking pool hall. If you have to smoke, go to a pool hall that allows smoking. Still not happy - buy your own home table or open your own pool hall.

 

[pooltchr]

Fight it if you want, but just don't fool yourself into thinking it will change anything.

Russ

I have no delusions that I can fight it. The laws are there, and for whatever reason, our society has decided that they want the government to micro-manage the activities of individuals. Non-smokers outnumber smokers, so there is little outcry against these particular laws. It ain't gonna change!

But how will those non-smokers feel when the government starts to tell them they can only drink diet soda, or they outlaw McDonalds because McDonalds causes childhood obesity, or ban fireplaces in homes because they pollute the environment, or ban SUVs because they burn too much gas, or....you get the idea.
I don't like the non-smoking laws because it won't be enough for some. and the more control the government takes, the less we individuals have over our own lives.
That, sir, is my problem with it.
Steve

 

[justadub]

I have no delusions that I can fight it. The laws are there, and for whatever reason, our society has decided that they want the government to micro-manage the activities of individuals. Non-smokers outnumber smokers, so there is little outcry against these particular laws. It ain't gonna change!

But how will those non-smokers feel when the government starts to tell them they can only drink diet soda, or they outlaw McDonalds because McDonalds causes childhood obesity, or ban fireplaces in homes because they pollute the environment, or ban SUVs because they burn too much gas, or....you get the idea.
I don't like the non-smoking laws because it won't be enough for some. and the more control the government takes, the less we individuals have over our own lives.
That, sir, is my problem with it.
Steve

Once again, I agree that one should have the control over one's own self, for good and for bad. The problem with cigarettes is that they affect others as well, with those folks having no say in it at all.

As for whether the business should have to accomodate smoking or not accomodate it, when it is law across the entire state, it becomes a moot point. The people have adapted, and it isn't an issue. Smokers can still smoke to their hearts (and lungs) content, just not in the presence of others.

 

[ndakotan]

analogies and arguments

I think beer stinks and its a proven fact that it causes brain damage and liver disease maybe it should also be ban..I smoke and I wish they would outlaw smoking and alcohol tomorrow that way everyone could witness the government colapse without the taxes. If you think the economy is broke now, take away the taxes from alcohol and tobacco and see what happens. I do not like the fact that Ohio is non smoking in the pool hall so I dont go. The government doesnt care if your buisness goes down its a numbers game for them. They believe what they lose in taxes in these places they can make up plus more in the fines. If the government finds that they were making more money from the taxes they will lift the ban....

Sorry, but the arguments in the post quoted above need to be refuted with common sense.

First, the beer analogy is a little (way) off. Drink beer all you want without bothering me and we're ok. Force me to drink beer and we have a problem.

Second, the taxes issue. Progress requires change. When Hoover Dam was built, loss of life and limb was expected. Eliminating the possiblity of loss of life or limb was not technologically or fiscally feasible. The government gets money from a project that was anticipated to kill people.

Tell someone now that you plan to build a dam and you expect casualties and you open yourself to criminal and civil liabilities when the first person goes.

The same applies to cigarettes. Until 20 or 30 years ago, cigarette smoking was a viable way to tax people. Now that we know the health risks, they are more heavily taxed, and a lot of the taxes go towards smoking issues.

Consider the monetary costs smokers impose on the non-smokers. Insurance rates are through the roof across the board, and that is attributable to smoking in part. Smokers get a higher proportion of medical service than non-smokers (all else equal). This will be much more irritating if OBAMA's terrible health care plan is enacted. IF it is, smokers should pay a much higher tax rate than non-smokers.

Also, consider bar tenders, waitresses, and gaming dealers. In the construction industry, as an employer I do not have the option to subject people to detrimental agents or put them into harms way to further my business. If I do, I pay heavy fines and am subject to criminal prosecution. The detrimental effects of smoking are proven, so the same rules should appy to bar owners. I can't even pay someone off to work in harsh conditions illegally. I don't have a choice. Bar owners should not have a choice as to whether employees and or employees of other companies (gaming dealers, distributors, cleaning companies, etc) are subjected to harmful conditions.

Finally a correct analogy for you. If I bring a gas-powered generator to the bar to charge my cell phone and it is putting off noxious fumes, are you going to do anything about it? Of course, you have the right to leave (and you probably should). I'll leave it up to you though.

 

[nancewayne]

Government (big or small) often does "Grandfather" in certain property zoning and property uses. Those "rights" continue until the property changes ownership or use, then the present law applies to the property. WOULD IT BE SO HARD to apply the same type "Grandfather" rights to existing establishments and only those NEW establishments would have to obey the law or face a penalty or possibly having to close their business?

A pool hall is private property with something called property rights. Tobacco is a legal substance. Taxes are paid to the government to sell tobacco. No one forces anyone into an establishment that has a poor environment. Anyone can bring their cash and support either a smoking place or a non smoking place. Let the capitalist system work.

The system so far is, I don't like smoke, I think it damages third parties, therefore lets stop others use of a legal product. Lets stop it in a restaurant, bar, public building, car, bus, train, airplane, too close to a door, ... or in your own home.

Contrast this to, I don't like smoke, I think it damages third parties, therefore I will not support establishments that have smoke particulates. I will spent my dollars elsewhere. If enough people agree with me, then, smokeless places will thrive as will smoke places on a proportional basis.

How about making tobacco illegal. Go ahead and put those companies out of business and eliminate the tax base. Tobacco would proceed to be illegal and its price would climb like other black market products. It would also obtain a cool acceptance by the culture similar to other smoke-able substances.

And, I do not, have never and do not intend to smoke.

PS
I do appreciate your bringing this over to the non pool related location form the main forum. Over there it was an in your face, I feel good about me issue.

 

[Big Perm]

Sorry, but the arguments in the post quoted above need to be refuted with common sense.

First, the beer analogy is a little (way) off. Drink beer all you want without bothering me and we're ok. Force me to drink beer and we have a problem.
.

Alcohol effects all of us:

You pay $5 a month more in auto insurance to to alcohol related lawsuits
At least that much monthly in increased health costs due to alcohol related diseases
Drunk guy is at the table next to you, bumping into you and just annoying you with his loud talking
Drunk guy kills a family member of yours while driving

Just like cigs, all of these directly effect your quality of life......and you don't have to drink an ounce to feel it's effects.....all of these ills mirror the same issue with tobacco....

I still don't support a customer telling a business owner how to run his business....

 

[triley41395]

Some people just dont get it...They believe the bans are for health reasons and I think its for monetary reasons or power if you will...The more they controll the more they controll everyone...Everyone says there are more non smokers than smokers in general maybe there are but in a pool hall or bar they are outnumbered...If I come to a place of buisness and its non-smoking I have a choice to stay or leave...I respect my non smoking friends by not smoking in the house , car , ect. because its their right as the owner to ask me not to...The government has no right to choose for them as the owner...If a non-smoking pool hall was such a big buisness then they would have popped up everywhere years ago...

 

[ndakotan]

businesses do not regulate themselves

Current situations indicate businesses cannot regulate themselves. If they could, we wouldn't be in the banking/mortgage mess we are now in. Businesses are in business to make money, not to consider the welfare of the country or community. The government had to force businesses to accept black customers and accomodate disabled persons. The government forces brothels in Nevada to screen their "workers" for disease. The government forces restaurants to abide by health laws. The government forces companies to safely handle toxic waste. The government forces contractors to provide safe workplaces. The government forces companies to treat workers humanely. The list goes on and on. The only way progress will happen with smoking bans (and it is inevitable) is by government proclamation.

I think it is funny when people say government shouldn't control what a bar owner does. I wouldn't want to eat or drink in a place not inspected by the health department or a place that doesn't accept people of different races.


It is stunning to me that a parent can't get emotional and shake a baby to death without being publically humiliated and vilified and that teenagers get charged with child pornography by sending nude pictures of themselves. Obviously I don't condone either, but put a crying 2 year old in my lap for 2 days and it might be a different story. Give me a video cell phone when I was a teenager, and I might have done something stupid. People do dumb stuff when they are emotional, tired, or teenagers. You think they are any better just because they own a bar and their livelyhood is dependant upon their cost-effectiveness?


It would be awesome if we lived in a world where everbody thought of the greater good before they think of themselves, but that is a pipe dream. The reality is the opposite.

 

[Slide Rule]

YEA YEA We Know Better Than You and are winning on Government Poolrooms/Bars

donny mills
How in the world would it hurt a business if every single business was non smoking? Now if there was a choice to own a non smoking or smoking bar or poolhall of course the smoking one would be way busier I bet, but if all were non smoking please tell me how in the hell it would take profits away from the owner?

Well Donny
Taxing an item results in less of the item. Taxing a room discourages those who would come to changing their mind and not come. Less sales and less profit. But that's OK since they were supporting a bad habit.

nancewayne
poolhall smoking
Government (big or small) often does "Grandfather" in certain property zoning and property uses. Those "rights" continue until the property changes ownership or use, then the present law applies to the property. WOULD IT BE SO HARD to apply the same type "Grandfather" rights to existing establishments and only those NEW establishments would have to obey the law or face a penalty or possibly having to close their business?

Well Nancewayne
There were no grandfather clauses in Ohio. Such a clause is a sellout anyway. Please note that a Grandfather clause is a delayed tax on the owner, as it diminishes the value of the establishment on its sale.

PS
And a continued thank you for discussing the Non Pool Related Item on the Non Pool Related Forum. Or am I being in your face.

 

[chefjeff]

(snip)

To say I have a choice is true but why should someone that smokes be able to drive others away because they cannot tolerate the smoke? (snip).

Because of whose property all are on. That person calls the shots....or else he really doesn't own the property, someone else does. Do you?

Jeff Livingston

 

[SKILLZELITE]

You're asking to have logic applied to an issue that is an emotional one. It won't work.

I smoke and its a choice. I chose not to go where I'm not allowed to smoke. You have the right to chose to not go where people are allowed to smoke.

CO SIGN^^-
-''bANGED UP'' PRETTY MUCH SUMS THIS THREAD UP INSTANTLY..

 

[chefjeff]

How in the world would it hurt a business if every single business was non smoking? Now if there was a choice to own a non smoking or smoking bar or poolhall of course the smoking one would be way busier I bet, but if all were non smoking please tell me how in the hell it would take profits away from the owner?

Because it takes away something much more important than smoke: liberty.

More people have died defending liberty than from smoking. Just last century, 262,000,000 for a recent example.

The state is THE most dangerous thing in the world, bar none, and cannot be easily avoided; smoking is not the most dangerous thing and can easily be avoided if wanted. It needs no govt "solution."

This wider perspective is better for understanding how this issue is ONLY about power, not your health (remember 262 MILLION murdered by the state for the public "good") ...it's about power....beware.

Jeff Livingston

 

[chefjeff]

Current situations indicate businesses cannot regulate themselves. If they could, we wouldn't be in the banking/mortgage mess we are now in. (snip).

I stopped reading right there....

Those two statements are the current LIE being spread by the statists. Those are NOT true.

The banking mess was NOT created by business. It was created by businesses buying govt power for both parties, i.e., fascism.

Here are the real causes of the banking/mortgage mess...

Before the House Financial Services Committee, Humphrey Hawkins Hearing, February 25, 2008

Mr. Chairman,

We find ourselves mired in the deepest economic crisis to afflict this country since the Great Depression. Yet, despite the failure of all the interventionist efforts to date to do anything to improve the economy, each week seems to bring new proposals for yet more bailouts, more funding facilities, and more of the same discredited Keynesian ideas. There are still relatively few policymakers who understand the roots of the current crisis in the Federal Reserve's monetary policy. No one in government is willing to take the blame; instead we transfer it onto others. We blame the crisis on greedy bankers and mortgage lenders, on the Chinese for being too thrifty and providing us with capital, or on consumers who aren't spending as much as the government thinks they should.

One aspect that needs to come to the fore once again is that of moral hazard. When the government acts as a backstop to insure losses that come about from making poor decisions, such poor decision-making is rewarded, and thereby further encouraged in the future. Such backstopping took place through the implicit government guarantee of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, it takes place through FDIC deposit insurance that encourages deposits in the fundamentally unsound fractional-reserve banking system, and it has reached its zenith in the TARP program and its related bailouts.

When banking giants are reimbursed for their losses through redistribution of taxpayer money, what lesson do we expect them to learn? Can anyone in Washington say with a straight face that these banks will shape up their business practices when they are almost guaranteed billions of dollars in taxpayer funds? Even if this does provide a temporary lifeline, it only delays the inevitable collapse of a banking system built on an unsustainable model. Fractional-reserve banking is completely dependent on faith in the banks' abilities to repay depositors, and when that ability is thrown into doubt, the house of cards comes crashing down. The Federal Reserve may be able to manage public confidence, but confidence only goes so far. When banks are required to hold a maximum of ten percent of their deposits on reserve, the system is fundamentally insolvent. Such a system cannot be propped up or bailed out, except at the cost of massive creation of money and credit, which would result in a hyperinflation that would completely destroy our economy.

Chairman Bernanke and others in positions of authority seem to gloss over these systemic instabilities and assume an excessively rosy outlook on the economy. I believe we are at another major economic crossroad, where the global financial system will have to be fundamentally rethought. The post–Bretton Woods dollar-standard system has proven remarkably resilient, lasting longer than the gold-exchange system which preceded it, but the current economic crisis has illustrated the unsustainability of the current dollar-based system. To think that the economy will begin to recover by the end of this year is absurd. The dollar's supposed strength exists only because of the weakness of other currencies. The Fed's increase of the monetary base and establishment of "temporary" funding facilities has set the stage for hyperinflation, and it remains to be seen what results.

If banks begin to lend their increased reserves, we will see the first steps towards hyperinflation. Now that the Fed has increased the monetary base, it finds itself under pressure to withdraw these funds at some point. The question, however, is when? If it withdraws too soon, banks' balance sheets collapse, if too late, massive inflation will ensue. As in previous crises, the Fed's inflationary actions leave it compelled to take action that will severely harm the economy through either deflation or hyperinflation. Had the Fed not begun interfering 18 months ago, we might have already seen a recovery in the economy by now. Bad debts would have been liquidated, inefficient firms sold off and their resources put to better use elsewhere. As it is, I believe any temporary uptick in economic indicators nowadays will likely be misinterpreted as economic recovery rather than the result of Federal Reserve credit creation. Until we learn the lesson that government intervention cannot heal the economy, and can only do harm, we will never stabilize the economy or get on the road to true recovery.


---Ron Paul, Representative from Texas​

Jeff Livingston

 

[Paul Dayton]

262 million died defending liberty? Do you have a source for that number? The Russians and Chinese weren't defending liberty nor were the Japanese.

Regardless, smoking has killed more Americans than all the wars we fought.

As far as a business owners right to run his business as he or she sees fit, if they are open to the public,they can't violate Public Health laws and the smoking ban is a matter of public health.

 

[chefjeff]

262 million died defending liberty? Do you have a source for that number? The Russians and Chinese weren't defending liberty nor were the Japanese.

Regardless, smoking has killed more Americans than all the wars we fought.

As far as a business owners right to run his business as he or she sees fit, if they are open to the public,they can't violate Public Health laws and the smoking ban is a matter of public health.

Link....again.

Those business are opened to the public by the owner under his terms...or not his terms. Who really owns the property then?

Jeff Livingston

 

[doitforthegame]

Having been a pool room owner that had this very issue shoved down my throat and eventually cost me my business and my family much much more, I have very strong opinions on this. The same hypocrites that recite the same tired lines about the IMPORTANCE of a woman's right to choose are the same ones that refuse to let the customer and the business owner make a like decision. I believe a woman does have that right but I also believe I have the right to choose what business to spend my money. These are private companies. There is no government investment or support of any of these guys. The smoking issue was/is just like the "global warming" issue. Or about health care. It is all about the government getting more and more control over the people.

Bob <---- admitted wingnut voting for Scott Brown today!

 

[justadub]

I have a question for those who say the pool halls have closed because of the smoking ban (and directly to the unfortunate gentleman that closed his room).

Once the smoking ban went into effect, everyone stopped playing pool in your area? Seriously? I ask that in a serious manner, not tounge-in-cheek. Even tho I've only played regularly for a short time, I've found that once you get the bug to play, you wanna play. Leagues folded, no tournaments, nothing?

So does everyone play in their homes, or their friends homes? Do they travel to another state to play?

The concept baffles me.

Also baffling to me is why it is such a big issue to have to go to another part of the building (yes, outside, but with tables/chairs/canopies/heaters, etc) to smoke, and then come back and play. I realize that I do not understand the effect nicotine has on the body, but you can't play pool without a cigarette sticking out of your mouth, or close enough to grab a drag between shots?

That's what it boils down to, to me. We can rail against the system, the health effects, the liberty factor. But for you and I to play pool, if you are smoking, I can't play. That's what it all boils down to. My loss, right? Then whose "liberty" is being stomped upon?

oops, I did not intend to "go there", it just slipped out...

 

[chefjeff]

(snip) But for you and I to play pool, if you are smoking, I can't play. That's what it all boils down to. My loss, right? Then whose "liberty" is being stomped upon?

oops, I did not intend to "go there", it just slipped out...

I'll answer that.

First, you cannot play on someone else's property without the owner's permission, right? So, the owner calls the shots...you are an invited guest there to do commerce with the owner if it suits BOTH of you to do so.

Second, liberty is not a positive, but a negative right. That is, for YOU to have your liberty requires nothing of others, save leaving you alone. They don't have to do anything postive for you to possess it.

When on someone else's property, you can't fug with that person or his stuff or his liberty has been violated. OK? If you don't do anything, he holds his liberty anyway. You are not necessary to it, that is you don't have to do something positive to preserve it.

Now, if you go onto his property and demand that he acts as you want him to act, then you are violating his liberty to chose how he uses his property. You are then no longer leaving him alone or merely doing commerce, but are now initiating force against him, against his will, against his right to control his property.

It matters not what issue you wish controlled; THE point is liberty, not second hand smoke or smelly perfume or whatever. The owner decides. If he choses wrong, he loses money. As most business owners, he is greedy enough to have risked opening a business, so he will take rational actions to avoid such losses, which might include making the place non-smoking or whatever. His choice, not yours.\

You have choices too, though, don't you? You can stay home and play. You can petition the business owner to go non-smoking or take your business elsewhere. You can make an agreement with your opponent to not smoke. You can start selling smoke eaters and sell them to the places you frequent.* You have no more right to a non-smoking pool hall than to a free car. Why? Property rights. If those are not respected ANYTHING goes. Look around you and see how the dissing of property (mostly by the state) is destroying America's greatness. This is much more deadly than having no non-smoking pool halls at your disposal..

Jeff Livingston

* Imagine being in the smoke-eater business and the state ruins it with their anti-smoking law. What of that destruction? EDIT...I just rmembered a pool hall in downtown SF about 10 years ago or so. The owner there was bragging to me about his $200K smoke-eater system that gave him a great competitive advantage for those downtown workers who didn't want to smell like smoke during their lunch breaks and after work. He was so proud of that system and his nice clean environment that was apparently thriving. Then California saved everyone from themselves with the nations first anti-smoking law. That pool hall went out of business in a heartbeat...no more competitive advantage. A business does the right thing for its customers and is punished severely by the state for that goodness. THIS is because the state is formed on coercion, btw....but that's another subject.

 

[doitforthegame]

I have a question for those who say the pool halls have closed because of the smoking ban (and directly to the unfortunate gentleman that closed his room).

Once the smoking ban went into effect, everyone stopped playing pool in your area? Seriously? I ask that in a serious manner, not tounge-in-cheek. Even tho I've only played regularly for a short time, I've found that once you get the bug to play, you wanna play. Leagues folded, no tournaments, nothing?

So does everyone play in their homes, or their friends homes? Do they travel to another state to play?

The concept baffles me.

It is not the hard core player that you lose. It is the casual customer where one or two people smoke, but they bring in another couple of players to join them. You are right- you don't lose the real player. But the casual player is there to hang out, listen to tunes, talk with friends. When they can't smoke they go somewhere else. I used to always say, that in life's priorities- pool always came down to the bottom. If there was a big game on tv- no customers- if it was too cold, or raining or snowing- no customers- new movie premiere- no customers. I lost 40% of my business the day after the ban went into effect.

Also baffling to me is why it is such a big issue to have to go to another part of the building (yes, outside, but with tables/chairs/canopies/heaters, etc) to smoke, and then come back and play. I realize that I do not understand the effect nicotine has on the body, but you can't play pool without a cigarette sticking out of your mouth, or close enough to grab a drag between shots?

You are right here also. People are creatures of habit. That is why they smoke in the first place. Can they go somewhere else? Of course they can! But I'm not going to freeze my arse off...or go out there if I am the only female and there are ten guys...or for that matter, show my non smoking friends that joined me I am weak by not being able to go an hour without a smoke. I'll just find something else to do other than go to the poolroom.

That's what it boils down to, to me. We can rail against the system, the health effects, the liberty factor. But for you and I to play pool, if you are smoking, I can't play. That's what it all boils down to. My loss, right? Then whose "liberty" is being stomped upon?

No ones liberty is being stomped on! Indeed it is just the opposite! It is liberty in action! YOU have the right to choose not to play! You are not forced to do something you do not want to do. Definition of liberty: The condition of being free from restriction or control.(n.) Freedom from unjust or undue governmental control. Hmmmm...that seems to say it best....

oops, I did not intend to "go there", it just slipped out...

That's ok. But here is the deal. Just because you do not get your own way does not make something unfair or unjust. It just makes it the way that it is.


Bob