poolhall smoking

[KMRUNOUT]

I quit smoking 9 years ago and I'm really unaffected for the most part by smoke in places I go, but the total ban in Michigan takes effect May 1st. I guess we'll all be able to see and breathe better, but I keep thinking:

I remember when pool rooms and bars were places where men drank, swore, scratched, gambled, sometimes fought, and even spit! Women entered at their own risk, but we were generally well behaved and enjoyed it when they did come. I miss those places.

I think that a bar owner, or the owner of a pool room, or even a restaurant for that matter, should have some rights after investing his money. He should be able to post a sign on the door that says "This Is A Smoking Establishment" or "This Is A Non-Smoking Establishment" . You could then either accept the rules there or go down the street, at your discretion. Why does government have to tell us what we can and cannot do ? I guess I'm a Libertarian...lol.

Hard to argue with this. That is certainly the Libertarian viewpoint. However, here are some things to consider that might make the question a little more complex:

1) Employee's. Currently the law forbids employing people to work in an unsafe or unhealthy workplace environment. This is different for each state I'm sure. Should businesses have to declare their smoking status to the employees and the state?
2) Likewise, would the employees have to declare their employment status (at a smoking establishment) to their health insurance providers?
3) Personal freedom is great of course. However, *someone* pays for the health problems caused by certain activities, like smoking. The question soon becomes, "are we as a society willing to pay for the health problems arising from smoking and second hand smoke?" What happens if society has decided that no, we are not? We don't want to let that decision impact *personal* liberty, which is why we are still allowed to smoke all we want in our own homes, cars, outside, and in designated areas, as well (in MA) in private clubs.

Let's just look at it this way: many smokers make the short-sighted point of "if you don't like smoke, don't go to a smoking establishment". Ok, if that's the way you see it, lets try: "if you don't like states that collectively vote for no smoking in public places, don't go to or live in that state". Does that still sound ok smokers?

KMRUNOUT

 

[LWW]

Without reading all of this, my thoughts on smoking in pool halls and in public in general are as follows:

1 - I was a smoker from age 16 till age 35, 3 packs a day at the end, could never detect smoke when I walked into an establishment ... and felt that anyone who thought they could was delusional.

2 - I quit not quite 18 years ago (2 April, 1992) and today find smoking to be a disgusting habit, to the point I can't believe that I ever actually did it.

3 - Anyone who swears they want to quit but can't is undeserving of any respect for their own willpower. It wasn't a walk in the park, but it was far from undoable. Surviving an auto accident, receiving an implant from it, spending several months in casts, and having to take up walking again with a leg shriveled up thinner than my arm ... that's hard. I've done both. In comparison ... quitting smoking is like dropping a hanging 9 with BIH. It's always easier to accept adversity as insurmountable ... if you are a smoker who wants to quit, don't listen to the losers.

4 - I don't own a pool hall, bar, or restaurant. I do own 12 rental units. I would never consider banning a tenant from practicing a legal activity in property they are ... for a period of time ... "paying for" although I do charge them more because the rehab costs when they move are more expensive.

5 - I believe very strongly in the American republic and the constitution as fathered by James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay.

6 - A pool room, restaurant, or bar owner should have every right to ban smokers if they deem it is a better business model or if they simply don't like it and are willing to lose some smoking customers because of it.

7 - A pool room, restaurant, or bar owner should have every right to allow smokers if they deem it is a better business model or if they simply do like it and are willing to lose some non smoking customers because of it.

8 - I have never been forced to do business at an establishment, and have never been threatened with violence if I took my business elsewhere.

9 - At times I have exercised the power of voting with my cash as expressed in point 8. I will probably do it again sooner or later.

10 - Believing that you have the freedom to do things with your own person and/or property ... so long as it does not deprive another of their person and/or property ... means that you should be willing to allow everyone else the freedom to do things with their own person and/or property ... so long as it does not deprive you of your person and/or property.

11 - If you disagree with point 10 you are, IMHO, being at best dishonest and at worst a hypocrite.

12 - I believe that someone will tell me that their rights are more important than mine because they are them and I'm not.

LWW

 

[Russ Chewning]

Smoking is just the avenue the government is using right now to gain more control over our lives. The bans are spreading, and nobody is going to try and stop it. And when it's complete, they will move on to something else, and they will do it a little bit at a time, and nobody will try to stop it.
Steve

Ahhhh...now we are getting somewhere..

Here is the rub of the thing, right here.

A. People inherently DO want the government to control some things. They will not fight if the government attempts to control these things..

B. People inherently DO NOT want some things controlled. They will fight EXTREMELY vigorously to insure the government's attempt to take over these things fails. This is why Brown won the Mass. Senate seat, and it is why the Democrats will lose 25% of their elections later this year.

C. If VERY few people are fighting the smoking bans, it must mean that the public will is being served well by the government, which is a good thing. Lately, it is one of the VERY few things the government has served us well in. They are making policy changes that will not negatively affect business in the long run, and will be beneficial to the health of a LARGE percentage of the population.

Guess what? I'd also like to see the government step in and reduce salt contents of prepackaged foodstuffs. You can always add salt, and it will decrease the rate of hypertension in a large portion of the population.

Government CAN improve certain things. I think you are just disillusioned by government's recent propensity to do things 60+% of the populace disagree strongly with.

Russ

 

[KMRUNOUT]

They'd go to a hall that was smokefree.

If a pool hall owner REALLY owns his place*, HE, not you or us or govt, makes the rules for it. Now if you or us hire the govt goons with their guns to make the rules, then the pool hall "owner" is merely a serf and all of these questions instantly become moot for us.

Jeff Livingston

* Property is defined here quite well.

Jeff,

I hear what you are saying, I think we have been back and forth on this before. I read the link you gave--I think that provides one possible view of what constitutes private property. However, the article does not really provide an explanation for the example of commercial property intended for the occupation of the public. It seems hard to believe that you haven't thought of the alternative scenarios one can immediately think up to make this line of reasoning fall apart. "If a pool hall owner REALLY owns his place..." You could complete this sentence 1000 different ways. If he really owns it, he could allow people to snort coke and have sex with children for money, etc. The point is that property ownership, whether personal or commercial, gives no one the right to violate the law. Our "social order" had created a law system by way of which laws were enacted forbidding smoking in public areas. Whether or not you like that outcome, your only recourse is to either use the legal system to change it, or else change the legal system. "Not liking" it or believing it infringes on personal property rights does not accomplish either of these outcomes.

KMRUNOUT

 

[KMRUNOUT]

Another is that my wife won't go to the pool hall with me because of all the "creepy people" outside smoking. She was very intimidated by them apparently, not to mention they don't move out of the way and block foot traffic. I predicted that those folks would get the attention of the public and soon will be banned from standing outside smoking, which if you think about it makes more sense than banning actions on private property, visible to only patrons.

Otoh, I enjoy crossing the threshold of the pool hall as I get a whiff of the smoke that I associate with pool. ahhhhh....a little touch of heaven. (btw, I don't smoke)

Jeff Livingston

Jeff,

I think this example helps build the case that many who smoke are selfish and inconsiderate people. Also, I'm sure there are many poolhalls that own the space outside their door, the entire parking lot, etc. If I understand your wife's logic, those people were fine when they smoked inside and willfully endangered the health of themselves and the people around them, but they become "creepy" when they go outside and limit their ill effect on people's health to the whiff of smoke you get walking by and their rude inconsideration of passers-through. I don't think I would try to make any kind of point based on this logic...

KMRUNOUT

 

[KMRUNOUT]

If smoke is so bad, why hasn't the government made cigarettes illegal?
(Could it have anything to do with all the tax money they collect off them?)

Steve

I think it is not as much the money itself as it is the negative effect on the national economy and budget in the short term after illegalizing smoking. In other words, because there is a multi-billion dollar industry built around selling cigarettes, they can't just pull the plug in one fell swoop. However, they *could* begin changing the laws slowly to phase the industry out :wink:

Also, an argument could be made that smoking in one's own home hurts no one else and therefore should be legal. This is fine with me, as long as the insurance premiums of smokers and all smoke related illness is paid for entirely by *smokers*, and not me or anyone else who doesn't smoke.

KMRUNOUT

 

[KMRUNOUT]

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.

I'm reading through this thread and this post is the first to directly answer the OP. On the surface, this line of reasoning makes sense. However, when you look a little deeper, it gets complicated. So lets assume a bar owner should have the right to make his establishment smoking. John goes there because he likes to smoke. Tom does not go there because he doesn't like smoke. John contracts lung cancer and requires $165,000 in treatment over the next 10 years. As it turns out, John and Tom both have the same health insurance company. Tom doesn't care much for the doctor and rarely gets sick. He cost the insurance company $485 over those 10 years. John's *choice* to generate $165,000 in expense to the insurance company is passed along to Tom, since they both will see increases in their premiums as a result of all the John's out there. Now is the next reply that "Tom should go to a health insurance company that doesn't cater to smokers"? Starts to sound a little ridiculous when you look at it this way.

Just a little food for thought.

KMRUNOUT

 

[KMRUNOUT]

Why do you keep bringing up this subject? We've had numerous threads already and we've heard all the arguments. Your side is winning. Is that not enough for you?

I don't know how to swim, but I enjoy getting wet. I don't think it's fair that swimming pools are so deep. They're forcing us non-swimmers to risk our safety by making the pools so deep. I think all swimming pools should be 3ft deep so I don't have to worry about drowning. Come to think about it, the ocean is too deep. I think we need to make the ocean only 3ft deep so non-swimmers like me can enjoy a nice day at the beach.:thumbup:










Note: I'm a dirty liar. I can swim just fine.

Drew,

Your analogy is not accurate. In order to be an accurate analogy, the *cause* of your inability to swim would have to be the people who can swim, or the swimming conditions. Just like the *cause* of the irritation to my lungs is the smokers, or the smoke in the air (provided by the smokers). In other words, the depth of the water has no impact on your ability to swim. Likewise, the depth of the water does not prevent you from learning to swim. I cannot learn to be impervious to smoke and cancer. I wish I could, but that is up to my body and genetic code.

In other words, the principle item you forgot in your analogy is that swimming is a skill that can be learned if you wish. Forming cancer or other health related negative effects related to smoke is not a choice (I'm not talking about whether or not you are exposed to smoke. I'm talking about once exposed to smoke, whether or not you experience ill health effects).

Hope this helps further analogies,

KMRUNOUT

 

[KMRUNOUT]

I always try to take the high road in these sorts of discussions (and many others) but I the part that I find troubling is how the smokers completely ignore the rights of non-smokers.

I am going to side-step the second-hand smoke/cancer issue, which is the primary reason for these bans. That can and will be debated for many years to come. What I don't understand is why smokers can't realize that I'm not interested in smelling like an ashtray because of their habit.

We see many responses from smokers about this bad habit or that bad habit, and why isn't that banned. (Overweight, drinking, too much TV, etc) I'm not championing those issues. Those habits do not affect others around them other than drunk-driving, which is heinous and is already legislated against. Smoking directly affects those in proximity of the smoker, from the possibility of health issues, to the basic details of making everyone else STINK. And I have no control over it, other than leaving the area where the smoker is standing.

It isn't all about you. Or me. Or the next guy. We all have to try and live together, kumbaya and all.

Maine has had smoking banned in public places for many years now, and it has worked out OK. As for people hanging out by the doors, that isn't an issue, as most places prohibit that, and create their own fenced in smoking areas. (Bars have to do that in order for the smokers to take their drinks with them. Other places do it for just the reason the other posted stated, negative reaction by the public.)

Again, I'm sensitive to the troubles smokers have with their habit. I just don't wanna have to take a shower when I come home from a bar, and put my clothes in a trash bag until it's laundry time.

North Carolina will survive this. Many other states have managed just fine, they will too.

I agree with you, well put. Seems like an even more simple question that this is:

"Why don't smokers have *consideration* for non smokers?" (or course I don't mean all smokers) In other words, regardless of the rules of a particular place, why would a smoke be incapable of thinking to themselves, "Boy I sure do like smoking. I like smoking right here at my table. But man, it really does make a lot of smoke, and what if that smoke bothered the people around me? I know that I could brush this concern off because other people are smoking and there's so much smoke in here that *my* smoke would hardly make a difference. But still, I want to be a considerate person, and do the right thing even though the other smokers around me don't care to do that."

That is the part I just don't get. I know I know, all people are selfish to a degree, smokers or otherwise. It's still hard to accept though.

KMRUNOUT

 

[KMRUNOUT]

I think smoker's antipathy towards the ill effect their habit has on others is a psychological side effect of the addiction. I'll explain.

Smokers KNOW what they do is bad for them. They tell themselves that almost every single day. Sometimes multiple times per day.

The physical addiction causes them to badly want the next cigarette anyways.

The mind is getting multiple conflicting inputs.

1. Cigarettes are bad for me

2. I really want cigarettes badly.

3. I make other people stink when I smoke around them. This makes me feel bad.

4. I really want cigarettes badly

5. Cigarettes are too damned expensive

6. I really want cigarettes badly

The mind does not like being in a state of ongoing uncertainty. When put in a state of continued conflict or uncertainty, the mind will "make up" stuff that does not necessarily make sense, and then continue to reinforce these false "truisms".

In these circumstances, at a subconcious level, the mind tells the person:

1.It's okay to smoke, my grandpa lived to be 90, smoking 30 packs/day

2. I deserve it

3. Non smoking jack@sses are just busybodies, and can't mind their business

4. Hey, we all gotta spend our money, it should be on something we enjoy

Etc..etc...etc..

This caused an interesting psychological effect. The subconcious mind works so many hours each day reinforcing these negative thought patterns, that eventually, the negative thought patterns and ambivalence towards others becomes more pronounced.

The smoker starts flicking his finished cigarette out the window, not caring who has to pick it up

The smoker becomes less likely to open the door for someone else going into a store

The smoker becomes more snappy with others in their day to day life.

These are just generalizations, but a few studies have shown that smokers tend to be, as a group, just a little bit more rude to their fellow man.

I hope this does a little to explain why a lot of smokers simply don't care what effect their habit has on others.

Russ

Russ,

Superb post. I tried to rep you, but apparently you were the last person I repped lol!!

So here's the thing: I smoked for about a year and a half in college. I experienced *exactly* the things you outlined in the part about what the mind tells the person. I soon came to identify these thoughts that came up in my head, these justifications for why I should smoke my next cigarette, as excuses. False excuses that were only there because I smoked the last cigarette!! It was the realization that I was fooling myself, and that I was actually getting away with it, that lead to my quitting.

Thanks for the great post,

KMRUNOUT

 

[Drew]

Drew,

Your analogy is not accurate. In order to be an accurate analogy, the *cause* of your inability to swim would have to be the people who can swim, or the swimming conditions. Just like the *cause* of the irritation to my lungs is the smokers, or the smoke in the air (provided by the smokers). In other words, the depth of the water has no impact on your ability to swim. Likewise, the depth of the water does not prevent you from learning to swim. I cannot learn to be impervious to smoke and cancer. I wish I could, but that is up to my body and genetic code.

In other words, the principle item you forgot in your analogy is that swimming is a skill that can be learned if you wish. Forming cancer or other health related negative effects related to smoke is not a choice (I'm not talking about whether or not you are exposed to smoke. I'm talking about once exposed to smoke, whether or not you experience ill health effects).

Hope this helps further analogies,

KMRUNOUT

Actually my analogy is perfect as my inability to swim is something I account for when making day to day decisions. As a non-swimmer, you will not find me jumping into rivers and lakes despite how much fun it may be. As a non-smoker, you will need to make the decision of whether or not you want to engage in an activity where there will be smokers. Sticking a gun in the room owner's face and telling him to not allow smokers is fascist behavior and theft of property rights. Just because everybody agrees with it, doesn't make it right. So, what if I stuck a gun in your face and told you that your swimming pool must be no deeper than 3ft?

 

[KMRUNOUT]

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

Hmm...my dad was a lifelong resident of MA, but about 10 years ago moved to Florida. He told me that several years ago Florida did indeed go non-smoking, which was a shocker when it happened. Now is this restricted in some way? For example, does FL currently allow smoking in bars or poolrooms? I thought they currently did not.

KMRUNOUT

 

[KMRUNOUT]

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

All of those things sound like reasonable ideas that I might accept. They all have their own specific issues (fireplace environmental impact might actually affect other people, diet soda only affects me, etc.).

Let's see if *WE* enact those laws.

 

[KMRUNOUT]

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.

Awesome post. Very well stated. I particularly like the Hoover Dam analogy. Well done.

KMRUNOUT

 

[KMRUNOUT]

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....

I think your reasoning is pretty far from logical on almost every single thing you said.

If you pay for alcohol related lawsuits, that is perhaps a problem with out suit-crazy legal system. Is it necessarily a problem with alcohol? Drinking and driving is illegal.

Long term abuse of alcohol *can* be accomplished legally, so you have a point there. Once a doctor determines that a persons health problems are related to alcohol abuse, the health insurance agency should be notified and the increased premiums should be paid for by the drinker. So I think this point is more a failure of our health insurance system. By the same token, if smoking related increases in health insurance premiums were paid by smokers, the "just don't go to smoking establishments if you don't like it" argument would be much more workable.

People can be loud and annoying and bump into you with or without alcohol. Likewise, there are plenty of people that drink moderately and behave in such a way that most people would never notice they had been drinking. This is not an alcohol issue, this is a "some people are annoying" issue.

Drunk driving is illegal.

These effects do *not* mirror the effects of smoking, for the reasons stated above.

You don't support a customer telling a business owner how to run his business? Are you serious? Are you simply not in favor of independent thought? If I owned a business...oh wait...I do!...I sure as hell want my customers to tell me what things they like and what things they don't like. That is how I can improve my business. Likewise, it seems like you are implying that customers should only bring their dollars to the establishments they like. Is this not a way of telling business owners how to run their business? In businesses that specifically cater to the *enjoyment of their customers*, why in the world would the customers' opinions not matter?

KMRUNOUT

 

[KMRUNOUT]

Some people just dont get it...

You said it sir.

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...

Look out for big brother...they are out to get you!

says there are more non smokers than smokers in general maybe there are but in a pool hall or bar they are outnumbered...

Good thing I got got my big brother to stop you if you screw with me...

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...

Curious...do you stop respecting your non smoking friend when you guys go out together to a public place?

If a non-smoking pool hall was such a big buisness then they would have popped up everywhere years ago...

As with most things, it doesn't happen until it happens. How many health clubs were there before there were health clubs?

KMRUNOUT

 

[KRJ]

WOW, please wake up....

Apples and oranges, Russ. Nobody knew, and they weren't making it public knowledge about the toxic dumping, and when comfronted with it, continued to try and hide what they were doing.

I never went into a bar or pool room where people were smoking that it wasn't obvious. Entering a pool room with smokers is done with the knowledge of what you are doing.

Look, I don't really care whether or not my pool room allows smoking. And nobody is trying to say that cigarette smoke is a good thing.

Smoking is just the avenue the government is using right now to gain more control over our lives. The bans are spreading, and nobody is going to try and stop it. And when it's complete, they will move on to something else, and they will do it a little bit at a time, and nobody will try to stop it.

More government intervention into the private activities of individuals is not a good thing, ever. Whether you smoke or not, whether you like the fact that there is no smoking in pool rooms, everyone should be looking very closely, not so much at what is being done, but how it is being done!

After tobacco, what is next?
How long before it is something that infringes on your own personal life?

Just saying....

Steve

Yeah, just like car seats for kids.. hey its my kid and if i want him to be thrown thru the windshield like a human projectile, that is my call.
Hey, I own the airline and if I want to carry explosives in the cargo area to make a few extra bucks, that is my call.
Hey, these damn school buses should not stop at all train tracks, the bus company can make the call on this, not big government.
Hey, we should let people drink and drive, it's their business and they own the car for heavens sake. Stay out of my bottle big Gov.
Hey, if Joe Shmoe wants to sell defective heart valves to hospitals, that is his business and nobody should tell him how to run his business. Buyer beware.
Hey, If I want to sell cheap guns to 15 year old gangbangers, that is my businesess.
Hey, If I own the pool room I should be allowed to sell crack, fully automatic weapons, plutonium, airplane landing parts (really, they work fine). I should be able to pimp out the 18 year old drug addicts in order to make a few bucks as well, it is my store after all. Heck, maybe even give them the drugs so I can piimp them out. They are my customers, so I shall do with them as I please.

GIVE ME A FREAKING BREAK

 

[KMRUNOUT]

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

to use an example already stated...I am planning on opening a restaurant. I don't know anything about food handling, refrigeration, etc. I'll do my best, but there is a pretty good chance you will eat spoiled food at my restaurant. Are you ok with being one of my first customers? You seriously prefer that the govt. doesn't regulate the conditions under which I do business?

 

[Big Perm]

In businesses that specifically cater to the *enjoyment of their customers*, why in the world would the customers' opinions not matter?

KMRUNOUT

With all sincerity, your tone is condescending and insulting.....add to that the fact that you seem to be twisting my words, and those of others, simply to prove yourself right.....at no point did I nor others say that customers could not express their opinions - the point was they could not dictate policy and force a private business owner into.....

forget it.....good day and good luck in your quest to put everyone in their place......

 

[KRJ]

Very Well Said.

Banged up, let me take you on a little thought experiment. You play pool, right? When you are facing a tough shot or a safe, how do you decide which is the best course of action? I assume that you try and gauge the likelihood of success at each option, and take the highest percentage shot. Now, once you have made your choice, does it *always* work out the way you wanted? Probably not, cause I haven't seen you snapping off any pro tournaments (I think The thing to realize here is that if you succeed at a particular shot 75% of the time, that means obviously that you will fail 25% of the time. Now lets say your friend drops by the pool room right at the moment you are facing one of those shots. You decide to go with your 75% success shot. This happens to be one of those times where you mess up. Your friend has only seen *this* attempt though. He might come away thinking that this is a 0 percent shot for you, or a very low percent. Get the idea? The fact that you failed that particular time does not change the percentage chance of success on the shot.

So now take a look at your old non-smoker exposed to second hand smoke. For that matter, take a look at hundreds of them. You might personally know 100 people who are old, were exposed to 2nd hand smoke their whole lives, and who don't smoke. This however doesn't change the percent chances for people exposed to 2nd hand smoke to contract lung cancer. There is plenty of research (and unfortunately far too uncommon common sense) showing that second hand smoke is bad for you.

I *personally* know several people who were around pool rooms their whole lives and DIED of lung cancer. One of them quit smoking over 20 years ago. Not good enough for him though.

The point is, because you can find one (or a hundred or a thousand) people who fit a particular condition, this does not necessarily represent the entire population, and you would be unwise (and illogical) to draw conclusions based on this tiny group.

Absolutely True. This is why insurance companies use a principal called the law of large numbers. They base the amount of claims they will pay in any given year based on the number of accidents based off a large sample, not "well I knew a guy who never had an accident" .
They have to be accurate to get the right policy premium set and thus will have the reserves to pay any claims that are filed. And by the way, it is big government that ensures that insurance companies have adequate reserves to pay claims and not go out of business. Yeah, don't even bring up AIG, because that is one company out of thousands of insurance companies. They invested poorly and should have been left to die after their terrible decisions. As a former lobbyist, the ones who are afraid of governemnt intervention think of themselves as good republicans.. Well, I'm a staunch republican in Chicago in a sea of democrats. But republicans are part of Congress too, and they make laws each year as well. Not just democrats. I tend to think they make better law, but that is a different thread at another time.