poolhall smoking

[chefjeff]

Jeff,

We both know that the government per say does not establish codes. they only enact the codes laid out by experts in the field and brought to legislation by representatives. :wink:

Also, have you considered that the flip side of your second paragraph is that the foolish greedy people have an incentive to *gamble*. They have an incentive to take a chance that their shoddy inexpensive wiring will hold up. If they win, they make a profit over the cost of proper wiring. If they lose, they are either exposed as incompetent, or worse, bring serious harm to the customers who unknowingly frequent that establishment. Why do you think casinos are popular? People like the idea of something for nothing. The casino offers the attraction of paying a little to win a lot. I personally do not want the house to win when it comes to my personal safety and the safety of others.

KMRUNOUT

I see no connection between your casino story and smoking...did I miss something?

Are you implying that people do stupid stuff anyways? I agree. Utopia isn't one of the choices, never has been, never will be....no matter how many pretend laws are passed.

Jeff Livingston

 

[chefjeff]

If a business is open for PUBLIC use the owner is subjecting himself to some public regulation especially for the welfare and safety of the public. If the owner doesn't agree with the regulations keep it private problem solved.

YES.

Keep it private. That is THE solution that please everyone.

But wait....there's a little entity that won't allow your business to be private and in your control.

any guesses as what this entity is and how they control you?

Jeff Livingston

 

[LWW]

To give CJ a hand on the "GUN IN YOUR FACE" cmment, it sounds over the top at first but in reality is spot on.

Let's take pool hall smoking bans.

I walk into Jimmy Jack Johnson's Pool Emporium and Purveyor of Fine Food and Spirits ... and I decide that I don't care about a ban and light up.

Now, Jimmy Jack tells me I can't smoke because it's illegal. I say I don't care. Jimmy Jack's choices are to call the guys with the guns or turn a blind eye to it.

When the guys with guns arrive I tell them I don't care if their is a law or not. What happens? I get arrested.

All law is ultimately backed up by force from the state. There are people walking in society who will not respect the property rights of others unless force, or the threat of force, is introduced.

Now, I'm not an advocate of a lawless anarchic society as that ultimately resorts in the people seeking a tyrant who can re-impose law and order. I am advocating that force, or the threat of same, only be used when no other options exist. In this case many other options exist.

In a republic such as ours, or at least what we had before we decided to become a nation of sheep, is a system where laws rule and not men. The rights of the property owner were supreme so long as it did not violate those of another.

NOBODY has their rights violated because a property owner decides that they or someone else can smoke within that person's property.

The point at hand isn't whether or not smoking is unhealthy because it certainly is unhealthy. The point is whether or not we believe in liberty as a people.

LWW

 

[LWW]

If a business is open for PUBLIC use the owner is subjecting himself to some public regulation especially for the welfare and safety of the public. If the owner doesn't agree with the regulations keep it private problem solved.

Untrue. In Ohio, one cannot smoke outside at a sporting event.

Now, here's a real solution.

Make each business decide if it wants to be smoke free, smoking, or divided rooms for each. Next have them post their policies at the entrance.

If people are unwilling to deal with the property owner's rules they can vote with their dollars and go to places that are more in line with their own values.

Problem solved.

LWW

 

[chefjeff]

Thanks, dub.

Here is an article about the Big Gun in the Room.

If you don't like to read, here is a short animation about it.

Jeff Livingston

 

[donny mills]

The only risk smoking has to others is scientifically questionable at best. Secondly, it is a voluntary risk that the person takes on of their own free will.

If I seriously believe that second hand smoke endangers my health, which I don't, then I simply don't go there. That is what liberty demands.

A reasonable, IMHO, compromise would be to require all public establishments such as bars and pool halls to post at the door whether they do or they don't tolerate smoking. There are more non smokers than smokers ... and thereby have the power to bring the businesses to their knees if the problem is really that bothersome to them.

That brings us to why the supporters of tyranny don't want to take this route ... they want their will imposed upon others for something that they themselves are unwilling to make any sacrifice to bring into being.

Business goes down after smoking bans. It stays up without the bans. This demonstrates clearly that the anti smoking crowd in reality doesn't feel that their health is endangered from second hand smoke and simply wants the state to enforce their moral code upon the balance of society.

LWW

What makes you say second hand smoke being unhealthy is questionable at best? How do you know?

 

[willybang]

The only risk smoking has to others is scientifically questionable at best. Secondly, it is a voluntary risk that the person takes on of their own free will.

If I seriously believe that second hand smoke endangers my health, which I don't, then I simply don't go there. That is what liberty demands.

A reasonable, IMHO, compromise would be to require all public establishments such as bars and pool halls to post at the door whether they do or they don't tolerate smoking. There are more non smokers than smokers ... and thereby have the power to bring the businesses to their knees if the problem is really that bothersome to them.

That brings us to why the supporters of tyranny don't want to take this route ... they want their will imposed upon others for something that they themselves are unwilling to make any sacrifice to bring into being.

Business goes down after smoking bans. It stays up without the bans. This demonstrates clearly that the anti smoking crowd in reality doesn't feel that their health is endangered from second hand smoke and simply wants the state to enforce their moral code upon the balance of society.

LWW

I'm guessing you missed my post in page 2 of this thread...
or are you choosing to ignore it?

Questionable evidence?
Go back and read my post..

Then consider this also..

I have NEVER smoked in my life, but I have sucked in 2nd hand smoke for 36 years
Just so I could play end enjoy the game all of us on these forums love.
The result is I have a one in four chance of being alive in 5 years time.
But have I asked for all smoking to be banned?
No, I just ask that if you choose to smoke, please respect my choice not to
And take it outside of our SHARED public buildings.

I am scientific proof!

 

[LWW]

What makes you say second hand smoke being unhealthy is questionable at best? How do you know?

What makes you think it isn't.

I've never seen anything substantial verifying this myth. Have you?

Here:

In addition, results are not consistently reproducible. The majority of studies do not report a statistically significant change in risk from secondhand smoke exposure, some studies show an increase in risk, and ¿ astoundingly ¿ some show a reduction of risk.

Some prominent anti-smokers have been quietly forthcoming on what "the science" does and does not show. Asked to quantify secondhand smoke risks at a 2006 hearing at the UK House of Lords, Oxford epidemiologist Sir Richard Peto ¿ a leader of the secondhand smoke crusade ¿ replied, "I am sorry not to be more helpful; you want numbers and I could give you numbers..., but what does one make of them? ...These hazards cannot be directly measured."

It has been fashionable to ignore the weakness of "the science" on secondhand smoke, perhaps in the belief that claiming "the science is settled" will lead to policies and public attitudes that will reduce the prevalence of smoking.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/29/AR2007012901158.html

of the 75 published studies of ETS and lung cancer, some 70 percent did not report statistically significant differences of risk and are moot. Roughly 17 percent claim an increased risk and 13 percent imply a reduction of risk.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv30n1/v30n1-5.pdf

of the 37 studies [on passive smoking], only 7 – less than 19 percent – reported statistically significant increases in lung cancer incidence.

http://www.junkscience.com/news/bmjsmoke.html

is some compelling data that the entire crusade has been more one of gathering more and more control of private property under the umbrella of state power than anything else.

LWW

 

[LWW]

I'm guessing you missed my post in page 2 of this thread...
or are you choosing to ignore it?

Questionable evidence?
Go back and read my post..

Then consider this also..

I have NEVER smoked in my life, but I have sucked in 2nd hand smoke for 36 years
Just so I could play end enjoy the game all of us on these forums love.
The result is I have a one in four chance of being alive in 5 years time.
But have I asked for all smoking to be banned?
No, I just ask that if you choose to smoke, please respect my choice not to
And take it outside of our SHARED public buildings.

I am scientific proof!

I have great sympathy for your plight, but I see no evidence that it was or wasn't caused by second hand smoke.

Further, as you yourself admit ... you chose to accept whatever risk there was. Life is fraught with risk. I choose to drive. Next time I do, you may kill me. That doesn't give me the right to demand that you cannot drive at the same time as I do on roads we own equally.

Lastly, a pool room is not a building we share. It is a business that neither of us own. We use it under the terms and conditions of the owner.

And, to stress it again, I am not a smoker. I do not like smoking. My wife is asthmatic and severely distressed by smoke. Together, we avoided places where smoking was common before the bans were in place.

Those were choices we made.

LWW

 

[branpureza]

Anyone who doesn't think secondhand smoke is harmful to your health is an idiot.

http://www.cancer.org/docroot/PED/content/PED_10_2X_Secondhand_Smoke-Clean_Indoor_Air.asp

 

[LWW]

And in the typical mind of a tyrant ... the less than 20% of studies that supports your thinking is correct, and the more than 80% which do not must be wrong?

And you have the audacity to use logic that flawed and call someone else an idiot?

But again, the tyrants are trying to wheel the debate into the ditch because they know they cannot win.

It matters not if there is increased risk ... that risk is willingly accepted by those who enter.

So ... shall I add you to the list of people who will be walking to work because your driving increases my risk?

What is it about the supporters of tyranny that makes them believe they have the right to dictate to a property owner that they must forego their business plan simply because they might someday enter that establishment?

LWW

 

[chefjeff]

Anyone who doesn't think secondhand smoke is harmful to your health is an idiot.

http://www.cancer.org/docroot/PED/content/PED_10_2X_Secondhand_Smoke-Clean_Indoor_Air.asp

And anyone who believes that (and I'm not arguing either way on it) and goes into a place where people are smoking is an idiot.

And anyone who believes that they share a public building with others and uses men with guns to make that so is a tyrant.

And anyone who doesn't understand property and its rights and responsibilities is an idiot.

I can't think of any other idiots at the moment....but stay tuned!

Jeff Livingston

 

[LWW]

And anyone who believes that (and I'm not arguing either way on it) and goes into a place where people are smoking is an idiot.

Jeff Livingston

I will disagree with the point but not the sentiment.

Anyone who enters such a place of their own free will is practicing risk management.

Nearly every decision we make in life can have serious consequences.

When I open my door to get the AM paper in the spring I exposed myself to the risk that my neighbor mowing grass across the street might have his mower sling a rock which could kill me if it hit me. That almost happened once ... the rock missed me by inches. Shall I demand that mowers be banned? Shall I never open my door again? Or shall I realize that it's a one in a gazillion chance.

When I leave the house today I am accepting the risk that another driver may kill me. An airplane might crash upon me. I might be the victim of road rage. Shall I demand that nobody may drive when I'm out? Or that all planes be grounded during that time? Or should I accept that the small risk might be worth it to me when balanced against the perceived benefits?

Life is fraught with risk and benefit. In our society today we have somehow come to believe we are entitled to all the benefits ... but the state should eliminate all the risks.

LWW

 

[chefjeff]

I will disagree with the point but not the sentiment.

(snip)

I concur.

I posted it the way I did to illustrate the emotions that rule on this issue, vs. rationality, thus calls for violence to "fix" the problem.

Life is filled with tradeoffs. To think a state can eliminate all such bad* trades is insane. First, it is impossble to do that and any politician who claims such powers is not your friend. Second, trade is THE peace keeper and prosperity generator in society. With each trade elimnated by the force of govt, all suffer economically--with lost civil liberties, too.

Jeff Livingston

* Bad is a subjective choice, of course. This confusion of the subjective (I hate smoking) with the objective (The pool hall ain't my property) is another false premise often used in this argument.

 

[chefjeff]

I'm sure most are sick of this (current) smoking thread....

This post is for room owners and others concerned with articualting a good property-rights defense against the coercive control-freaks.

Here is a great take on property and how it is claimed justly. I recommend this read for those who need more ammo or need better aim.

Jeff Livingston

 

[branpureza]

And in the typical mind of a tyrant ... the less than 20% of studies that supports your thinking is correct, and the more than 80% which do not must be wrong?

haha, where did you find this statistic?

But again, the tyrants are trying to wheel the debate into the ditch because they know they cannot win.
LWW

can't win? the debate is over bro... second hand smoke is bad for you.

 

[LWW]

haha, where did you find this statistic?



can't win? the debate is over bro... second hand smoke is bad for you.

If you possessed the intellectual integrity to read the links provided you wouldn't need to ask the question.

And, I'm not arguing that second hand smoke is or isn't unhealthy. I suspect that at some level it probably is.

What I am arguing is that YOU have no right to impede on the liberty of another so that YOU can enjoy more liberty.

Of that fact, you can make no sane argument that you should have the right to do this.

As to second hand smoke's safety ... the point was that the issue is far from settled.

But them\n, I review many sources ... and can even admit that sometimes I don't know the truth. Others prefer to be spoon fed what they believe the truth to be.

Now ... if I see you walking while I'm out driving how can I spot you, as I might stop and give you a ride.

And, please, don't suggest that it's not fair to make you walk because who cares ... you have already shown that you support one person impeding on the liberty of others when an action of the other might possible add some risk.

Also, please don't try the lame "THAT'S DIFFERENT!" because it isn't ... other than it's you being impeded upon.

LWW

 

[KMRUNOUT]

You obviously haven't read the document in quite some time ... if ever.



LWW

You are correct sir. It has been a long long time. I appreciate the update. I stand corrected.

 

[KMRUNOUT]

Would you accept the Center for Disease Control as an acceptable source?

Sure.

Heart disease is the leading cause of death in the United States and is a major cause of disability. The most common heart disease in the United States is coronary heart disease, which often appears as a heart attack. In 2009, an estimated 785,000 Americans will have a new coronary attack, and about 470,000 will have a recurrent attack. About every 25 seconds, an American will have a coronary event, and about one every minute will die from one. [1]

The chance of developing coronary heart disease can be reduced by taking steps to prevent and control factors that put people at greater risk. Additionally, knowing the signs and symptoms of heart attack are crucial to the most positive outcomes after having a heart attack. People who have survived a heart attack can also work to reduce their risk of another heart attack or a stroke in the future. For more information on heart disease and stroke, visit CDC's Division for Heart Disease and Stroke Prevention. ...

A healthy diet and lifestyle are the best weapons you have to fight heart disease. Many people make it harder than it is. It is important to remember that it is the overall pattern of the choices you make that counts. As you make daily food choices, base your eating pattern on these recommendations:

Choose lean meats and poultry without skin and prepare them without added saturated and trans fat.
Select fat-free, 1% fat, and low-fat dairy products.
Cut back on foods containing partially hydrogenated vegetable oils to reduce trans fat in your diet.
Cut back on foods high in dietary cholesterol. Aim to eat less than 300 mg of cholesterol each day.
Cut back on beverages and foods with added sugars.
Choose and prepare foods with little or no salt. Aim to eat less than 2,300 mg of sodium per day (or less than 1,500 mg if you are in a higher risk group for high blood pressure).
If you drink alcohol, drink in moderation. That means no more than one drink per day if you're a woman and two drinks per day if you're a man.
Keep an eye on your portion sizes.

All that seems fine, but are you sure this study didn't make any mention of smoking? I noticed it wasn't in the part that you snipped out.

Originally Posted by KMRUNOUT
Neither. These are both wrong. The state, in theory, should not own anything. "ME" is a concept that involves not only my body but my thoughts and mind. This is something that no one owns-certainly not the state. However, to say that "I own me" is a little ridiculous, because when I die, I not only stop owning me, "me" disintegrates. I control my own actions, and the state imposes regulations against certain of those actions. The state enforces these regulations and may imprison or otherwise harm or control me. That's it.

KMRUNOUT
What is your point here? That I'm wrong because I'm right? Or that you agree with and comply sheepishly to tyranny?

My point is that you asked a question based on a false dichotomy. I think you are wrong because you are wrong. I do not see the only two viewpoints as being that I own me or the state owns me. I think that type of thinking severely undervalues what it means to be a human being, and what it means to be a human being living in a society. There is a lot more to me than my physical body, at least in my experience. Lets also not stumble over the ideas of "I can't do this because it is illegal" vs. "I can't do this because I am or have been made physically incapable." I have made the choice to live in this society. This society imposes certain regulations which I happen to agree with. It is a form of "rule utilitarianism"--if everyone follows a particular rule it will be better for me and everyone else overall.

Originally Posted by KMRUNOUT
Not true. Certainly not true just because you say so. I believe that the state can and does determine to *some* extent what I ingest. I cannot ingest cocaine whenever I want to. I believe that I am part of the state, and the state is part of me. Neither "owns" the other.

KMRUNOUT
And you can't ingest what you want because you agree to the concept that the state owns you, and you live under the mirage that you are a free man Shake off the chains brother. The first step is reading what you posted and understanding the ramifications of it.

LWW, I would encourage you to follow your own advice. I can ingest anything I can get my hands on. I happen to think ingesting certain things would be a bad idea, and doing so contributes to some of society's problems. I am happy for the laws that prohibit ingesting those things, since I believe in those laws. I am always free to leave this society. I could move to another state, or another country. I could live out in the Australian Outback and probably be left mostly alone. I am always free to do or not do anything within my physical capability. I will, of course, have to answer to any laws in place prohibiting actions I might choose to do. For example, I am free to speed in my car and often do. However, I occasionally get tickets for speeding, and must deal with those. By definition, society represents a certain forfeiture of rights, as we all have diverse interests and must find a least common denominator under which to live together. I have rad what I posted, and am well aware of the ramifications. Have you read it, and understood it? Your response tells me that maybe you didn't.

KMRUNOUT

Quote:
Originally Posted by KMRUNOUT
This is what is called "hyperbole". We have not determined that at all. We have clearly established that a property owner absolutely *can* determine the use of their own property WITHIN THE CONFINES OF THE LAWS IN EFFECT REGARDING THAT PROPERTY. For example, I can choose who to invite into my home. That choice is mediated only by (legal) a court ordered warrant to enter or (illegal) anyones choice to forcibly enter my home. So I do not need to ever invite a non-smoker into my home if I don't want to. I believe that a homeowner has the right to smoke in their own home, but might face additional consequences as a result of exercising that right, such as higher insurance premiums, health problems that place a burden on the scarce medical resources we have, and harm caused to other members of that household.

KMRUNOUT
Again read what you are posting. You believe you are free to use your property as you see fit ... as long as your master approves.

Now, if the state can the property owner (Pool hall in this case.) that they cannot use their property as they see fit because you might willingly stop by ... how short of a step is it for the state to say you can't smoke at home because the meter reader might willingly stop by.

Freedom doesn't have an on and off switch. You either have it or you don't. You either believe in it or you don't.

You want to live in a fantasy world where the state can inflict your will on another, and then delude yourself to believe it will never use the same power to inflict another's will upon you.

LWW




What is your point here? That I'm wrong because I'm right? Or that you agree with and comply sheepishly to tyranny?



And you can't ingest what you want because you agree to the concept that the state owns you, and you live under the mirage that you are a free man Shake off the chains brother. The first step is reading what you posted and understanding the ramifications of it.



Again read what you are posting. You believe you are free to use your property as you see fit ... as long as your master approves.

Now, if the state can the property owner (Pool hall in this case.) that they cannot use their property as they see fit because you might willingly stop by ... how short of a step is it for the state to say you can't smoke at home because the meter reader might willingly stop by.

Freedom doesn't have an on and off switch. You either have it or you don't. You either believe in it or you don't.

You want to live in a fantasy world where the state can inflict your will on another, and then delude yourself to believe it will never use the same power to inflict another's will upon you.

LWW[/QUOTE]

 

[LWW]

You are correct sir. It has been a long long time. I appreciate the update. I stand corrected.

Anytime brother.

Far from the end all expert here, but I am a lifelong history student.

Our republic is at serious risk because the state has been roaming from group to group promising to limit the liberty of those who do things each group disagrees with ... and it is just recently that "WE THE PEOPLE" are all less free because of it.

Demanding that I remain free requires that I am either capable of defeating the state singlehandedly ... which I can't ... or that I am willing to stand by my fellow citizen to defend their liberty and expect that they do the same for me.

LWW