poolhall smoking

[LWW]

OK, I"m gonna do a little target shooting while you are drinking your beer... oh well, them are the risks of having a free society. Just be sure to duck !! Yeah, I'm gonna bring in some napalm to the bar and show off to friends,, them are the breaks..
And don't tell me that it is up to the bar owner, because how can he infringe on my right to carry and shoot firearms in his establishment to the detriment of others, oh, you mean he can do that with smoking now !!

Are you actually this clueless? You don't have a "right" to even enter property owned by another ... much less do as you please. Now, if a target range wanted to serve alcohol I have no issue with them doing so. I wouldn't go there to shoot and their liability insurance would be so prohibitive they couldn't make it ... but there is no moral reason why I should be able to tell them no or to tell them to stop shooting because I want to have a beer there.

And it's his call ,and only his call, I DON"T THINK SO. Time to quit playing the RISK game, becuase I can come up with 100's more....

\

That's because you are a statist who believes that rights are allowed to the people by the state. Our founders would have laughed at that thinking.

And Don't give me the "well, if he puts up a sign and warns everyone first BS, because you and I both know you don't even like the warnings on packs of cigs, and now you want "signs" in eveybar to warn what goes on and what does not go inside the bar before anyone enters...

"Attention: random shootings by gun toten drunk guys, enter at your own Risk...... yeah, this makes a lot of sense.

I have no objection to warning labels. Warnings on cigs that it is dangerous is good public policy. People need to be informed and have a right to expect to be treated honestly. That is completely different from banning things.

I know people who use cocaine every weekend and still hold down jobs, feed their family, meet their obligations, and never cause trouble. I don't approve of it ... but who am I to say they can't?

Now, I also know of people using cocaine who become liars, thieves, and incredibly violent. Those behaviors have victims and should be treated as criminal acts.

LWW

 

[KRJ]

Are you actually this clueless? You don't have a "right" to even enter property owned by another ... much less do as you please. Now, if a target range wanted to serve alcohol I have no issue with them doing so. I wouldn't go there to shoot and their liability insurance would be so prohibitive they couldn't make it ... but there is no moral reason why I should be able to tell them no or to tell them to stop shooting because I want to have a beer there.

******************************************************

I can enter any bar I want, you can choose to throw me out after I take a few pot shots !! And you assume that all bar owners will throw me out.
Tired of you crying "property owner" like it gives you license to do just whatever the heck you want. Yep, we got child porn, drugs, weapons being sold to the mentally deranged... yep, it's my property, So I gets to do what I want !! No, that's not too clueless is it ??

And most likely you don't own the property, the landlord or the bank does. Someones bar or property is not a freakin island... It is not your Town, County, State, etc. is it?? Oh, so your property is in OUR town and you'll tell us exactly what you will and won't do in OUR town? Doesn't work that way. So if you don't like the rules of OUR town, take your bar to the Hills on 40 acres some place else where there are very limited rules, and you can have a bar with dancing chickens, fireworks, donkey shows, what ever the heck you want. Oh wait, nobody else wants to drive to BFE to get to your quaint little nightspot, so you have to set up shop in OUR town, and we're going to take orders from you..... But you like the customer base in our town, you like the location in our town and then you chose to open a business in OUR town, and in order to so you knew full well there were going to be rules to follow, so don't act like the Gestapo just kicked you in the nuts when the rules change, or are updated.

TIme to wake up and smell the 21st Century. PS: I'm done here, so you can have the last word as I won't be back in this thread. I'm going to shoot some pool and enjoy the clean air...... take care.

 

[KRJ]

Really !!!

New flash: Debates are not won by guns.

Jeff Livingston

THe smoking debate is not being won by the use of guns. Give me a break. Yeah, I know you are trying to be cute, by making the state look like an armed mob using police powers to make you surrender. Poor guy... hope they didn't hurt you too much.

Debates are made by the people, and we have spoken. We are winning the debate... how many states have changed back after they inacted a smoking ban? Once they turn, they are ours forever.... Each and everyday another city, county or state is going smokeless. But if you consider that winning by guns,, great, I'll let you have that.. as long as we keep winning this debate for the next generation who won't even believe that smoking indoors was ever allowed and they will wonder how something like that even happened. Smokers and smoking in bars at a thing of the past. Not a debat in IL anymore for 2 glorious years. AGain, the smokers even like this,,, yes, there are the few stubborn SOB's,, but a vast majority like that they are smoking less, thus spending less money on cigs, and feel better. Come on down to Pyramad Clud in Addison and watch all 18 teams still play even after the ban.... i've only heard one complaint from a smoker, and it was not from the owner....

OK, now i'm leaving this thread for good... so you too jeffchef can have the last word as well... take care.

 

[chefjeff]

THe smoking debate is not being won by the use of guns. Give me a break. Yeah, I know you are trying to be cute, (snip).

You don't know squat about my views, so please don't say you do until you do...OK?

ALL such laws are backed by guns. Der!

Jeff Livingston

 

[chefjeff]

Here is a short article that explains why ALL laws are backed by guns.

Understand this and put down the gun and we can still talk...OK? No need to run.

Here tiz:

One of the most difficult – and essential – challenges faced by libertarians is the constant need to point out “the gun in the room.” In political debates, it can be very hard to cut through the endless windy abstractions that are used to cover up the basic fact that the government uses guns to force people to do what they do not want to do, or prevent them from doing what they do want to do. Listening to non-libertarians, I often wish I had a “euphemism umbrella” to ward off the continual oily drizzle of words and phrases designed to obscure the simple reality of state violence. We hear nonstop nonsense about the “social good,” the “redistribution of income,” the “education of children” and so on – endless attempts to bury the naked barrel of the state in a mountain of syrupy metaphors.


It is a wearying but essential task to keep reminding people that the state is nothing but an agency of violence. When someone talks about “the welfare state helping the poor,” we must point out the gun in the room. When someone opposes the decriminalization of marijuana, we must point out the gun in the room. When someone supports the reduction of taxes, we must point out the gun in the room – even if one bullet has been taken out.


So much political language is designed to obscure the simple reality of state violence that libertarianism sometimes has to sound like a broken record. We must, however, continue to peel back the euphemisms to reveal the socially-sanctioned brutality at the root of some of our most embedded social institutions.


I was recently involved in a debate with a woman about public schools. Naturally, she came up with reason after reason as to why public schools were beneficial, how wonderful they were for underprivileged children, how essential they were for social stability etc etc. Each of these points – and many more – could have consumed hour upon hour of back and forth, and would have required extensive research and complicated philosophical reasoning. But there was really no need for any of that – all I had to do was keep saying:


“The issue is not whether public schools are good or bad, but rather whether I am allowed to disagree with you without getting shot.”


Most political debates really are that simple. People don’t get into violent debates about which restaurant is best because the state doesn’t impose one restaurant on everyone – and shoot those trying to set up competing restaurants. The truth is that I couldn’t care less about this woman’s views on education – just as she couldn’t care less about my views – but we are forced to debate because we are not allowed to hold opposing views without one of us getting shot. That was the essence of our debate, and as long as it remained unacknowledged, we weren’t going to get anywhere.


Here’s another example. A listener to my ‘Freedomain Radio’ show posted the following comment on the message board:


If you say “Government A doesn’t work,” you are really saying that the way that individuals in that society are interacting is lacking in some way. There are many threads in this forum that address the real debate. This thread’s counterarguments all focus on government vs. free market society. The rules defining a free market are all agreed upon interactions at some level, just as a government is. Don’t debate that a government is using guns to force others, when it’s really individuals with guns, instead show how the other way will have less guns forcing others or how those guns could force others in a more beneficial way.


I responded in this manner:

But – and I’m sorry if I misunderstand you – government is force, so I’m not sure how to interpret your paragraph. Let me substitute another use of force to show my confusion:

“If you say that rape doesn’t work you are really saying that the way that individuals in that society are interacting is lacking in some way. There are many threads in this forum that address the real debate. This thread’s counterarguments all focus on rape vs. dating. The rules defining dating are all agreed upon interactions at some level, just as rape is. Don’t debate that a group of rapists is forcing others, when it’s really individual rapists, instead show how the other way will have fewer rapists forcing others or how those rapists could force others in a more beneficial way.”

Do you see my confusion?

Thanks!

It is a very helpful sign for the future of society that these euphemisms exist – in fact, I would not believe in the moral superiority of a stateless society if these euphemisms did not exist! If, every time I pointed out to people that their political positions all required that I get shot or arrested, they just growled: “Sure, I got no problem with that – in fact, if you keep disagreeing with me I’m going to shoot you myself!” – then, I would find it very hard to argue for a stateless society!


In more than 20 years of debating these issues, though, I’ve never met a single soul who wants to either shoot me himself or have someone else shoot me. I take enormous solace in this fact, because it explains exactly why these euphemisms are so essential to the maintenance and increase of state power.


The reason that euphemisms are constantly used to obscure “the gun in the room” is the simple fact that people don’t like violence very much. Most people will do almost anything to avoid a violent situation. Even the most bloodthirsty supporter of the Iraq invasion would have a hard time justifying the proposition that anybody who opposed the invasion should be shot – because it was to defend such freedoms that Iraq was supposed to have been invaded in the first place! But how can I have the right to oppose the invasion of Iraq if I am forced to pay for it through taxation? Surely that is a ridiculous contradiction, like arguing that a man has a right to free speech, and also that he should be arrested for speaking his mind. If I have the right to oppose the invasion, surely I cannot be forced to fund it. If I am forced to fund it, then any right I have to “oppose” it is purely imaginary.


In essence, then, all libertarian arguments come down to one single, simple statement:


“Put down the gun, then we’ll talk.”


This is the core morality of both libertarianism and civilization. Civilized people do not shoot each other when they disagree – decent people do not wave guns in each other’s faces and demand submission or blood. Political leaders know this very well – I would say better than many libertarians do – and so constantly obscure the violence of their actions and laws with mealy-mouthed and euphemistic weasel words. Soldiers aren’t murdered, they “fall.” Iraq wasn’t invaded, but “liberated.” Politicians aren’t our political masters, they are “civil servants,” and so on and on.


Although libertarianism is generally considered a radical doctrine, the primary task of the libertarian is to continually reinforce the basic reality that almost everyone already is a libertarian. If we simply keep asking people if they are willing to shoot others in order to get their way, we can very quickly convince them that libertarianism is not an abstract, radical or fringe philosophy, but rather a simple description of the principles by which they already live their lives. If you get fired, do you think that you should hold your manager hostage until he gives you back your job? No? Then you already hold a libertarian position on unions, tariffs, and corporate subsidies. If you find your teenage son in your basement smoking marijuana, would you shoot him? No? Then you already hold a libertarian position on the drug laws. Should those who oppose war be shot for their beliefs? No? Then you already hold a libertarian position with regards to taxation.


Like the scientific method, libertarianism’s greatest strength is its uncompromising simplicity. The enforcement of property rights leads to an immensely complex economy, but the morality of property rights is very simple – would you shoot a man in order to steal his property? The same complexity arises from the simple and universal application of the non-aggression principle. It’s so easy to get lost in the beguiling complexities and forget to keep enunciating the basic principles.


So forget about esoteric details. Forget about the history of the Fed and the economics of the minimum wage. Just keep pointing out the gun in the room, over and over, until the world finally starts awake and drops it in horror and loathing.

Posted by Stefan Molyneux, MA at 11/14/2006 05:57:00 PM​

Jeff Livingston

 

[JimS]

In this day and age everybody with an ounce of sense knows that smoking is bad for the smoker and everybody who inhales the smoke second hand. Common knowledge. Accepted by anybody that is not in denial.

That being the case it is then anti-social for anybody to smoke in anybody else's presence. There just is not any other way to see it. That is reality.

Smoke all you want. Smoke in public. Blow your smoke in other peoples face. Do it if you insist but you gotta know you're one of those who just don't give a sh!t... and that ain't right.

 

[justadub]

In this day and age everybody with an ounce of sense knows that smoking is bad for the smoker and everybody who inhales the smoke second hand. Common knowledge. Accepted by anybody that is not in denial.

That being the case it is then anti-social for anybody to smoke in anybody else's presence. There just is not any other way to see it. That is reality.

Smoke all you want. Smoke in public. Blow your smoke in other peoples face. Do it if you insist but you gotta know you're one of those who just don't give a sh!t... and that ain't right.

Let's see if I get this right...

TAP TAP TAP! :clapping:

 

[KRJ]

OK, I"m backkk

You don't know squat about my views, so please don't say you do until you do...OK?

ALL such laws are backed by guns. Der!

Jeff Livingston

Where is any of my posts did I say I know squat about your views.... I would not want to understand your views on anything to be quite honest.

You keep yammering about laws are backed by guns,,,, Hey, look everybody,, I read some Libertarian pamphlet somewhere, and this is the catch phrase of the day, just keep repeating it and you will appear to be 25% smarter than you really are...

And if the metaphor makes you feel smarter, keep shouting it loud and clear, but it won't change the facts and won't make your argument any less simplistic that bar owners should get to do whatever the hell they want to do. AGain, bar owenrs don't live on an Island, and they are the ones who agreed to abide by the regulations from the town/city/county/state to open their little money maker in the first place.... to obtain their liquor licence, etc...

 

[Elephant Man]

Like hell I read this entire thread but... Isn't at least tolerating smoking one of the qualities that makes a professional pool player a professional? Lots of professional athletes careers have ended due to medical conditions. Why should pool be any different? I can't stand the smoke myself, and I can feel the second hand effects the next day. If you can't stand the smoke...

 

[LWW]

I would not want to understand your views on anything to be quite honest.

And that statement speaks volumes.

You keep yammering about laws are backed by guns,,,, Hey, look everybody,, I read some Libertarian pamphlet somewhere, and this is the catch phrase of the day, just keep repeating it and you will appear to be 25% smarter than you really are...

If his statement isn't true, please explain why those who enforce the law always carry guns?

And if the metaphor makes you feel smarter, keep shouting it loud and clear, but it won't change the facts and won't make your argument any less simplistic that bar owners should get to do whatever the hell they want to do.

If they are in fact the "OWNER" they do have the right.

AGain, bar owenrs don't live on an Island, and they are the ones who agreed to abide by the regulations from the town/city/county/state to open their little money maker in the first place.... to obtain their liquor licence, etc...

And again a statement that speaks volumes. Under our republic the state only has the powers granted by the people and enumerated in the COTUS ... and nowhere does it give them the right to ban the use of a legal substance because someone else doesn't like it being used on property you don't own.

The scary thing is that you probably believe you are a free man.

LWW

 

[chefjeff]

Where is any of my posts did I say I know squat about your views.... ...

You didn't, huh? What did you mean by this then?:

I know you are trying to be cute...​

I would not want to understand your views on anything to be quite honest.
...

You keep yammering about laws are backed by guns,,,, Hey, look everybody,, I read some Libertarian pamphlet somewhere, and this is the catch phrase of the day, just keep repeating it and you will appear to be 25% smarter than you really are...

A little advice when posting about me....I've been here for 7 years or so and have articualted my views very carefully. I've also stated my history in the libertarian movement. Fyi, I've written libertarian pamphlets. Again, you're waaaaaaayyyyyyyy off...so far off, that most here who have read my stuff are chuckeling at your ignorance about it. Take it or leave it...your choice.

I
And if the metaphor makes you feel smarter, keep shouting it loud and clear, but it won't change the facts and won't make your argument any less simplistic that bar owners should get to do whatever the hell they want to do. ...

Wrong again. You must have missed that part of the pamphlet? He can't do anything that inititates force or fraud against another(s). Same as you and yours can't, either.

AGain, bar owenrs don't live on an Island, and they are the ones who agreed to abide by the regulations from the town/city/county/state to open their little money maker in the first place.... to obtain their liquor licence, etc...

True when they opened but then the rules were changed without heir agreement...so your argument is going both ways: they agreed and didn't agree but still must do what the gun-holders demand. which is it? Is a contract two sided or only one sided? If it is one-sided, is it still agreement as per a valid contract or extortion as per thuggery?

Jeff Livingston

 

[KRJ]

You didn't, huh? What did you mean by this then?:

I know you are trying to be cute...​

ChicagoRJ - "certainly saying you are trying to be cute cannot imply that I know anything about your views.. I did not know nor care that you have been here for 7 years crying about your lame political views, nor I'm sure is anyone else glad to hear your crap when they want to read about billiards.

Chefjeff: - A little advice when posting about me....I've been here for 7 years or so and have articualted my views very carefully. I've also stated my history in the libertarian movement. Fyi, I've written libertarian pamphlets. Again, you're waaaaaaayyyyyyyy off...so far off, that most here who have read my stuff are chuckeling at your ignorance about it. Take it or leave it...your choice.

ChicagoRJ: Yeah, I"m so waaaayyyy off !! Well, i guessed you read a pamplet somewhere , but in reality you actually wrote a politcal pamplet... WOW, was I out in left field on that one !!!

Chefjeff - True when they opened but then the rules were changed without heir agreement...so your argument is going both ways: they agreed and didn't agree but still must do what the gun-holders demand. which is it? Is a contract two sided or only one sided? If it is one-sided, is it still agreement as per a valid contract or extortion as per thuggery?

Chicago RJ: " There was no agreement. It was if you want to operate in our town here are the rules and then can and most likley will change according to the needs of the people.
You have been losing the argument since this started... I'm in the majority on this and the others posts show that to be true. Maybe call some of your Libby friends over to post for your side. You liked the rules when you could legally poison bar service workers, but when the law evolved to protect the innocent, you call government intrusion... GOOD !! call it what you want as long as they keep the poolroom / bars smoke free, you can call it a pumpkin for all i care.... I WIN, i'm going to go play pool now in a smoke free environment without worrying about sucking in hundreds of chemicals that are used to manufacturere cigs !!
PS: I'm going to use my seat belt and abide by the speed limt on the way as well.... Damn commy that I am !!

How is that whole Libertarian movement going anyways.... You get any dog catchers elected yet ?? LMAO !!

Oh man.. I just saw you are from Iowa as well !! Geez

 

[chefjeff]

[(snip whatever that was)

Chicago RJ: " There was no agreement. It was if you want to operate in our town here are the rules and then can and most likley will change according to the needs of the people.

Now you've got it: no agreement. Ergo, guns.

You have been losing the argument since this started... I'm in the majority on this and the others posts show that to be true.

So you're saying the biggest gang wins. What tool does that gang use to win "arguments?" It can't be logic or a majority isn't needed. What tool?

Maybe call some of your Libby friends over to post for your side. You liked the rules when you could legally poison bar service workers,

STOP! Explain how I poisoned workers. That's a big accusation there. Please explain for your majority how I've poisoned workers. You've made a serious claim there...explain it please.

, but when the law evolved to protect the innocent, you call government intrusion... GOOD !! call it what you want as long as they keep the poolroom / bars smoke free, you can call it a pumpkin for all i care.... I WIN, i'm going to go play pool now in a smoke free environment without worrying about sucking in hundreds of chemicals that are used to manufacturere cigs !!
PS: I'm going to use my seat belt and abide by the speed limt on the way as well.... Damn commy that I am !!

I won a pool tourney the other day. I pointed a gun at the group and took the prize money. The majority in the room didn't do anything about it, so I won.

How is that whole Libertarian movement going anyways.... You get any dog catchers elected yet ?? LMAO !!

FYI: You capitalized Libertarian. That cap is for the Libertarian Party, not the libertarian movement. I don't vote anymore so don't care about the Libertarian Party's voting record. The libertarian movement is going quite well actually, thanks.

Oh man.. I just saw you are from Iowa as well !! Geez

And that adds to your "argument" how?

Jeff Livingston

 

[deebee53]

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

Alcohol sales are regulated. Health and safety issues are regulated.

These regulations are in place to protect the well being of the general population. Same with air quality regulations, which is what the smoking ban is. I've always believed businesses should be required to maintain a certain air quality, so if they could provide an ventilation system with a certain number of air changes per minute (I don't know what that number would be), then they would be permitted to allow smoking. How cool would it be that each puff of smoke was instantly sucked up into the sky instead of lingering around to bother everyone?


Also, customers dictate every day how a business owner runs his business. Successful business owners listen to their customers and cater to their needs.

 

[Big Perm]

Alcohol sales are regulated. Health and safety issues are regulated.

....yada, yada, yada

Also, customers dictate every day how a business owner runs his business. Successful business owners listen to their customers and cater to their needs.

I hate getting drug back into this post....

In MANY instances, the people that vote for these type of policies are NOT customers....many of the staunch non-smoking public are families and many of them are NOT regular bar customers....if the overwhelming majority of people that played pool in bars were non-smokers, business for many pool halls would have doubled when the bans went into place.....to my knowledge, for the vast majority, business not only didn't stay the same, it dropped off considerably.....

I will repeat myself again - this "good for the public" arguement doesn't apply.....a business owners property is NOT a public building - it's a PRIVATE business....people have the choice to stick to their convictions and not populate a business that does not fit their needs/own idea of safety....this is like walking in another man's house and telling him to quit smoking because it's bad for your health - all you have to do is leave....he is the one that pays the bills and makes his own decisions...

This is an incredibly slippery slope because an individuals unhealthy decisions effect all of us....especially considering the govts current agenda to shove health care down our throats, and individuals health, or lack thereof, effects all of us in terms of costs....and that can lead to the banning of more things that are unhealthy:

Foods that are fatty, ie cheeseburgers are no longer allowed
Mandated 1 hour of exercise per day, ie it's healthy
Alcohol - limit of 1 drink per day because that is all that is healthy
Governors on all vehicles to keep them at 55mph max, because that is all that is safe
Pool is banned - bending over at the table causes back problems, ie it's unhealthy
Birthing - proof of financial responsibility before you can have a child, otherwise you cannot have a child because you must provide a healthy environment

This is a very slippery slope - all of a sudden, where did your freedom go??? BTW, I don't smoke cigs and I don't like smoke....but I have the choice to choose where to spend my $$$, and my dollars are my vote....

 

[chefjeff]

Alcohol sales are regulated. Health and safety issues are regulated.

These regulations are in place to protect the well being of the general population. Same with air quality regulations, which is what the smoking ban is. I've always believed businesses should be required to maintain a certain air quality, so if they could provide an ventilation system with a certain number of air changes per minute (I don't know what that number would be), then they would be permitted to allow smoking. How cool would it be that each puff of smoke was instantly sucked up into the sky instead of lingering around to bother everyone?


Also, customers dictate every day how a business owner runs his business. Successful business owners listen to their customers and cater to their needs.

To clear up the confusion: Invalid govt initiates force to make people jump; businesses use persuasion to attract profits as their customers use their wallets to vote for what they want. Those paradigms are moral opposites.

Force or persuasion. Those are the only two choices when dealing with others.

Who owns the poolhall owner? Himself or others?

Jeff Livingston

 

[LWW]

Alcohol sales are regulated. Health and safety issues are regulated.

These regulations are in place to protect the well being of the general population. Same with air quality regulations, which is what the smoking ban is. I've always believed businesses should be required to maintain a certain air quality, so if they could provide an ventilation system with a certain number of air changes per minute (I don't know what that number would be), then they would be permitted to allow smoking. How cool would it be that each puff of smoke was instantly sucked up into the sky instead of lingering around to bother everyone?

Tobacco is a legal product just as alcohol is. By your logic non drinkers should be protected from drinkers ... hence drinking shouldn't be allowed.

Furthermore, YOU driving on the road increases MY risks. By your logic I should be able to ban YOU from the highway because allowing YOU increases MY risk.

Don't say that's different, because it isn't.

How cool would it be that each puff of smoke was instantly sucked up into the sky instead of lingering around to bother everyone?

Then why not garlic breath? Or fat arses?

Also, customers dictate every day how a business owner runs his business. Successful business owners listen to their customers and cater to their needs.

That has been the libertarian position all along. If non smoking bars/pool rooms were economically viable without the bayonet of the state then they would exist without the bayonet of the state.

To be very honest, I would prefer to attend a smoke free room ... but none existed here prior to the bans. Now, post ban, they are blinking out of existence. Why is that?

TRENTON (CBS/AP) ― The statewide indoor public smoking ban enacted a year ago is hurting businesses to the point that they have to close, state business leaders say.

HAMILTON — Rick Sizemore told the Butler County Board of Health that lax local enforcement of Ohio's smoking ban is giving his law-breaking competition an unfair advantage.

Sizemore, owner of Rick's Tavern & Grille in Fairfield, said Thursday he's complying with the smoking law. He even built a $20,000 smoking area outside.

But business in May was down $32,000 from the year before, he said.

Mustie Hassan, 32, the owner of R Bar, Windmill Street, Gravesend, said: "It has completely killed business."

CARBONDALE - About six weeks after it went into effect, many local bar owners say the statewide smoking ban is burning their bottom line.

The ban was touted as means of protecting employees from second-hand smoke and attracting business from non-smokers. But throughout the region, bar owners say the ban has kept smokers away and non-smokers have not filled the void.

James Doolin says he's abiding by the smoking ban and he's lost 30% of his bingo customers as a result.

I for one am glad Independence passed a no-smoking ordinance. Now I don't have to wait for a seat at my favorite eating place. I do miss my favorite waitress, who got laid off because of slow business, but what the heck, she probably didn't need the extra money to feed her kids or help with the rent. It also saves the city time by not counting so much sales tax money.

http://wcbstv.com/local/new.jersey.smoking.2.243403.html

http://www.journal-news.com/hp/content/oh/story/news/local/2007/09/22/hjn092207SmokeBar.html

http://thesouthern.com/news/article_0315d40c-cfb8-5d6b-9586-eebed5f78aaf.html

http://www.wave3.com/Global/story.asp?S=7077913&nav=0RZF

http://www.examiner.net/stories/061607/ope_061607052.shtml

http://www.newsshopper.co.uk/news/northkent/1531029.smoking_ban_has_killed_business/

LWW

 

[LWW]

Oh man.. I just saw you are from Iowa as well !! Geez

RJ ... you are sooooooooooooo overmatched.

LWW

 

[Blue Hog ridr]

I'm a smoker, I don't believe I have the right to make others breathe my second hand smoke. I just go outside.
Some nights in the winter here when its 40+ below out with the wind chill, I don't smoke, good for me.

 

[supergreenman]

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...

Who are "THEY"? The government? maybe you should get out your little tinfoil hat if you believe "they" are busy working on ways to control your life.

The government is too busy spending your money on building and repairing roads, bridges and other infrastructure with the intention of making your life easier, safer and more productive.

As far as property rights go. Forget about it. In order to operate a business the owner must comply with all sorts of regulations and by-laws in order to obtain a business permit.

These regulations and by-laws are there to make sure you are safe. They include building codes, food handling guidelines and guess what.....

Smoking by-laws.

It's the business owner that has the choice. He has the choice to accept the legal environment of the jurisdiction he is in and open a business or not. This includes an understanding that the government can change the rules in the interest of public safety at any time.

Live with it and deal with it.