Another smoking thread...

I'm not argumentative enough to enter into any of these debates tonight. Besides, hockey is on TV :D .

Here in Michigan, the Legislature is trying to decide if they want to pass a new law that bans smoking anywhere anyone works, period, or to exempt CASINOS but not Bars or Poolrooms :rolleyes: . Are casinos special ?

I suggest that they let the owner of any business decide and post the status of his smoking policy on his entry door. If you don't want to shoot pool or drink in my bar which allows smoking then go down the street where they don't allow it. Let the market dictate what's in the best interest of each business. I could go on but you get the idea.

By the way, I don't smoke...Tom
 
hang-the-9 said:
Well, the Marlboro Man was a cowboy, do people think badly of cowboys?

I think more people feel they need to drink to play pool than smoke. It just happens it's easier to smoke while playing pool than, say, swimming or running around after a tennis ball.
Click to expand...
Man, any thing tougher than the Duke(John Wayne) I want to stay away from.:eek: :eek:
 
Pii said:
So you don't think government should tell a business what to do?

Interesting?

I guess you wouldn't mind then if your local health department quit inspecting your favorite place to eat?

Or maybe you would like the FDA to stop inspecting meat packing houses and let them sell you downed cows or let them mix animal s**t in you hamburger?

Or maybe you would like the EPA to let big industries dump mercury into your neighborhood lake where your kid swim or the air over you house ?

There are a MILLION examples of government, local, federal and state telling businesses what they can and can't do.

Many of their rules (actually most) are for the safety of you and me.

as for the rest of your post there are so many false facts that you just made up that I don't have time to address them one at a time. Needless to say most are just BS:eek:
Click to expand...

I think health matters in the public interest should be regulated. Everybody does.

That isn't what I said. I said there has to be a balance between the 'whims' of the majority and the rights of the individual. The individual in this case includes business owners who purchased or built a business based on spending patterns and assumptions. The government changed the playing field arbitrarily and did so based on bad science and mass opinion.

That is not a free country. That is a country in which he who controls the mind of the public rules. America is increasingly becoming more and more that way.

The anti-smoking movement is one step of a choreographed plan to reduce individual rights and move increasingly towards statism.

Just because you agree with this policy doesn't make it right.

~rc
 
sixpack said:
I think health matters in the public interest should be regulated. Everybody does.

That isn't what I said. I said there has to be a balance between the 'whims' of the majority and the rights of the individual. The individual in this case includes business owners who purchased or built a business based on spending patterns and assumptions. The government changed the playing field arbitrarily and did so based on bad science and mass opinion.

That is not a free country. That is a country in which he who controls the mind of the public rules. America is increasingly becoming more and more that way.

The anti-smoking movement is one step of a choreographed plan to reduce individual rights and move increasingly towards statism.

Just because you agree with this policy doesn't make it right.

~rc
Click to expand...
I wonder how many people are opposed to gov. regulation of smoking, and argue for gov. regulation of guns?:confused: :confused:
 
Last edited:
Close, but no Cigar(ette)....

sixpack said:
I think health matters in the public interest should be regulated. Everybody does.

That isn't what I said. I said there has to be a balance between the 'whims' of the majority and the rights of the individual. The individual in this case includes business owners who purchased or built a business based on spending patterns and assumptions. The government changed the playing field arbitrarily and did so based on bad science and mass opinion.

That is not a free country. That is a country in which he who controls the mind of the public rules. America is increasingly becoming more and more that way.

The anti-smoking movement is one step of a choreographed plan to reduce individual rights and move increasingly towards statism.

Just because you agree with this policy doesn't make it right.

~rc
Click to expand...

Good argument, but it's based on a falsity (not to be confused with a falsie). Smoking is not a right, neither is running a business. They are privileges. And privileges may be denied or regulated to protect the common good or to curb abuse.

But even if it is a right, my right (and everyone else's) to clean air trumps your (and everyone else's) right to bad air.

That, my friend, is a free republic.
 
Cigarettes don't kill people, people kill people...

DoubleA said:
I wonder how many people are opposed to gov. regulation of smoking, and argue for gov. regulation of guns?:confused: :confused:
Click to expand...

Don't know much about History, but I don't think the founders created a constitutional amendment for tobacco (obviously an oversight on their part). However, there is one for guns. Funny, it fails to mention ammunition, though. ;)
 
DoubleA said:
I wonder how many people are opposed to gov. regulation of smoking, and argue for gov. regulation of guns?:confused: :confused:
Click to expand...

So do I. I am certainly not one of them.

~rc
 
Str8PoolMan said:
Good argument, but it's based on a falsity (not to be confused with a falsie). Smoking is not a right, neither is running a business. They are privileges. And privileges may be denied or regulated to protect the common good or to curb abuse.

But even if it is a right, my right (and everyone else's) to clean air trumps your (and everyone else's) right to bad air.

That, my friend, is a free republic.
Click to expand...

I don't want bad air any more than you do. I enjoy the fact that my pool hall is in a non-smoking state. I don't smoke and don't spend any time with people who do. I can see an abuse of science and law though and call it what it is. I can see beyond my selfish whims and see that it is not a fair application of law.

So, if you want a wal-mart to be built on my house does the fact that more people want a wal-mart trump the fact that I want my house?

~rc
 
sixpack said:
I'm well aware of eminent domain. Most people are against it though. That's why I used it as an example. Thanks for your help :D

~rc
Click to expand...

Actually, I'm pretty sure "most people" could give two craps about eminent domain, otherwise the law would have been changed long ago.

Russ
 
lodini said:
I get that they are smokers off the court, off the ice, off the green... but do they actually do their sport with a cigarette hanging from their mouths?? And does not being able to smoke during their sport actually affect their participation level?

Smokers on here have said they won't even play anymore if they can't smoke... pool halls have closed down because of the ban! Isn't that unusual?
Click to expand...

The negative opinion of pool was prevalent in the mainstream
culture of this country long before the more recent negative
views about smoking.

Long before anyone thought there was a link to cancer, etc,
long before tobacco ads were banned from TV, even when
smoking was the norm and was perfectly socially acceptable,
pool was highly stigmatized - probably even more so than today.

Dale
 
Yeah, you got that right. :D

I wrote a column about the supreme court decision back east where the court refused to stop a city from taking a neighborhood to redevelop the shore. I read the entire decision and I was the ONLY columnist I read that agreed with the decision - which makes me think I was the ONLY one who read it in its entirety (250 pages of legalese).

The story in the MSM was that the Supreme Court ruled that it was ok for municipalities to use ED to take from poor neighborhoods and give to rich developers.

The point that was missed by the MSM (other than me) was that the federal government (correctly in my opinion) ruled that it was unqualified to tell municipalities how to grow and develop or make judgement about how best to use their property and resources.

So basically it's up to the states to regulate ED. Which is why there is a push in many states to limit ED on ballots this fall.

~rc
 
lodini said:
It is almost shocking how many threads come up in this forum about smoking. Is this connection between cigarettes and pool possibly one of the reasons pool is looked at so negatively in the outside world? As well, how could one consider an activity to be a "sport" when so many people absolutely MUST have a cigarette in their mouths in order to enjoy themselves doing it? Just some thoughts...
Click to expand...
I'm a non smoker and i've breathed cigarette smoke from others as long as i've been playing pool. My choice was to put up with the smoke and play or give up pool, so I chose to put up with the smoke since I enjoy playing so much.

One place I play at sometimes is in a city with new no smoking laws and the smokers have to go outside if they want to smoke. I don't go there often because it's primarily a pool league room with poor equipment and one fellow who plays there spends more time outside than he does inside playing pool.

James
 
sixpack said:
Huh? I totally made up that poll and it agrees with YOU!

maybe you should research the source 'carfully'.

~rc
Click to expand...
opps sorry wrong poll and person

someone blow some smoke at me please.:eek:
 
JoeyInCali said:
Yul Bryner, Betty Davis, JOhnny Carson, Sammy Davis, among the many should know.
Let's ask them.
Click to expand...

Or we could ask George Burns. Oh darn, he's dead too. Just barely made it
to 100 ! Oh well.

Dick
 
TXsouthpaw said:
A smokey pool hall god forbid.

We live in a society of whiney nits. U dont like it take up another sport. U either take pool as it is or leave it.

People smoke on the golf course too that doesnt seem to hurt golf. But of course if pool isnt doing well it must be the smoking then.
Click to expand...

A golf course doesn't have an eight foot ceiling.
 
sixpack said:
Yeah, you got that right. :D

I wrote a column about the supreme court decision back east where the court refused to stop a city from taking a neighborhood to redevelop the shore. I read the entire decision and I was the ONLY columnist I read that agreed with the decision - which makes me think I was the ONLY one who read it in its entirety (250 pages of legalese).

The story in the MSM was that the Supreme Court ruled that it was ok for municipalities to use ED to take from poor neighborhoods and give to rich developers.

The point that was missed by the MSM (other than me) was that the federal government (correctly in my opinion) ruled that it was unqualified to tell municipalities how to grow and develop or make judgement about how best to use their property and resources.

So basically it's up to the states to regulate ED. Which is why there is a push in many states to limit ED on ballots this fall.

~rc
Click to expand...
A blatant misuse of ED is what the govt.(TVA) did to the land owners along the Little Tenn. River when the worthless Tellico dam was constructed. All the land that the owners was forced to give up, a few years later seemed to find it's way into the hands of private development corps. (many polititions seemed to be stockholders and board members) That same land that was "necessary" for the building of the dam, is now being sold for amazing proffits. Farms that had been in families for generations are now golf courses, club houses and private lakeside mansions.:( :(
 
DoubleA said:
A blatant misuse of ED is what the govt.(TVA) did to the land owners along the Little Tenn. River when the worthless Tellico dam was constructed. All the land that the owners was forced to give up, a few years later seemed to find it's way into the hands of private development corps. (many polititions seemed to be stockholders and board members) That same land that was "necessary" for the building of the dam, is now being sold for amazing proffits. Farms that had been in families for generations are now golf courses, club houses and private lakeside mansions.:( :(
Click to expand...

Yes, the same thing happened when they built DIA. They bought the land but the surrounding land was quietly purchased years before the official site was announced by cronies of the mayor.

Politics is rank.

~rc
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top