Fallout from a smoking ban!!!

[watchez]

he was already having problems, he just says the ban hastened his closing ! If a business is mis managed or poorly conceived !ie: in the wrong location etcetera it is easy to use a smoke ban to argue that was the cause of our demise !!!! I have seen here where my spot which allows smoking and banned under 21 year olds as is the law in dekalb county is losing traffic to the Pool Room in Gwinnett that banned smoking !!!! So will the owners here blame allowing Smoking for their demise if they close???? I think not!

MrLucky-your post is inane and without any fact. My guess is that you couldn't find either of these two closed pool rooms with a GPS. Both of Phil's rooms were very profitable. Columbia is home of Mizzou University, a college town with lots of customers. His pool room was the home of the state championship for the past 25 years (at least). Louie Roberts won it 4 or 5 times in a row so the 'Louie Rule' was made that once you won you were done. Lots of champions who went on to be pros (CJ Wiley, Danny Harriman) played there over the years.

Now to fill in your brain with actual facts. As the article states, Phil is 63 & been in business for over 30 years. He has plenty of $$$$$. You can't work forever & I don't blame him for not wanting to develop a new marketing plan to attract non smokers or smokers that like to go out and then not smoke. He owned the building, for those of you who think he is/was a bad business man. No rent paying here. (Craig, I am sure you know the benefit of this aspect). Few pool room owners do. Phil bought the building for $70k and sold it for $840k. Now you still think he is a bad businessman???
I don't think there are many pool room owners that walk away with nearly a million dollars in their pocket when it is all said and done.

So please, before you go on with ideas filling your head & thoughts of what is or is not---state some facts.

 

[Russ Chewning]

Ha ha ha.. I LOOOOVVVE hearing smokers whining about the bans. They are finally going to get a little payback for all the:

Flicking cigarettes out their car windows, in front of buildings, etc...

STINKY businesses that other people who only want to socialize have to be subjected to, for no other reason than the fact that other people decided to try an addictive drug when they were younger "because it was cool"

Well, it ain't so cool now, is it? Yeah, so what if some lucrative businesses tank. Once the statewide bans go into effect, (as they will SURELY do, just give them a while, and not a LONG while, at that) then smokers will stay at home smoking, for MAYBE a month or two, then they will decide stepping outside isn't so bad, and they will come flocking back to the bars and pool halls.

Guess what? Businesses fail when societal trends go away. DEAL with it! A total ban of indoor smoking in public places IS coming, and there AIN'T A DAMN THING YOU CAN DO ABOUT SINCE YOU ARE AN OVERWHELMING MINORITY. And besides that, deep down inside, you KNOW it's wrong to subject nonsmokers to your filthy habit. If you DIDN'T, you would be WRITING YOUR CONGRESSMAN, or GOING TO LOCAL GOVERNMENT MEETINGS.

If you AREN'T doing those things then SHUT THE H*LL UP!

Russ

Gawd damn it, I am so happy I could just giggle out loud!

 

[Neil]

Ha ha ha.. I LOOOOVVVE hearing smokers whining about the bans. They are finally going to get a little payback for all the:

Flicking cigarettes out their car windows, in front of buildings, etc...

STINKY businesses that other people who only want to socialize have to be subjected to, for no other reason than the fact that other people decided to try an addictive drug when they were younger "because it was cool"

Well, it ain't so cool now, is it? Yeah, so what if some lucrative businesses tank. Once the statewide bans go into effect, (as they will SURELY do, just give them a while, and not a LONG while, at that) then smokers will stay at home smoking, for MAYBE a month or two, then they will decide stepping outside isn't so bad, and they will come flocking back to the bars and pool halls.

Guess what? Businesses fail when societal trends go away. DEAL with it! A total ban of indoor smoking in public places IS coming, and there AIN'T A DAMN THING YOU CAN DO ABOUT SINCE YOU ARE AN OVERWHELMING MINORITY. And besides that, deep down inside, you KNOW it's wrong to subject nonsmokers to your filthy habit. If you DIDN'T, you would be WRITING YOUR CONGRESSMAN, or GOING TO LOCAL GOVERNMENT MEETINGS.

If you AREN'T doing those things then SHUT THE H*LL UP!

Russ

Gawd damn it, I am so happy I could just giggle out loud!

Just waiting patiently with a smile on my face! Your day is coming. Just a matter of time.

 

[Neil]

..............

 

[Scaramouche]

you would be WRITING YOUR CONGRESSMAN,

If you AREN'T doing those things then SHUT THE H*LL UP!

Russ

Gawd damn it, I am so happy I could just giggle out loud!

Should You Write A Letter To Your Congressman?

Each Congressman has two ends
A thinking and a sitting end
And since his whole success depends upon his seat
Why bother?

 

[Russ Chewning]

Neil, lemme show you how reliable your source is, apart from the fact that site is an avowed "smoker's rights" site.

Here is the part of a study your smoker's rights website put out:

Brownson RC, Alavanja MCR, Hock ET, Loy TS. Passive smoking and lung cancer in nonsmoking women. AJPH 1992;82(11):1525-1530. "In general, there was no elevated lung cancer risk associated with passive smoke exposure in the workplace (not shown in table). Only lifetime nonsmokers showed a slight increase in risk in the highest quartile of workplace exposure (OR=1.2; 95% CI=0.9, 1.7)," which was nonsignificant. 431 cases.

Here is another excerpt of MY choosing, not your "smoker's rights" website, which comes from THE SAME ARTICLE-AJPH 1992;82(11):1525-1530

Although most lung cancer occurs in
smokers, approximately 9% to 13% of
lung cancer cases in US women develop in
lifetime nonsmokers.'

Whoopsie! I guess they forgot to mention that part. Want another excerpt? Allllllllrighty then!

Among lifetime nonsmokers, an increased
risk of lung cancer was shown for
those reporting moderate (OR = 1.7; 95%
CI = 1.1, 2.5) and heavy (OR = 2.4; 95%
CI = 1.3, 4.7) exposure to passive smoke
in childhood.

More? Yes father, may I have another? Surely!

Our study suggests that eposure to
high levels of environmental tobacco
smoke in adulthood increases the risk of
lung cancer in nonsmokers.

Seems like your source only wishes to point out the one or two sentences that "seem" to support their agenda. I guarantee you, if you go and READ that study, you come away with a COMPLETELY different view of the researcher's findings.

That immediately proves that website to be intellectually dishonest, and that was just the FIRST article I decided to check behind the site on.

Come on, Neil, you have to do MUCH better than that. I am one of the few on here that will actually CHECK your sources..

Ohhhhh, and to answer you question about lung cancer, first of all, I am not even sure that lung cancer rates ARE going up instead of down, but IF they were, what does that have to do with the CURRENT smoking trends going down??? That has only occurred on a major scale in the last 8-10 years, and last I heard it takes a little longer than that for the effects of smoking and second hand smoke to result in cancer serious enough to require medical attention.

Or did you think lung cancer was like the flu? You smoke for a year, and BAM, you're int he hospital? Come on, dude.. You're making this way too easy.

Try harder.. Please?

Russ

 

[Russ Chewning]

Should You Write A Letter To Your Congressman?

Each Congressman has two ends
A thinking and a sitting end
And since his whole success depends upon his seat
Why bother?

I don't NEED to write my Congressman, because my side is winning.

Russ

 

[TX Poolnut]

Can I contribute to the link-a-thon?

http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/Factsheets/SecondhandSmoke.htm

 

[Russ Chewning]

(by the way, the American Cancer Society admits that second hand smoke has no effect)

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

www.cancer.org is the website of the American Cancer Society

Secondhand smoke can be harmful in many ways. In the United States alone, each year it is responsible for:

an estimated 35,000 deaths from heart disease in people who live with smokers but are not current smokers

about 3,400 lung cancer deaths in nonsmoking adults

other respiratory problems in nonsmokers, including coughing, phlegm, chest discomfort, and reduced lung function

150,000 to 300,000 lower respiratory tract infections (such as pneumonia and bronchitis) in children younger than 18 months of age, which result in 7,500 to 15,000 hospitalizations

increases in the number and severity of asthma attacks in about 200,000 to 1 million asthmatic children

increased incidence of middle ear infections in young children

Now, Neil.... You wouldn't be guilty of either LYING, or just not bothering to check your facts before you posted a comment like:

(by the way, the American Cancer Society admits that second hand smoke has no effect)

would you? Or is it just that you are gullible enough to believe anything your "smoker's rights" website tells you?

Please let us know which it is. LYING, Intellectual dishonesty, or sheer gullibility? These are the only three things I could see which would lead you to post a false fact like this.

Russ (Loves it when people get caught in a lie)

 

[pdcue]

Dale, living in a city that has had a smoking ban in place for a number of years now, I have seen first hand that they do not kill successful businesses.

People have a desire to get out and be social, and will continue to do so. There was a slow down at first but now our city's night life is thriving.

People who didn't go out before because of smoke are now going out, and the people who stopped going out because they couldn't smoke are getting back into it.

If anything the smoking ban in our city has helped the service industry.

P.S. yes, some businesses did close. I maintain they had a weak business plan in the first place, for example the bingo hall that closed a week after the ban was implimented. Can you honestly say that was because of a smoking ban? Or... was it because thier margin was so low in the first place they just needed a scapegoat in order to fail.

Sorry Green,
The facts don't hold up. The biz in your area may have survived, but we are talking about poolrooms and/or pool bars - many that had flourished
for 20 years crashed under smoling bans - how can you call them weak if they prospered for 2+ decades.

Perhaps there is something about areas. A friend was recently in FL.
He said the rooms there are non-smoke and packed.
But, the whole world is not FL.

Dale

 

[macguy]

The interesting thing about all this , is that the most vocal people on here against smoking are for the most part the same ones that always want references. Yet, for this issue, they seem content to just follow the media and the crowd. Don't you find it just a little odd that cancer deaths are way up, but smoking is way down?

If ANYBODY is interested in the studies on tobacco smoke- go here
http://www.forces.org/evidence/evid/second.htm. It's not something you will find in your newspaper. But if you go to it, take the time to read it. You just might learn something.

(by the way, the American Cancer Society admits that second hand smoke has no effect)

websites like that are set up as non profit sites to collect money they pay to themselves. They will tell you want ever they know you want to hear even if they have to make it up. Think for yourself don't be listening to con men whose only interest is to get into your pocket. You are smarter then that, I hope.

 

[Neil]

..............

 

[MrLucky]

Well now!

MrLucky-your post is inane and without any fact. My guess is that you couldn't find either of these two closed pool rooms with a GPS. Both of Phil's rooms were very profitable. Columbia is home of Mizzou University, a college town with lots of customers. His pool room was the home of the state championship for the past 25 years (at least). Louie Roberts won it 4 or 5 times in a row so the 'Louie Rule' was made that once you won you were done. Lots of champions who went on to be pros (CJ Wiley, Danny Harriman) played there over the years.

Now to fill in your brain with actual facts. As the article states, Phil is 63 & been in business for over 30 years. He has plenty of $$$$$. You can't work forever & I don't blame him for not wanting to develop a new marketing plan to attract non smokers or smokers that like to go out and then not smoke. He owned the building, for those of you who think he is/was a bad business man. No rent paying here. (Craig, I am sure you know the benefit of this aspect). Few pool room owners do. Phil bought the building for $70k and sold it for $840k. Now you still think he is a bad businessman???
I don't think there are many pool room owners that walk away with nearly a million dollars in their pocket when it is all said and done.

So please, before you go on with ideas filling your head & thoughts of what is or is not---state some facts.

LOL ! I never said I have been there or knew "Phil" I posted based on the news article that this post was based on and if you read it it says what I posted ! So now that you have filled us in with your superior inside knowledg .... if all that you say is true and he was old and decided against updating his business model to attract new players and decided to take the money and run ! (which would have been my choice also! ) Then WHAT THE HELL IS THIS POST ABOUT THEN???????

 

[Scaramouche]

I noticed also that no one bothered to touch the part where I mentioned about auto exhaust. That couldn't be a major problem for everybodies air, could it?

So, may we assume, now that you have accurate information about auto exhaust, that you will be walking to your local non-smoking pool room rather than driving long distances to a place where you can fume away?

 

[catscradle]

Correct, but why is that a "flaw?"

Seriously, have you looked into the anti-trust legislation history and the whys of it? Hint: if ain't to protect the public from monopoly pricing. I'll go there, too, if anyone wants to argue in favor of those forced-backed "sound good" laws.

Using one bad law to forgo reason in another bad law does nothing to justify the first.

Jeff Livingston

You clearly have much more faith in your fellow man and the free market system than I could ever possibly conceive of. Your reasoning logical leads to anarchy (not using the term in a perjorative way), and I wouldn't be at all surprised if that would represent your ideal society. It would represent my ideal society if I thought even for a moment it would work.
My opinion starts with the premise that there is nothing sacrosanct about human "rights", there is no such thing as absolute "rights". We define "rights" in order to maximize enjoyment of life for one and all and thereby for ourselves personally. I see government and the concept of "rights" as the well worn concept of a "social contract".
Whatever the politicians motivation for imposing anti-trust laws I really don't care; I think they work to prevent among other things monopolies and that is good enough for me. I am certainly no fan of big government, but there are certain instances under which they must impose restrictions, as ill-fitting a solution as those restrictions might be.

 

[catscradle]

.... but I remembered those wise words from the movie bambie...

Hey, that was my mother's line. She used it before the movie came out, that damn deer was infringing on her copyright.

 

[mikepage]

I'm not a smoker...what would I say Mr. Soothsayer?

Jeff Livingston

Jeff I know you're a civil liberties guy.

How do you feel about local governments regulating businesses (places of public accomodation) with respect to fire safety, i.e. maximum capacity, availability of an emergency exit, etc. Proper role of government or not?

 

[chefjeff]

I was tempted..... but I remembered those wise words from the movie bambie... If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all. So I didn't take shots at cheffjeff and his ultra liberatarian views.

But I was tempted....

The term "ultra" is redundant. Libertarianism is one thing: Every individual has the same rights as I do; respect those. You can't "ultra' that.

Take your shot, man. If I'm wrong, I wanna know.

If your arguments are valid, you're not saying something that isn't nice; you're being honest and that is a good thing in a forum, I'd think. But maybe you think differently.

Jeff Livingston

 

[chefjeff]

You clearly have much more faith in your fellow man and the free market system than I could ever possibly conceive of. Your reasoning logical leads to anarchy (not using the term in a perjorative way), and I wouldn't be at all surprised if that would represent your ideal society. It would represent my ideal society if I thought even for a moment it would work.
My opinion starts with the premise that there is nothing sacrosanct about human "rights", there is no such thing as absolute "rights". We define "rights" in order to maximize enjoyment of life for one and all and thereby for ourselves personally. I see government and the concept of "rights" as the well worn concept of a "social contract".
Whatever the politicians motivation for imposing anti-trust laws I really don't care; I think they work to prevent among other things monopolies and that is good enough for me. I am certainly no fan of big government, but there are certain instances under which they must impose restrictions, as ill-fitting a solution as those restrictions might be.

I don't have "faith in my fellow man and markets, I have studied them and know they must peacefully provide values or they naturally go away. The govt, on the other hand, destroys values to do what it does. Why you would pick vilolent govt to support over peaceful business is strange, coming from such a thoughtful guy as you.

Perhaps this might help:

...In reality, the history of antitrust has been a history of politically-inspired witch hunts launched against America's most innovative and entrepreneurial businesses.
In the June 1985 issue of the International Review of Law and Economics I showed that the industries accused of "monopolization" by Senator Sherman and his colleagues in 1890 were expanding production four times more rapidly than the economy as a whole for the decade prior to the Sherman Act (some as much as ten times faster) and were dropping their prices even faster than the general price level was falling during that deflationary period.

The trusts "have made products cheaper, have reduced prices," admitted Congressman William Mason, who nevertheless was in favor of an anti-trust law. He was in favor of the law because he, and most of his congressional colleagues, wanted to protect less-efficient businesses in their districts from competition. Antitrust has always been a protectionist racket....

http://www.mises.org/story/436​

Jeff Livingston

 

[chefjeff]

Jeff I know you're a civil liberties guy.

How do you feel about local governments regulating businesses (places of public accomodation) with respect to fire safety, i.e. maximum capacity, availability of an emergency exit, etc. Proper role of government or not?

Great question.

I gave away my copy of Local Problems; Libertarian Solutions to the local Planned Parenthood book sale (!!!) so I can't reference that for a quality answer here. I knew I should've kept that book.

The consumer wants safety, right? I don't know of anyone who wants to be in an unsafe building. The problem is that some consumers might not know if a building is safe or not and may enter some place that endangers their health. So what to do about that?

Standards that the govt require are usually set by industry, the insurances companies, etc. To me, the insurance company would be better off financially if they made sure ther insured buildings are safe. But they now don't have to do that because the govt is supposed to do it for them. This is cost shifting and encourages simple law abiding vs. common sense safety.

And places that do harm innocents should pay for it when it happens.

The risk of loss of business, damage, and the loss of insurance would be good incentives to prevent harm. Is it enough? Don't know.

What do you think about it?

Jeff Livingston