Fallout from a smoking ban!!!
- Thread starter Snapshot9
- Start date
I'm in Maine and they first banned smoking at resteraunts and the pool hall owners fought to keep smoking. Then Maine did a smoking ban accross all bars and pool halls. The owner at the pool hall I go to said over all he likes it and it hasn't affected his business in the long run (he's a smoker too). It looks like the real problem for some pool halls around the country is when their city/county bans smoking and there's a place to go that's a little further drive that still allows it. I know as a smoker if two places have similar equipment and tables I'd go to the place that would let me smoke if it was a little further away.
We seem to have these threads every month or so. I'm a smoker & I hate the idea of a smoking ban. However, when it does happen here I'm sure I'll learn to live with it. As cueandcushion mentioned theatres & airlines have been smoke free for years & I've coped. Mind you, I rarely get stressed out watching a movie & don't feel the need for a smoke. Flying can be a different matter!!!!
It's inevitable & I'm not looking forward to it, I'm just going to have to deal with it. My biggest problem is when the ciggies go away, the beer tends to go down too quick!
It's inevitable & I'm not looking forward to it, I'm just going to have to deal with it. My biggest problem is when the ciggies go away, the beer tends to go down too quick!
If you smoke and you only have to drive an extra 5 or 10 mins you will drive the extra couple of miles I am a non smoker and I own a pool hall so I will have to deal with it when it happens..
p.s. there is no way only 20% of the country smokes
p.s. there is no way only 20% of the country smokes
Last edited:
biggame said:
It's probably < 20% as of 2006 if the trend indicated in this document has held its course.
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5444a2.htm
(I lied. Ya got me.)
supergreenman said:
Ditto...I am just wondering how many Illinois businesses are preparing for the January 1st smoking ban? Pool rooms especially? Will they be posting on here in February saying the ban caught them off guard? Are they scrubbing the walls and replacing the carpet to rid the smell come January? Advertising in new areas? Deliberately reducing ashtrays? Informing customers of the impending change? Any Illinois businesses please chime in on what you are doing RIGHT NOW in preparation for the change come January 1st, 2008. I wonder how many are just saying..." we will wait and see what happens in January, then go from there."
supergreenman said:
It's a weak society that uses violence to force otherwise peaceful business out of business.
And it is a weak mind that refuses to think ("enough said") and lazily resorts to violence to get its way...and then has the nerve to blame the victim for not preparing for the azz fugging!
Not nearly enough said on this subject so important to pool.
Jeff Livingston
cueandcushion said:
I agree 100%...surprised???? Here's why.....It is because begging, not forcing others to create them is fine by me.
I've been begging owners for years to change to non-smoking or get better air filters, etc. Don McCoy's late wife owned a room called Smokey's (and it was) and I once suggested opening a room on the rich side of town called Smoke-frees. I thought the distinction would be a great marketing play. She decided not to do that and opened another smoky room on the poor side of town. Sadly, she died of small cell lung cancer even though she never smoked herself. Still, she died in charge of HER business. She lived by HER standards. A pool players' gotta love that.
The difference is between persuasion or coercion. The first is peaceful, prosperous, and creates a diverse environment where all can enjoy pool (or not). The second doesn't create anything, it forces ONE environment onto all, regardless of preferences. I choose persuasion over coercion, which should be no surprise to those here.
Jeff Livingston
The point was
not to spark another smoking debate even though I feel the government should not be involved in it. The point was, that it can have positive or negative effects, depending on the local or regional area that you live in.
While the effects may seem positive to you, it may be negative to others, including room owners. This also can depend how much on the location of the Pool room. Personally, without a lot of difference in equipment, I would drive 20 minutes more to go to a smoking room rather than a non-smoking room, that is also dependent on the action too, as I am a gambler.
And yes, I am a smoker, 45 years, but I exercise also, which many people don't do. In our Politically Correct Society today, where does it stop with the Government telling us how to regulate our private lives????????
Cancer has just as much to do with your inherited genes as to your environment, unless you are confined to a specific dangerous environment with dangerous chemicals with no ventilation. I had a chest X-ray last June, and my lungs looked good the doctor said. And I do not buy into the 2nd hand smoke propaganda smoke disipates fairly quickly, and with proper ventilation, it is gone is a couple of seconds. Let's see, how many smokers dogs get lung cancer? I am not unsympathetic and understand the need for precautionary steps to be taken, but not by the government, and not at the expense of Pool.
Lets see for the future:
1) All fat people banned from fast food places - hazardous to their health
2) Tanning salons and beaches outlawed since tanning has just been deemed addictive.
3) Ban liquor since it serves no real purpose, and drunk drivers kill.
4) Start Sex Police since oral sex is banned in most states.
Where does it stop? The government is HARDLY EVER RIGHT about anything. Lets see, I was in Viet Nam when they told us there was no danger from previous fields sprayed with Agent Orange either.
(Sorry, it just came rolling out, didn't mean to rant)
not to spark another smoking debate even though I feel the government should not be involved in it. The point was, that it can have positive or negative effects, depending on the local or regional area that you live in.
While the effects may seem positive to you, it may be negative to others, including room owners. This also can depend how much on the location of the Pool room. Personally, without a lot of difference in equipment, I would drive 20 minutes more to go to a smoking room rather than a non-smoking room, that is also dependent on the action too, as I am a gambler.
And yes, I am a smoker, 45 years, but I exercise also, which many people don't do. In our Politically Correct Society today, where does it stop with the Government telling us how to regulate our private lives????????
Cancer has just as much to do with your inherited genes as to your environment, unless you are confined to a specific dangerous environment with dangerous chemicals with no ventilation. I had a chest X-ray last June, and my lungs looked good the doctor said. And I do not buy into the 2nd hand smoke propaganda smoke disipates fairly quickly, and with proper ventilation, it is gone is a couple of seconds. Let's see, how many smokers dogs get lung cancer? I am not unsympathetic and understand the need for precautionary steps to be taken, but not by the government, and not at the expense of Pool.
Lets see for the future:
1) All fat people banned from fast food places - hazardous to their health
2) Tanning salons and beaches outlawed since tanning has just been deemed addictive.
3) Ban liquor since it serves no real purpose, and drunk drivers kill.
4) Start Sex Police since oral sex is banned in most states.
Where does it stop? The government is HARDLY EVER RIGHT about anything. Lets see, I was in Viet Nam when they told us there was no danger from previous fields sprayed with Agent Orange either.
(Sorry, it just came rolling out, didn't mean to rant)
Snapshot9 said:
The major flaw in your reasoning there, is - none of those activities directly affects someone else in the vicinity. I can't get drunk standing near someone else who's drinking, tan standing near someone in a tanning bed, etc. etc.
Smoking bans aren't about the smokers - they're about the non-smokers. If smoking bans were all about stopping everyone from smoking, then they would shut down all the tobacco companies and ban smoking altogether.
I've gotten used to cigs in bars over the years. I don't like smelling my clothes the next day and realizing what must have gone into my lungs but I'm not going to lobby congress to ban them. What I do think should be outlawed is cigars! One stinking cigar can smell up an entire establishment and makes me sick to my stomach.
Snapshot9 said:
The point is:
Mostly - stop blaming the government - the government didn't suddenly
decide to keep you from smoking. The State governments,
there are now about 10 IIUC, had NOTHING to do with banning smoking.
Do you really think there is any chance they wanted to loose all those
tax dollars from all the cigs that won't be smoked in public now?
Truth is, non smoking inititives were placed on the balott by citizens
of the state - Democracy in action.
Secondly - de Nile is not just a river in Egypt.
All your wel thought out points about personal and owner
rights and freedoms just happen to apply equally well
to heroin addicts and dealers - except dope was already outlawed.
I'm a non-smoker, and would prefer smoke free everywhere.
But I have connections with pool, and many friends in the biz.
I fear the effect of bans - they have been devastating in the past.
All the people who are saying just prepare for the change
need a crash course in the Law of Supply and Demand.
Dale
Personal responsibility - not letting your addictions effect the health of othersBig Perm said:No, anybody who disagrees with non-smokers are wrong, didn't you know that
Forget personal responsibility, or choice, or an owners rights.....the govt should be able to ban whatever the majority seems inappropriate....
Owners rights - avoiding lawsuits by patrons and staff by providing a healthy smoke free environment.
Smoking is a workplace occupational/ public health and safety issue, not an owners rights issue. You're free to do what ever you like on your own property until you invite the general public on to it, then you are responsible for their health and safety.
By legislating a smoking ban on public areas (including private businesses) they are looking out for owners rights as well as the publics.
pdcue said:
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.
Last edited:
biggame said:
This is a common misconception amongst poolplayers, those who frequent bars, bar owners, etc.. When your hobby/job/business keeps you around places that cater to smokers, you begin to think that a larger percentage of people smoke than really do.
Smoking has carried a big social stigma for nearly 20 years now, which has affected young people's decisions to try out cigarettes or not. Smoking has become massively unpopular with the public in part because of a massively successful government campaign to tell our brainless teenagers that they don't have to smoke "just because another teenager says it's cool."
To summarize my view, I don't particularly care if smoking bans upset smokers. It's GOING to happen whether you fight it or not. All anyone is doing is asking you to step outside to smoke so we can all enjoy the same social environments. That the majority of smokers have a problem with this just reinforces the view most nonsmokers have that smokers tend to be rude, and only think of themselves.
Russ
Russ Chewning said:
Russ,
Agreed, it's probably around 20%....your figure sounds about right...
Second, there are plenty of people in the world that are rude a-holes that don't smoke....and plenty of smokers that are the nicest, most unselfish people you've ever met....so that's a pretty short-sided statement.....on the same note, South Park did a spoof on tolerance the other night....how you have to be tolerant of people and their choices....all kinds of examples in this museam....anyway, they all went outside, saw a guy smoking over by the fountain, and chastised him as a stupid smoker and "cancer-boy".....smoking and not-smoking at times, I've seen both sides, and the non-smokers get overly insulting and self-righteous (sp)
Currently, I'm a social smoker, will go months without and literally not think about it....and I respect a bar owner that prohibits smoking and will gladly abide his rules, but I also appreciate his right to make that decision....not that of the govt....to Mr. Green, a private business is not a public venue.....you can choose not to go there, and also choose not to work there......you can vote your displeasure with how and where you send your business....
Snapshot9 said:
My favorite analogy.
Having a smoking and non smoking areas in a restaurant is like having a peeing section and non peeing section in a swimming pool. Same logic.