Fallout from a smoking ban!!!
- Thread starter Snapshot9
- Start date
supergreenman said:
Here's a real-life, current example of a politcal libertarian and his ACTIONS, (vs. only words as used by the non-libertarian politcians). Notice the stark contrast in his actions:
...Before [Ron] Paul was a United States congressman, he was a medical doctor who delivered thousands of babies. Not once during his medical career did he accept Medicare payments. Instead, he would lower or waive his fees.
He doesn’t participate in the congressional pension program. He has never voted for a congressional pay increase. He returns part of his congressional office budget to the U.S. Treasury each year.
He has never, ever, ever voted to increase taxes. And he’s been in congress for ten terms....
Full article here:
http://tinyurl.com/2vpptq
He doesn’t participate in the congressional pension program. He has never voted for a congressional pay increase. He returns part of his congressional office budget to the U.S. Treasury each year.
He has never, ever, ever voted to increase taxes. And he’s been in congress for ten terms....
Full article here:
http://tinyurl.com/2vpptq
Jeff Livingston
chefjeff said:
I hope you didn't see me as implying otherwise.
Look I'm not rah-rah-regulation. And I recogniize there's a lot of regulation done badly and a lot of regulation done for the wrong reason. I think seat belt laws, recreational-drug laws, laws prohibiting prostitution, and a host of other laws should be discarded.
Still I think there's a proper role for regulation, primarily regarding safety, as I stated before.
I think the people should agree on what maximum risk they wish to assume as they go about their daily activities, and the government should try to devise standards and compliance mechanisms for public businesses that try to insure it is not exceeded.
I also want to make a distinction. When you walk into a pool hall, you're not thinking about fire exits, about wiring, about how much radon might be in the air, about whether their well water is contaminated by the buried crap at the oil refinery next door, and so on. But note all these risks are ancillary to the activity you're choosing to do--play pool.
I draw a distinction between those ancillary risks and direct risks. Think about a bungee cord operation. I see three ways to handle the bungee cord place at the edge of town. One is no government interference. You're aware I don't like that one. A second is government regulation. The cord is inspected at regular intervals, and the business is only licenced to operate if the risk of the cord breaking is less than one in a million or one in ten million or whatever. There is a third possibility, which would be government monitoring. The government would inspect like before, and they would slap up either a green sign or an orange sign or a red sign (like the terror threat levels). Then the consumer could choose whether to assume the risk. I'd be fine with that.
For ancillary risks, like fire safety at a pool hall, I prefer there's standards that must be met. There's only one pool hall in Fargo. I would not like the idea that to play pool in the only public place I had available, I had to accept some high risk unrelated to pool, even if there were enough other people in town willing to accept that risk.
Plain and simple
The government, for the most part, does not know what it is doing, and coordination of efforts is a joke. First, the government said salt was good for you, then they publicly comdemned it, and now they say it is good for you again.
And those that believe whatever they read on the Internet is Gospel, I can only laugh, because 98% of it are personal opinions only.
Their is no actual definative proof that second hand smoke causes cancer, most cancer tendencies are genetic linked through one's family heritage.
Unless you are breathing in smoke from a Crack house everyday for 10+ years, I wouldn't worry about it. Ever hear of a smoker's dog getting lung cancer .... NO, you haven't.
And for you adamant non-smokers, consider this: If this Neo-Nazi attitude by you had been prevalent in the 40's, we may have lost WWII, because the B-24's and B-29's may not have gotten built seeing how workers could smoke on the job at their workstations then.
And every Pool room I ever go to, at least 60-70% of the people in them are smoking. The 20% bullshit is taken from a survey from a sample from one geographical area.
The government, for the most part, does not know what it is doing, and coordination of efforts is a joke. First, the government said salt was good for you, then they publicly comdemned it, and now they say it is good for you again.
And those that believe whatever they read on the Internet is Gospel, I can only laugh, because 98% of it are personal opinions only.
Their is no actual definative proof that second hand smoke causes cancer, most cancer tendencies are genetic linked through one's family heritage.
Unless you are breathing in smoke from a Crack house everyday for 10+ years, I wouldn't worry about it. Ever hear of a smoker's dog getting lung cancer .... NO, you haven't.
And for you adamant non-smokers, consider this: If this Neo-Nazi attitude by you had been prevalent in the 40's, we may have lost WWII, because the B-24's and B-29's may not have gotten built seeing how workers could smoke on the job at their workstations then.
And every Pool room I ever go to, at least 60-70% of the people in them are smoking. The 20% bullshit is taken from a survey from a sample from one geographical area.
Snapshot9 said:
Congratulations, Snappy! You've lost the argument.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law
(And yes! It's a personal opinion posted on the Internet. Aren't you clever!)
ScottW said:
Thanks, for making me spit out my coffee laughing
smokeandapancak said:
You correctly pointed out the flaw with the previous analogy. However, your correction is not correct either. This is because people have survived being shot in the face with a .45 cal, and people have survived falling out of a plane with a defective chute.
A better statement might be: "In the majority of cases in which someone shot themself in the face with a .45 cal, they died. Therefore, it is highly likely that if you do this, you too will die."
That translates like this to the smoking analogy. "It has been proven that cigarette smoking has been stongly linked to lung cancer by the medical community. Therefore, if you smoke cigarettes, your chances of getting lung cancer go up."
There are a million other analogies that work like this. We are talking about probability, not certainty. Lets make a pool reference. "I run a layout like this out most of the time" Does that mean you are automatically going to run it out? You might not on any given attempt. However, in the long run, facing a layout like that will USUALLY result in a runout.
Is there any correction needed for my statement?
Thanks,
KMRUNOUT
Cheffjeff said:
"If a libertarian doesn't act libertarian, s/he aint' no libertarian, but simply one who forgets to look in the mirror when seeking solutions to society's problems. It always starts and ends with the self."
Well put. Thus the conclusion to be drawn here is that the smoker should assess the impact that their offensive, disgusting habit will make on their fellow man and walk outside to smoke voluntarily, rather than be forced to do so by the law. Would this about sum up the "libertarian" view of your post?
KMRUNOUT
"If a libertarian doesn't act libertarian, s/he aint' no libertarian, but simply one who forgets to look in the mirror when seeking solutions to society's problems. It always starts and ends with the self."
Well put. Thus the conclusion to be drawn here is that the smoker should assess the impact that their offensive, disgusting habit will make on their fellow man and walk outside to smoke voluntarily, rather than be forced to do so by the law. Would this about sum up the "libertarian" view of your post?
KMRUNOUT
Snapshot9 said:
Lung cancer is not very common in dogs, but I gather the incidence appears to be higher in urban areas as well as in households with second hand smoke.
http://www.petplace.com/dogs/primary-lung-tumors-in-dogs-lung-cancer-pulmonary-neoplasia/page1.aspx
[...]
Snapshot9 said:
But surveying a smoking-allowed poolroom might give a an unrepresentative sample. For example, the guy in the office next to me used to string straight-pool racks together (B player), but I haven't been able to get him into the poolroom more than once in the last 10 years because of the smoke. I've tried to get my wife to come by to have a drink or meet a few people, but the smoke is an issue to her. I go once a week, and I strip off as soon as I get home and jump in the shower.
A more interesting statistic to me would be to survey people in a nice California pool room or some other region that's been nonsmoking for enough years that a potential new clientele has had a chance to develop.
KMRUNOUT said:
Come on people, this is getting rediculous....you make this statement as if it's an obvious fact.....it's your opinion, and I'm sure you own it 100%, but it is only an opinoin, not fact....actually, you state the smoker should be aware and it's their opinion.....come on now
A lot of you don't like smoking, I applaud you....hell, I don't like smoking, but a cig seems to jump in my mouth after a beer or so
.....damn willpower.....but I'm not gonna condemn those that smoke.....other people do tons of nasty stuff, IMHO, that I consider to be inappropriate, and when that happens, I can leave and spend my dollar elsewhere....like strip clubs....young men staring at half naked women for money, who would go to something so offensive and disgusting 
Neil said:
Actually, the first six months I played was in a 100% smoke free barracks rec room. Then, the next year I played in was 100% smoke free recreation centers all across South Korea on military installations. Then, the next period I played was in Fort Lewis, Washington at the rec center there, until I turned 21 and was old enough to go to the pool rooms and bars.
So, to sum it up, the first three years I played, was totally, 100% smoke free. And now, from what I understand, isn't Washington state 100% smoke free indoors at public businesses? Oh, happy day.
The selfishness of smokers refusing to go outside to light up still perplexes me to this day. Good thing the gubbint is going to FORCE you to do so.
Gosh, being in the majority ROCKS!
Russ
Neil said:True. But the problem I had is I enjoyed the very first one I had. If I had coughed, I would have never continued.
So I guess you struck out on that one. hmm... does that make you a Lucky Strike?
What? He hit a hooooooome run! He showed that you are an incredible hypocrite.
You are criticizing others for thinking they have a right to pursue a game that involves putting balls in holes without breathing in cancer causing fumes, but it's okay for you to smoke where ever you want. Why? Because you "like it".
The fact that you can't even see your own hypocracy is what makes it so hilariously funny. It really does amaze me how self centered some smokers are.
Russ
Lun@ticfringe
Registered
I'm sure this has been mentioned before in this thread,but why...OH WHY; are there not numerous self-imposed non smoking pool halls and bars if that is what the majority of the public wants.It seems like a no brainer to me, open a non smoking pool hall and the people will come in droves to play there;probably even pay a premium to do so. Their would be no reason for smoking bans...once the owners of smoking allowed places see the amount of money they could be making by being non smoking they will quickly convert themselves.No no...that would never work...that would just be too...ummmm...whats the word...oh yeah...AMERICAN.