Fallout from a smoking ban!!!

[ScottW]

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.

Wild guess? People who are inclined to open a pool room don't want to risk their investment on such a gamble. Those folks aren't on this forum debating politics and personal choice and all that - they're trying to run businesses and make money. If you were to go tell some room owner that they should "take a chance", likely they'd say "YOU take that chance with YOUR money. Le'me know how it turns out".

But when the playing field is levelled in that respect - i.e. a state-wide smoking ban is in effect - then that risk of going non-smoking from the get-go is eliminated.

 

[smokeandapancak]

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

I just knew that when I logged back on today that there would be a some smart ass reply to my post, talking about people surviving catching a round in the face... it seems you did get the point of post, so thanks for giving the well laid out disection idea behind the post.

BTW the pool reference is complete BS....if it were phrased as "i will most likley DUFF this layout everytime".... then I might give it some credit

 

[chefjeff]

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.

That sounds good, but is it?

Govt at the local level is much more accountable to the public it is supposed to serve than are State or Federal govts. Yet, the same problems can creep in and trump safety, in this case. Politics can run out "undesireable" business, such as pool halls and their type, regardless of real safety concerns. It wouldn't be the first time, for sure that that has happened!

Here's an example of how I see the more peaceful and fairer future...

You're with friends in a strange town. You're standing in front of a pool hall and wondering if it is OK to enter. You push a button on your pda, it knows where you are and list the two businesses next to you and ask which one you want info on. You push Joe's Pool Hall. It says, "94.6 rating, more info?" Yes. "Zero complaints in last 30 days, two in last year...more info?" Yes. "May 3, 2007, unconfirmed report of cock roaches near front door." Dec 25, 2006, roof leaking into kitchen. more info?" It would list the amenities, including smoking or non, food, # tables, etc....an advertisement of sorts.

Then you punch up your phone book and it highlights two names of your contacts that have been in Joes before, "Call Mike?" Yes. Hey Mike..we're thinking of going into Joe's Pool Hall in Pleasantville...you were there last year...any good?

Then you decide if the risk is worth it. This type of scenario is coming and if you think about it, it is similar to Wikipedia-type info where it is timely, controlled by the many who contribute, and way out in front of govt inspectors who maybe come into Joe's once or twice a year and aren't paid off by the owner to cover his sorry business practices.

This allows one to choose whatever level of risk one wants and is more effective at keeping new customers safer than current systems.

And this would all be done by private business, as is Wikepedia, so forced payments (ie taxes) are not necessarry so only those who use the service pay for it, but the public as a whole benefits greatly.

Of course, I cannot predict the exact methods to be used, but I think you get an idea of what's coming soon to a business near you...for you.

One of the ways I use for trying to bring govt to a more rational level is to encourage businesses to outcompete it, thus nulling it, as the above example demonstrates.

Jeff Livingston

 

[chefjeff]

Cool. So, does that mean that no libertarian would ever light up a smoke in the presence of another person?

Aaron (wishes the pool halls were full of libertarians)

That depends on the circumstances. In pool halls, more than two people have an interest in what is happening inside. Not control necessarily, but an interest.

For example, if you are a non-smoker and are in a pool hall. You enter the hall and accept the conditions that the owner has presented to you, or you do not accept the conditions. It is your choice.

On the flip side, the owner sees you coming into his hall. You are presenting him with a potential trade, your money for his pool table time. He decides if he is willing to trade with you, just as you do. If both agree, a deal is made and both are happier as a result.

Now, in comes a smoker. The owner, who doesn't like smoke, points at the "no smoking" sign and ask the smoker to take it outside. The smoker now can decide if he wants to smoke or to play pool. Because it is the owner's hall and not his, he can't have both at the same time. He can start his own smoking ahll, but he cannot force his control onto this owner.

No one's rights were violated and no coercion.

Now, if the smoker lights up anyway, he is violating the rights of the the owner and hurting his customer, his most precious asset. Bye bye smoker.

OK?

Jeff Livingston

 

[chefjeff]

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

Good question. See my reply to Aaron.

When I smoked years ago, I would not smoke in front of those who did not like it, even if I was allowed to in whatever place I was. If the non-smoker complained about the smoke anyway, I'd suggest they leave the environment as no one was forcing them to be there.

I'd also, as I stated earlier, suggest to the owner that smoke was possibly hurting his business and maybe a change was in order.

Last night we went to a crowded restaurant. We sat in the bar waiting for a table and had a drink. We could've just ordered dinner in the bar, but decided to wait 45 minutes for a table in the non-smoking dining area as it was a little smokey in the bar. I was willing to put up with the smoke but some others with us were not. So we each made the trade offs: time for clean air; friendship over convenience. Ahh, it was so nice.

But at other times, with other friends who want to be in smoking places, I, too, make a choice. I either stay away from my friends or go with them into the smokey place. Just another of life's trade-offs, another freedom to choose.

Actually, there are times when going into a little neighborhood bar, filled with regular smokers, haze over the table, etc. is just what I'm looking for. It is comforting sometimes, if you know what I mean. I fear that environment will soon be stolen away from my list of possibilities

Jeff Livingston

 

[chefjeff]

(snip)

But when the playing field is levelled in that respect - i.e. a state-wide smoking ban is in effect - then that risk of going non-smoking from the get-go is eliminated.

Close. I'd say it is your 'smoking-allowed' competition that has been forcefully eliminated. (Gotta love mobs!) But the owner still has to run a successful business in competition with all the other, now non-smoking, entertainment venues.

You only lose control when someone takes away freedoms; you still have the responsiblities. Bummer of a trade-off, imho.

Jeff Livingston

 

[KMRUNOUT]

That depends on the circumstances. In pool halls, more than two people have an interest in what is happening inside. Not control necessarily, but an interest.

For example, if you are a non-smoker and are in a pool hall. You enter the hall and accept the conditions that the owner has presented to you, or you do not accept the conditions. It is your choice.

On the flip side, the owner sees you coming into his hall. You are presenting him with a potential trade, your money for his pool table time. He decides if he is willing to trade with you, just as you do. If both agree, a deal is made and both are happier as a result.

Now, in comes a smoker. The owner, who doesn't like smoke, points at the "no smoking" sign and ask the smoker to take it outside. The smoker now can decide if he wants to smoke or to play pool. Because it is the owner's hall and not his, he can't have both at the same time. He can start his own smoking ahll, but he cannot force his control onto this owner.

No one's rights were violated and no coercion.

Now, if the smoker lights up anyway, he is violating the rights of the the owner and hurting his customer, his most precious asset. Bye bye smoker.

OK?

Jeff Livingston

Jeff, what you wrote is well stated, but you didn't really answer my question. I was looking for your opinion on whether you personally believed that it is the "responsibility" of a person (out of whatever sense of common courtesy, or more directly, your opinion of the libertarian stance)) to attempt to relieve others of the effects of their habit without being "forced" to do so by way of a law, business rule, sign, etc. I see another post below. I'll read further...

KMRUNOUT

 

[KMRUNOUT]

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

Big Perm,

I consider everything people post on open discussion forums like this their opinion by default. I suppose I could have been clearer by stating "a habit that in my opinion is offensive and disgusting to me". Many people I know share this opinion. Many people I know do NOT share this opinion. There is certainly no argument to be made about what is offensive to ME. To give an extreme example, without getting too graphic--there are plenty of people that enjoy all sorts of (what seems to me) bizarre sexual fetishes. I personally find some of this stuff totally disgusting. I do not condemn those people that get into that stuff. Furthermore, I do not condemn smokers. However I would be a little upset if I got real friendly with a girl and she out of the blue started peeing on me without asking if I was cool with that. Whether MOST people don't like that, or only SOME people don't like it, that fact that a reasonably high number of people don't like it is reason enough to avoid that practice unless one has the consent of the other involved parties. You see where I'm going here? Would anyone argue about this statement: "There are many people who do not like cigarrette smoke". That seems pretty obvious. Because it is obvious, smokers have the choice to make whether they are going to overlook that fact when they light up next to someone they don't know. There is at least a reasonable chance that that person doesn't like smoke. Why does it matter if the club or poolhall allows smoking. Why does their policy change the way you would treat your fellow person. If it DOES change it, then that means that the advantage of a smoking club becomes the idea that when in THAT club, you don't have to care about the happiness of the guy next to you.

I have a hard getting past something. When I hear the argument that smokers make-"you don't have to go there, the expectation is that there will be smoke" for some reason I hear it as "Please don't complain about my smoke, because then I will have to care about you, and my addiction makes that very hard for me to do-I'd rather not have to try"

I don't condemn smokers, I condemn people who for whatever reasons decide NOT to be considerate of their fellow person. Now you can remind me about how it is allowed, etc...

Maybe there is no solution that will make everyone happy.

KMRUNOUT

Edit: I smoked cigarretts for almost 2 years. I quit because I found it offensive and disgusting (to myself and to others).

 

[KMRUNOUT]

Good question. See my reply to Aaron.

When I smoked years ago, I would not smoke in front of those who did not like it, even if I was allowed to in whatever place I was. If the non-smoker complained about the smoke anyway, I'd suggest they leave the environment as no one was forcing them to be there.
...
Actually, there are times when going into a little neighborhood bar, filled with regular smokers, haze over the table, etc. is just what I'm looking for. It is comforting sometimes, if you know what I mean. I fear that environment will soon be stolen away from my list of possibilities

Jeff Livingston

Jeff,
Again, you state your point well. That first paragraph contains 2 sentences that work well together. AND, it answers my previous question. I actually understand what you mean in the last paragraph, and that is a shame. (that you should not have that option) I think that the proprietors of a business should be allowed to choose to run it the way they see fit. In order to accomplish this, however, the people that work there would probably have to sign some sort of healthcare waiver, or agree to pay higher insurance premiums. This would seem to cover the main issue with an "unhealthy" workplace. The market could determine whether to go there or not. Maybe there could be a special designation for "smoking" rooms and not, you know, like a classification of the business which is on record with the board of health. At this point the business could gain protection from discrimination for being "smoking".

Just thinking out loud,

KMRUNOUT

 

[steveharn]

There's no arguments left, smoking 's got to go, just a matter of time. I noticed they think a cigarette might be the cause of the fire in S.C. that took 9 firefighter's lives. Enough is Enough!

 

[Aaron_S]

That depends on the circumstances.

Exactly. My point was just that I'm not sure it should depend on anything. If someone was set on claiming the moral high ground, determined to not do anything without first considering their action's impact on others, then they would be hard pressed to find a way to justify smoking around another person, regardless of the setting, their political views, or anything else. They would instead use one of the many alternative nicotine delivery systems out there, simply out of respect for their environment and other humans. I switched from cigarettes to chewing tobacco after 10 years of smoking for that very reason, and then I eventually quit nicotine altogether because of the negative health effects tobacco was starting to have on me. I also have participated in the MO State Amateur 9-Ball Championship at the pool hall that happens to be the subject of this thread for the last 7 or 8 years, and it was so nice this year to not be physically sick for two days after the tournament because of all of the smoke. I have a table at home, though, so I'm not going to suffer too much whether smoking is allowed or not.

What I really think about, however, are our kids. I shudder to think of all of the children who are subjected to sidestream smoke on a daily basis, as I was, with no sayso in the matter at all. Even if you don't agree that sidestream smoke is harmful, which seems to be a fringe stance these days, there's no denying that nicotine is a powerful drug, and children simply should not be subjected to it. And if the children are the future of our sport, then wouldn't it be nice to have a place where you can feel comfortable taking your kids to play pool, some place that's not so smokey that you can't see halfway across the room? Could the next Willie Mosconi or Luther Lassiter be doomed to never realize his cuesport potential because his parents don't want him to hang out in a smoking-allowed establishment? Could anybody blame them?

As always, JMHO,

Aaron

 

[cueandcushion]

Business NEVER gets to make its own safety choices.

I think that the proprietors of a business should be allowed to choose to run it the way they see fit. In order to accomplish this, however, the people that work there would probably have to sign some sort of healthcare waiver, or agree to pay higher insurance premiums. This would seem to cover the main issue with an "unhealthy" workplace. The market could determine whether to go there or not. Maybe there could be a special designation for "smoking" rooms and not, you know, like a classification of the business which is on record with the board of health. At this point the business could gain protection from discrimination for being "smoking".

Just thinking out loud,

KMRUNOUT

I am pretty sure what you are suggesting is illegal. I know that was actually done in companies that had asbestos. Then they became sick with asbestosis where the fibers get caught in the lungs and scar up. Even when the companies TOLD the workers of the dangers, made them sign waivers, and provided respirator masks, the company did not enforce wearing the masks. They were required to enforce the safety requirements even when employees refused. I have family members who have had health issues from asbestos. A business trying to make a condition of employment that you forfeit your right to a safe work environment? Sounds like a lawsuit is guaranteed.

I know from having a business it is a major pain to force employees to do something they don't want to do. Even if it is the law. To make them wear safety goggles, steel toe boots, work gloves, respirator masks. Legally even if they refuse to do it...MY COMPANY still pays the price if they get hurt. Thats the way the law works. If my employee gets his eyes screwed up because he didnt wear the goggles I ordered him to wear....I still get to pay all his medical bills, and I still get the possibility of OSHA showing up and paying fines. My only recourse is to fire employees that refuse to obey safety regulations. Of course, then IT IS ALL MY FAULT, I am the A**HOLE, and now I have to hire a new employee and retrain them at MY expense.

As far as smoking goes, the second hand smoke is costing tax payers and consumers BILLIONS of dollars in medical costs and lost labor. We are just now seeing the effects from smoking 20-30 years ago. Even as the smoking rates go down it will take a long time to see cancer rates go down. Places like restaurants and bars are paying higher premiums for workmans comp insurance because of this. This will translate to higher prices on everything to pay for it. The public will complain that the nonsmoking pool room is $5/hour for pool and the smoking pool room is $12/hour for pool. And how the owner of the smoking pool room is screwing them. I can already envision the arguments in my head. This is the direction the "free market" is heading. Everyone wants the market to decide....right? That is the argument I keep hearing on this board. If the expenses are triple for a smoking pool room do you really think most pool players will pay triple?? If you can find these guys PLEASE send them to my pool room!! I get complaints on $3.60 for pool which we started in 1994 I believe. We are charging HALF of what we were (due to inflation). I personally do not have enough confidence in the market that a pool room can stay in business, paying skyrocketing insurance bills, passing that cost on to the pool player, and they will continue paying it. Most the public will drive to the next pool room that is cheaper and cleaner and play there.

I want to go eat. Burger King number ONE that is non-smoking and the Whopper meal is $4.99 and up the street is Burger King number TWO that was smoking and a Whopper meal is $8.75. This is due to higher health insurance premiums, higher cleaning costs, higher liability insurance, higher labor costs, expensive ventilation systems..Which restaurant you think will last longer? What will the free market decide? I will go eat cheap, and I am very used to smoke working in a pool hall. Will the smoking community come out in droves to the expensive Burger King and support it? Or will they just go to the cheaper Burger King and not smoke for 30 minutes? What do you think will happen?

 

[chefjeff]

(snip)
I know from having a business it is a major pain to force employees to do something they don't want to do. Even if it is the law. To make them wear safety goggles, steel toe boots, work gloves, respirator masks. Legally even if they refuse to do it...MY COMPANY still pays the price if they get hurt. Thats the way the law works. If my employee gets his eyes screwed up because he didnt wear the goggles I ordered him to wear....I still get to pay all his medical bills, and I still get the possibility of OSHA showing up and paying fines. My only recourse is to fire employees that refuse to obey safety regulations. Of course, then IT IS ALL MY FAULT, I am the A**HOLE, and now I have to hire a new employee and retrain them at MY expense.

That is a perfect example of the principle of giving up control but not responsibilty.

As far as smoking goes, the second hand smoke is costing tax payers and consumers BILLIONS of dollars in medical costs and lost labor.

That is govt cost-shifting (aka stealing and giving to buddies) and contributes to the health problems.

We are just now seeing the effects from smoking 20-30 years ago. Even as the smoking rates go down it will take a long time to see cancer rates go down. Places like restaurants and bars are paying higher premiums for workmans comp insurance because of this. This will translate to higher prices on everything to pay for it. The public will complain that the nonsmoking pool room is $5/hour for pool and the smoking pool room is $12/hour for pool. And how the owner of the smoking pool room is screwing them. I can already envision the arguments in my head. This is the direction the "free market" is heading. Everyone wants the market to decide....right? That is the argument I keep hearing on this board. If the expenses are triple for a smoking pool room do you really think most pool players will pay triple??

Not sure where you're coming from here....You say say the bar has to pay for allowing smoking due to increased risks, etc., right? Whereas, the non-smoking bar doen't pay as much because of decreased risks, etc. right? What is wrong with this? Seems fair and logical to me...and it is a deterant---a market deterent--that requres no voting, laws, etc. just choice of the bar owners, the patrons, et al. What is wrong with that?

(snip)
What do you think will happen?

The better business model will make more money than the other. And that "vote" will occur with every ring of the cash registers. Cool, huh?

Jeff Livingston

 

[FLICKit]

What's the big deal?

Even with the smoking bans, all it means is that a smoker has to walk 20 feet, smoke their cigarette, and then walk back. What's the big deal about that?

The law isn't trying to stop them from smoking. It just says go outside and return when you're done. The smokers get to smoke. And the non-smokers get non-smoke.

Many of these bars / pool halls just wreak from all the smoking that has been done previously (irrespective of the current smoking).

And creates an environment more friendly, especially for children who will be the future for the pool industry.

Best of both worlds for all.

 

[MrLucky]

Well for one the difference is...

Even with the smoking bans, all it means is that a smoker has to walk 20 feet, smoke their cigarette, and then walk back. What's the big deal about that?

The law isn't trying to stop them from smoking. It just says go outside and return when you're done. The smokers get to smoke. And the non-smokers get non-smoke.

Many of these bars / pool halls just wreak from all the smoking that has been done previously (irrespective of the current smoking).

And creates an environment more friendly, especially for children who will be the future for the pool industry.

Best of both worlds for all.

That the smokers would have to be responsible and considerate ! what an imposition on THEIR rights !

 

[FLICKit]

That the smokers would have to be responsible and considerate ! what an imposition on THEIR rights !

Maybe you're right Mr. Lucky. That's such a dreadful hardship to walk that 20 feet. It must feel like "dead man walking" for those sentenced to death at the prisons.

I apologize for those who are offended for having to take that 20 foot walk. Mr. Lucky has pointed out the error of my ways.

 

[chefjeff]

Even with the smoking bans, all it means is that a smoker has to walk 20 feet, smoke their cigarette, and then walk back. What's the big deal about that?

The law isn't trying to stop them from smoking. It just says go outside and return when you're done. The smokers get to smoke. And the non-smokers get non-smoke.

Many of these bars / pool halls just wreak from all the smoking that has been done previously (irrespective of the current smoking).

And creates an environment more friendly, especially for children who will be the future for the pool industry.

Best of both worlds for all.

Letter to the Editor...

Yesterday afternoon, I was picking up my kids from school and drove past the Billiard Barn, which is really just a common pool hall. As my children looked on, about a dozen young men were standing outside the pool hall, dressed like gangsters, jousting with each other, and smoking cigarettes where all could see! Do they not work? What a wasted life!

Why is it that my children must be subjected to such public scenes on the peaceful streets of our town? Why aren't these undesirables taken off the streets? What message does it send to my children to see such things?

I'd like to see all the pool halls and bars regulated (or better, simply closed down) so this type of behavior doesn't happen ever again to be witnessed by my, or anyone's, children. We did it with smoking; we can do it with places such as these, too.

Signed,
Unhappy Mom

Jeff Livingston

 

[chefjeff]

Exactly. My point was just that I'm not sure it should depend on anything. If someone was set on claiming the moral high ground, determined to not do anything without first considering their action's impact on others, then they would be hard pressed to find a way to justify smoking around another person, regardless of the setting, their political views, or anything else. They would instead use one of the many alternative nicotine delivery systems out there, simply out of respect for their environment and other humans. I switched from cigarettes to chewing tobacco after 10 years of smoking for that very reason, and then I eventually quit nicotine altogether because of the negative health effects tobacco was starting to have on me. I also have participated in the MO State Amateur 9-Ball Championship at the pool hall that happens to be the subject of this thread for the last 7 or 8 years, and it was so nice this year to not be physically sick for two days after the tournament because of all of the smoke. I have a table at home, though, so I'm not going to suffer too much whether smoking is allowed or not.

What I really think about, however, are our kids. I shudder to think of all of the children who are subjected to sidestream smoke on a daily basis, as I was, with no sayso in the matter at all. Even if you don't agree that sidestream smoke is harmful, which seems to be a fringe stance these days, there's no denying that nicotine is a powerful drug, and children simply should not be subjected to it. And if the children are the future of our sport, then wouldn't it be nice to have a place where you can feel comfortable taking your kids to play pool, some place that's not so smokey that you can't see halfway across the room? Could the next Willie Mosconi or Luther Lassiter be doomed to never realize his cuesport potential because his parents don't want him to hang out in a smoking-allowed establishment? Could anybody blame them?

As always, JMHO,

Aaron

Thanks for a reasoned reply, Aaron.

What if the children are worse off because of the ban? Here's how:

A guy usually stops by the bar on the way home from work, quaffs a few beers, plays a few games of pool, and smokes a few. Suddenly, because of non-smoking laws, this behavior makes him a criminal. So, what to do?

Well, now he skips the bar (and pool) and goes home where he drinks and smokes in front of his children, setting a great example of political correctness for them.

Thanks, control-freaks,

Jeff Livingston

 

[Aaron_S]

What if the children are worse off because of the ban?

No trying to offend, but that's a pretty weak argument.

BUT... my posts were not about the ban. The ban thing is a whole different argument, political in nature, and I'm not about to discuss my political views on this forum. All I'm saying is that I view smoking as a very selfish act, and I wish that, out of respect for others, smokers would either use an alternative nicotine delivery device, or at least, if they're going to continue to smoke, not light up around non-smokers.

Respectfully,

Aaron

 

[chefjeff]

No trying to offend, but that's a pretty weak argument.

BUT... my posts were not about the ban. The ban thing is a whole different argument, political in nature, and I'm not about to discuss my political views on this forum. All I'm saying is that I view smoking as a very selfish act, and I wish that, out of respect for others, smokers would either use an alternative nicotine delivery device, or at least, if they're going to continue to smoke, not light up around non-smokers.

Respectfully,

Aaron

There are things called, "unintended consequences," that NO ONE can predict, that always come from forced-backed laws such as these non-smoking laws. Once the guns are pulled and accepted by the majority as OK, strange things happen that are not always good.

Another thing, the FDA makes it so the tobacco companies canNOT tell you that non-smoking, alternative, nicotine-delivery systems are healthier than smoking. The first amendment is not welcomed when it is commercial speech, as if that speech is somehow not supposed to be left free!

Jeff Livingston