fool hall

[sausage]

Now we're stuck with the shit tables at the Moose

i'll betcha if you'd approach them to update their equipment and offer your services, they'd be interested. you could start tournaments/auctions/donations that go toward the purchase of a craigslist gold crown. load a few moosers in the pickup to pick it up. those codgers would be fighting about how best to move the slates...

I'm a non smoker who also believe a business owner has the right to run his business as he sees fit. The market and patronage will determine who stays in business, not the gov't

i agree, however, i've seen parents with newborn babies at a smokey pool hall. also the workers have a RIGHT to breath clean air. lung cancer should NOT be an occupational hazard. so there are many other issues here beyond the basic rights of business owners. personally, i prefer the smoking bubble. :grin:

 

[DelaWho???]

For nearly all of my 83 years it has been taken for granted that smokers have the right to light up and spew their poison into the air that others must breath anytime, anyplace. Why? Money and the power of advertising. Now that unright right is being challenged. About time. The owner of the room I use most, a non smoker, is looking forward to the ban as much as I am. July 5th here in Wisconsin. I really doubt that it will hurt his business.

Dave Nelson

If he's the business owner he can set the rules of the establishment including smoking. He obviously chose to permit smoking for a reason.

Don't get me wrong here, I am all for patronizing a non smoking establishment, I just think the decision to be a smoking or a non smoking business should be a decision for the proprietor, not the gov't. The business owner should have the right to cater to whatever clientelle htey choose, the consumer has the right to take his business elsewhere of he so chooses

 

[sausage]

If he's the business owner he can set the rules of the establishment including smoking. He obviously chose to permit smoking for a reason.

Don't get me wrong here, I am all for patronizing a non smoking establishment, I just think the decision to be a smoking or a non smoking business should be a decision for the proprietor, not the gov't. The business owner should have the right to cater to whatever clientelle htey choose, the consumer has the right to take his business elsewhere of he so chooses

yes, but you failed to address the issue about people having the right to WORK in a safe environment and people bringing children into an unsafe business.

ALSO, if the danger were more immediate, like say boxes falling from scaffolding, i doubt that you'd argue that the business owner has the right to topple neck-breaking parcels from above. it's the SAME ISSUE, only cig smoke takes longer to kill.

 

[DelaWho???]

yes, but you failed to address the issue about people having the right to WORK in a safe environment and people bringing children into an unsafe business.

ALSO, if the danger were more immediate, like say boxes falling from scaffolding, i doubt that you'd argue that the business owner has the right to topple neck-breaking parcels from above. it's the SAME ISSUE, only cig smoke takes longer to kill.

Employees know going in that it is a smoking establishment. They have a choice to find employment elsewhere or live with the risk. Parents or consumers in general can choose not to patronize the establishment. If employees won't work and patrons don't come in, the business won't stay open for very long.

I suppose you'd argue that a chef has the right to not be cut or burned while working in a kitchen? He would have the right to expect that the equipment is in good working order and that there aren't any trip hazards and the like. Every job entails a certain amount of risk. We all make choices in life. You make a choice to work where you do and eat or play pool where you do. The owner has the right to run a business as he see's fit. He isn't forcing anyone to do anything.

Now you can argue that he bears liability if his employee is injured on the job and even that he is at fault if a worker becomes sick through the normal activity of working if you can draw a direct link between second hand smoke and the said health issue. That is tenuous at best. It would be relatively easy to demonstrate liability if a box fell on someones head.

No one is forcing anyone to patronize work or bring their children anywhere. We all make choices and face the consequences of that choice be you employer or employee.

I personally wouldn't want to work in a smoker environment. I don't smoke, but I am sure the employer will find willing employees.

 

[Lan]

Employees know going in that it is a smoking establishment. They have a choice to find employment elsewhere or live with the risk. Parents or consumers in general can choose not to patronize the establishment. If employees won't work and patrons don't come in, the business won't stay open for very long.

Back when smoking was allowed, how many places were non-smoking? Just about zero as far as i can remember. No business owner willingly shuts out that segment of the population, other than special circumstances.

 

[sausage]

No one is forcing anyone to patronize work or bring their children anywhere. We all make choices and face the consequences of that choice be you employer or employee.

I personally wouldn't want to work in a smoker environment. I don't smoke, but I am sure the employer will find willing employees.

it only takes ONE EMPLOYEE to foul the air of ONE HUNDRED employees. before smoking bans, EVERY WORKPLACE had at least some smokers exposing many more nonsmokers, who HAD TO HAVE A JOB, to work in an unsafe environment. there was NO WAY to get away from tobacco smoke. furthermore, like you stated, it's impossible to PROVE that your cancer is the result of the smoke that you inhaled at work. a non-smoking flight attendant learned that lesson the hard way. she was forced to work in a tin-can breathing the smoke of drug addicts or change her occupation. but back then almost all business allowed smoking so changing jobs STILL wouldn't guarantee clean air. the entire country was breathing second-hand smoke. the free market was not protecting people. sometimes gov intervention is a good thing....

 

[sausage]

Back when smoking was allowed, how many places were non-smoking? Just about zero as far as i can remember. No business owner willingly shuts out that segment of the population, other than special circumstances.

exactly! smoking was even allowed in hospitals!

 

[DelaWho???]

Back when smoking was allowed, how many places were non-smoking? Just about zero as far as i can remember. No business owner willingly shuts out that segment of the population, other than special circumstances.

It doesn't change the validity of my statement. If I were a nudist, I would not be able to patronize any business. No shoes no shirt no service. The owner reserves the right to exclude segments of the population. A non smoking employer is well within his right as an employer to exclude smoking on the in the establishment by employees or patrons alike. Whether they did that or not is purely up to them. I know of no law suit which forced a business to permit smoking when it was the norm and smoking was acceptable.

At this point in time less than 25% of the populatin in the US smokes, that means 75% don't smoke. Which segment are you going to favor?

flight attendants chose to be flight attendants and did so because of the pay, travel and benefits. They knew the deal going in, and could have chosen another profession.

If you own the business you have the right to run it as you see fit. You are responsible for the success or failure of the business and that means you make good business decisions or go out of business.

For me it is a question of ownership and liberty. Gov't intervention always harms someone, and that is never a good thing.

 

[sausage]

um, nude people don't give others cancer.

and NO, business owners CAN'T do what ever they please. they can no longer exclude people because of the color of their skin and they should NOT be allowed to endanger ALL of their employees because they have ONE who is a drug addict and fouls the air of many.

it is a basic right to be able to choose your occupation without having to breath toxins. businesses with toxic air are FORCED by LAW to require breathing apparatuses for their employees, for political reasons cig smoke was excluded from these regulations.

again; BUSINESSES CANNOT AND SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO DO WHATEVER THEY WISH ESPECIALLY WHEN IT COMES TO TOXINS IN THE WORKPLACE.

another issue is that many employees do NOT understand the dangers. there are no disclaimers when applying for a job that the air IS TOXIC. people should NEVER have to choose between a good job and clean workplace air. furhtermore; you didn't address the point that BEFORE SMOKING BANS, NO BUSINESSES WERE SMOKE FREE. so your argument that they can just get another job is a, smokescreen. :wink:

 

[Demondrew]

Why is this in the 14.1 section?

Andy

 

[sausage]

because like many threads it morphed.

 

[Str8PoolMan]

Jane, you ignorant slut....

I'm not trying to make fun of Mr. McCue, or refute his claims.

It's just that some of his arguments remind me of the movie "Airplane". There was a scene where they were showing media coverage of the impending air disaster. One bit was a TV show, called "Point-Counterpoint", where a man stated, "They (the passengers) bought their tickets. They knew what they were getting into. I say, let 'em crash."

Or, as Super Chicken put it, "You knew the job was dangerous when you took it, Fred."

 

[Wity]

it's impossible to PROVE that your cancer is the result of the smoke that you inhaled at work.

Thats because it's been proved that 2nd hand smoke does not cause cancer.

Theres no evidence that smoking causes cancer either, only an increased risk of having it.

Cant help but think youve listened to too many quacks and politicians Sausage and like many take media headline comments on a survey as gospel.

 

[sausage]

Thats because it's been proved that 2nd hand smoke does not cause cancer.

Theres no evidence that smoking causes cancer either, only an increased risk of having it.

despite the blatant contradiction of your two sentences above, by stating the obvious you support my argument .

Cant help but think youve listened to too many quacks and politicians Sausage and like many take media headline comments on a survey as gospel.

i don't even have a TV... but i did watch a collage prof die of lung cancer. he smoked in the classroom. i often would sit outside the door. when my own body tells me, "don't breath that shit!" i listen. if you want to suck cigs, fine but i hate smelling like tobacco smoke and i have a RIGHT not to be forced to take other peoples drugs via our common air. go get a drug-fix outside. simple ain't it?

oh, and there is a woman at a local business who would be attractive had tobacco addiction not wrinkled her face like a sharpei. one can only imagine how wrinkled are her insides. however small the risk, i don't want to take it...

 

[Wity]

Where is the contradiction? Smoke tobacco all your life and you could die of cancer there again you could live to be a hundred and die of something else as did the oldest recorded woman ever at 130 Admittedly she quit smoking at the age of a hundred but she along with millions of smokers died of something else. Same as driving everywhere at 100mph chances are you wont live to see your pension but it's no gaurentee you will die in a car crash is it?

Thus smoking does not cause cancer it merely increases the risk of it.

On the other hand statistics regarding passive smoking show the odds of a person living with a smoker getting cancer so minutely different to one living with a non smoker they are insignificant.

Thus passive smoking isn't going to give you cancer, it may irritate you but it's less harmfull than a fart.



And where the hell did you get the photo of my ex smoker ex wife?

Edit..

Oh hang on it's not her, cant be she put on 6 stone when she quit smoking.

 

[sausage]

a persons sensitivity to tobacco is genetic. i do not know what my genetic propensity is to get cancer from second-hand smoke. i do believe that some non-smokers have gotten cancer by breathing the cig smoke of others.. but even if cig smoke doesn't kill you, there are other ill effects that one suffers from breathing that toxin. regardless, i don 't like coming home from the fool hall smelling like an ashtray.

 

[DelaWho???]

My comments aren't directed at smoking or not smoking, it is about private ownership. There were plenty of jobs that were smoke free, and I worked a couple of them. In the 70's I worked as a pin chaser in a bowling alley. I wasn't a smoker, but some of my coworkers were. They weren't permitted to smoke int he work area, they had to go out to the bar where smoking was allowed.

I worked on a farm and they didn't permit smoking in the green houses.

Even in the military we weren't allowed to smoke in the classrooms and there were areao of the ship where smoking wasn't permitted. They provided designated areas, and gave smoke and coke breaks.

Either a business is privately or publicly owned. The market will determine who stays in business and who doesn't. The consumer has the right to decide who they will or won't do business with. If it's publicly owned then the gov't has the right to dictate policy, like the military does. Private business stays in business at the will of the market.

Incidently the OP morphed this thread to this topic in post #3

 

[Dave Nelson]

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, 47 days and counting here in Wis. It will be nice not to have to strip off my clothes and toss them in the laundry upon returning from the pool room.

Dave Nelson

 

[8Ball48043]

Personally I enjoy a fine cigar with my 14.1 at a local pool hall here in South Florida. Most pool halls allow smoking here. The line is if the establishment derives more than 10% (I think) of their revenue from food. If so, they must go non-smoking. So, most smart pool hall owners have stopped offering food!