How many have we lost

[SJDinPHX]

Good point!

I have to drive an hour to hit a "pool room" these days because of the smoke ban. By pool room I'm not counting the chains that cater to martninis and burgers with a side of random rule 8-ball. That is due to 3 of the rooms I used to go to closing because of the smoke ban in MA. That is for fact due to the smoke ban, every one of the owners/managers there stated that soon as the smoke stopped, they dropped business by up to 50%.

I don't smoke, I don't really like not being able to see the other side of the table through the Marlboro cloud, but I chose to play pool, which = being around smokers, gamblers, drug users (ya I'm stereotyping, but half the regulars in all the places I visit(ed) are on someting illegal), drinkers and poor dressers. It's not right to start going somewhere, and make the others there change to accomidate you. If people want to go to a healthy place, go to Whole Foods and chew on the brocolli.

Let all the clean air freaks put brocolli in their pipes and smoke it! I'm laying 8 to 5 we all die of
something, but the average mortallity rate has risen dramatically in the last 20 years. Is that due
to non-smoking laws? I think NOT!
Dick

 

[avmaster]

Let all the clean air freaks put brocolli in their pipes and smoke it! I'm laying 8 to 5 we all die of
something, but the average mortallity rate has risen dramatically in the last 20 years. Is that due
to non-smoking laws? I think NOT!
Dick

Let me see here, as I recall, we are all born dying...... so, i think that makes you 100% correct..... The smoking hype is another scam by the lawyers that reaped the benefits of sueing the tobacco companys. Second hand smoke kills?? Crap, second hand anything may kill you. Ah, heck, why bother with this argument,

 

[Jason Robichaud]

Freakin' government, wonder what they are thinking, trying to limit second hand smoke. Can you believe they would dare pass a bill trying to save lives!!! because of the dum asses that smoke and think that everyone else should deal with it or stay home?

I am sure none smokers that work at poolrooms and clubs should just breathe in a few million cubic feet of smoke filled are night after night, just so smokers can have a better time.

That said, I think they should take the ban away. Instead they should pass a bill stopping health care or medical coverage to smokers. After all, smokers do have a choice. I don't have a choice on the higher taxes and medical expenses these people cause. So, make them pay and I will gladly use my extra tax savings to drive around and find a smoke free establishment.

 

[avmaster]

Freakin' government, wonder what they are thinking, trying to limit second hand smoke. Can you believe they would dare pass a bill trying to save lives!!! because of the dum asses that smoke and think that everyone else should deal with it or stay home?

I am sure none smokers that work at poolrooms and clubs should just breathe in a few million cubic feet of smoke filled are night after night, just so smokers can have a better time.

That said, I think they should take the ban away. Instead they should pass a bill stopping health care or medical coverage to smokers. After all, smokers do have a choice. I don't have a choice on the higher taxes and medical expenses these people cause. So, make them pay and I will gladly use my extra tax savings to drive around and find a smoke free establishment.

Holy cow Where did you find all that spleen you are carring around??

 

[chefjeff]

Right now I have the choice to smoke or not smoke in the pool hall. Your assertion makes no sense since theyll be taking away my freedom to choose to smoke. YOU have a choice not to go. IMO

Agreed...that's what I was trying to say. I must've not got that across....thanks for your comment that helps.

No one is forced to play pool in a smoky pool hall, no one is forced to work there, no one is forced to be there. Anyone there is there with the mutual consent of the owner of the place. He provides an environment and sets the conditions of entering it. No one is forced into anything.

Until....here comes a non-smoker who doesn't like the owner's way of doing it. Does he merely ask the owner to change his policies? Maybe. But if that doesn't work, instead of being peaceful and rational and going to a more heathful place, the non-smoker goes to the big gang and ask them for a favor: take out the owner if he doesn't do it my way. Now THAT is dangerous to a peaceful society....much more than second hand smoke, volutarily consumed!

It's called "property rights," one of the major vital signs of a healthy society.

Jeff Livingston

 

[chefjeff]

Freakin' government, wonder what they are thinking, trying to limit second hand smoke. Can you believe they would dare pass a bill trying to save lives!!! because of the dum asses that smoke and think that everyone else should deal with it or stay home?

I am sure none smokers that work at poolrooms and clubs should just breathe in a few million cubic feet of smoke filled are night after night, just so smokers can have a better time.

That said, I think they should take the ban away. Instead they should pass a bill stopping health care or medical coverage to smokers. After all, smokers do have a choice. I don't have a choice on the higher taxes and medical expenses these people cause. So, make them pay and I will gladly use my extra tax savings to drive around and find a smoke free establishment.

May I provide a reasoned response to this common argument?

1.) The govt is not doing this to "save lives." That is one excuse, but the main reason is for power.

2.) These "dum asses" (sic) of which you speak are real, live human beings with the same rights as yours. And so is the owner of the hall. Together they have come to a MUTUAL deal: Owner provides a pool hall where one can smoke and the player provides money and respect for the property of the owner. Both sides win.

3.) The workers of which you speak have also made a MUTUAL deal with the owner. They are there of their own free will. That is, they can also leave at anytime. No force is involved and that is good and peaceful.

4.) To use force to deny health care to someone is to advocate homicide, but I don't think that's exactly what you meant....I hope. Yes, smokers have a choice, a good thing. That you do NOT have a choice as to having to pay for smokers stupidity is another example of the violation of property rights, THE problem, a bad thing. It's the old, "Do what you want, just don't make me pay for it," paradigm a good thing.

Two wrongs won't make this right. Property rights being respected all around is what makes for a peaceful and prosperous society...and pool hall.

Jeff Livingston

 

[hang-the-9]

I have 4 siblings (all older than me) My mother smoked and drank during
all of her pregnancies. She passed away some years ago at 89 of natural
causes. We are all in our 70's to mid 80's, and still enjoy pretty good
health. Look somewhere else for your rise in cancer of late (like flori-
dation of water) If second hand smoke killed, we'd all be dead!!!!
Dick
P.S. I'm not saying smoking is good for you, but it is the only thing I
do real well.

I hate these types of examples. Sure it happens that people do bad things and live fine, but the fact is that the *risk* is higher, why take chances? It may have passed you by, but there are lots of people, who if they did not smoke, would not have died, or have not had health issues. All those dead teens that die in car crashes have said the same thing "sure I drive fast with no seatbelt, but I know 3 others that did the same thing and they are fine". Same thing for people who complain about helmet laws for bikes. "But I can't show off my pretty hair", all good till you leave half your skull on the pavement.

You only need to get cancer ONCE, remember that. Think of it as a casino where you can win as much as you want (healthy days), but have to keep playing (tossing crap into your system - say smoking), and as soon as you loose (cancer), you loose it all, and can't bet anymore.

edit - I should say I'm not for the smoking ban, especially in things like bars and pool rooms, clubs. People should allowed to chose to be as stupid on their own as they wish to be, for the most part. I don't see them trying to ban sex due to AIDS spreading, or driving due to accidents. What I am against is the geneal unhealthyness of the whole thing. IF you smoke, go do what you want where you want. But it's wrong to justify smoking by giving examples like so and so smoked and is fine. Because I work in a hospital, and I can show you 50 other so and sos that smoked and are NOT fine. Would you like some pictures of what cancer does to your internal tissues?

 

[realkingcobra]

Question, what do seat-belts, helmets, and smoking all have in common? Answer, insurance companies! Money! Lobbyist! Payoffs! Insurance companies are behind the laws that effect their bottom line, period! Example, hurricane insurance in Las Angeles is like getting earthquake insurance in Florida...no problem paying for it if you don't need it, but if you do...IF you can get it, the rates are outrageous! In Washington state, insurance companies are trying to pass laws that if you own horses and get hurt riding them, they don't have to pay for the injuries...UNLESS you have horse owners INSURANCE! FOLLOW the MONEY is all I'm saying! As far as smoking goes in pool halls, if I opened another one...I'd make it non-smoking too...and I SMOKE! Because to me, it's easier to have my customers go outside and smoke to keep my room smoke free so that I might enjoy the patronage of ALL types of customers for the reason of insuring my success of business, instead of loosing that client?le that might just make a difference as to if I stay in business or not!

Glen

PS, and I have owned 3 pool rooms in the past, so I think I can speak as a room owner as well

 

[Detlev Rackow]

Right now I have the choice to smoke or not smoke in the pool hall. Your assertion makes no sense since theyll be taking away my freedom to choose to smoke. YOU have a choice not to go. IMO

You miss one point:

Since smokers "exercised their rights" everywhere, others had no choice whether to play pool with or without smoke. If they wanted to play pool, they had to accept the smoke as a "bonus". What's the choice in this?

Regards,

Detlev

 

[hang-the-9]

Question, what do seat-belts, helmets, and smoking all have in common? Answer, insurance companies! Money! Lobbyist! Payoffs! Insurance companies are behind the laws that effect their bottom line, period! Example, hurricane insurance in Las Angeles is like getting earthquake insurance in Florida...no problem paying for it if you don't need it, but if you do...IF you can get it, the rates are outrageous! In Washington state, insurance companies are trying to pass laws that if you own horses and get hurt riding them, they don't have to pay for the injuries...UNLESS you have horse owners INSURANCE! FOLLOW the MONEY is all I'm saying! As far as smoking goes in pool halls, if I opened another one...I'd make it non-smoking too...and I SMOKE! Because to me, it's easier to have my customers go outside and smoke to keep my room smoke free so that I might enjoy the patronage of ALL types of customers for the reason of insuring my success of business, instead of loosing that client?le that might just make a difference as to if I stay in business or not!

Glen

PS, and I have owned 3 pool rooms in the past, so I think I can speak as a room owner as well

I would have said they all have in common that if you don't do the right thing, each of them can hurt you. Sure insurance companies have a stake in there, but why? It's because if you are not careful and take care of yourself, you get hurt, which means they need to pay. If smoking had no health affects, the insurance co. and hospitals would not give one whit if you smoked or not. In the end, it all hurts YOU (by you I mean all that smoke, drink too much often, etc...). The companies that provide you healthcare and injury insurance are only a side-effect of that.

I don't mean to sound like your mom, but my wife smokes, and things like that get to me. I really don't want to explain to our 4 kids in 10 years why mommy can't breath on her own. I think everyone should look at who else would be hurt if you died from something preventable. Would your parents be sad if you died before they did? How would you explain to your kids that you took a parent out of their lives because of some chemicals you did not have the will-power to stop using?

 

[Bigkahuna]

Smoking Bans or Clean Air Bans

I watched my father suffocate to death. He was an exceptionally health man except for chronic emphesyma. I had to tell the nurse to keep giving him the morphine so he would not suffer as he lay there gasping for breath. When I was a kid he used to smoke unfiltered Pall Mall cigarettes. Well, you may say that was dumb to be smoking unfilitered cigarettes but the risks of smoking were not as well known back then. I am sure everyone who smoked then denied what we now know to be the inevetible health risks associated with smoking because those risks were not substantiated enough for them. Just like everyone now who smokes are going to deny the risks of second hand smoke.

Sorry smokers but up here in Maine there has been a smoking ban for probably five years or so and I love it. I play four nights a week in league play. That is four nights I would have sat there and had to breath that crap which I can assure you I would not have done. Sorry but if I had to breath in a smokey pool hall I probably would not play four nights a week. So, I am certainly one of the ones that is spending more of my time and money at pool halls due to being able to breath better air. As a smoker you may not understand that when I go to a place that allows smoking like the local Eagles Club to play I wake up with a smoking hangover and feel like sh*t in the morning. I think that is too much of a price for me to pay for the clean air ban that these places have.

Since the ban some bars and pool halls have gone out of bussiness but I do not believe it has anything to do with smoking. These were all businesses that were on the brink anyhow with tired owners who did not want to invest any more time or money into an already ailing business. I think the smoking bans are about a sign of the times consider that many cars geared for the younger generation are no longer sold with lighters or ashtrays!! For myself it is not really a health concern but a comfort concern. Why should I breath stale smoke, play pool with my eyes burning and wake up in the morning feeling like crap. Since the ban many bars and pool rooms have built outdoor smoking areas that the smokers can go to as they need. I have a friend that smokes and during tournaments where she doesn't have time between rounds she just chews some nicorette. So, while this all may have some cause for concern for business owners where there is no regulaton on smoking in public areas I believe everything will be just fine as it has been up here in Maine.

 

[JoeyInCali]

If you are still trying to defend smoking cigs, you are thickheaded.

 

[D_Lewis]

I was just curious to know does anyone know just how many pool rooms we have lost in the US over the smoking band? How many do we have to loose before something is done about it?

How many pool players have we lost to LUNG CANCER?

 

[chefjeff]

If you are still trying to defend smoking cigs, you are thickheaded.

For the record, and to clarify, I'm defending property rights, not smoking.

Jeff Livingston

 

[Da Poet]

For those in favor of government imposed smoking bans,


The next time you fire up the grill to cook a nice juicy thick steak or burger outside, think of the carcinogens in the smoke that is killing you and your children. Think of the same poisionous smoke that is drifting into your neighbor's yard and perhaps into their houses. Think of the damage you are doing to yourself and your family putting those carcinogens into your food. Not to mention what that red meat is doing for your health!

If you're gonna talk the talk, ya gotta walk the walk.

Enjoy your steak.

 

[JoeyInCali]

For those in favor of government imposed smoking bans,


The next time you fire up the grill to cook a nice juicy thick steak or burger outside, think of the carcinogens in the smoke that is killing you and your children. Think of the same poisionous smoke that is drifting into your neighbor's yard and perhaps into their houses. Think of the damage you are doing to yourself and your family putting those carcinogens into your food. Not to mention what that red meat is doing for your health!

If you're gonna talk the talk, ya gotta walk the walk.

Enjoy your steak.

That's OUTDOORS.
You can smoke at the local pool hall, outside if you want.

 

[cigardave]

If you are still trying to defend smoking cigs, you are thickheaded.

How about cigars??? Would I be thickheaded if I were trying to defend smoking cigars?... not in a pool hall... but just smoking them in general.

 

[hang-the-9]

How about cigars??? Would I be thickheaded if I were trying to defend smoking cigars?... not in a pool hall... but just smoking them in general.

A good cigar is healthier than a cigarette, no addatives and you don't really inhale much. It's more the flavor and aroma you get. I don't smoke at all, but when it was allowed, I had a cigar or 2 a week while playing.

 

[JoeyInCali]

How about cigars??? Would I be thickheaded if I were trying to defend smoking cigars?... not in a pool hall... but just smoking them in general.

No, because cigars are not addictive.
The cigar manufacturers have not laced it with addictive stuff yet.
There are regions in Asia where men smoke cigars by the foot and they live to be 80's and up.

 

[Jimmy M.]

For the record, and to clarify, I'm defending property rights, not smoking.

Jeff Livingston

I know you're a trained professional [Libertarian Evangelist], so I am expecting great answers to my questions, but I'll ask them anyway.

In the case of property rights and property ownership where land is involved, who enforces these property rights? They must be enforced. Not only am I asking who enforces them, but who gives anyone the right to "own" land? The land was there long before you, I, the current "property owner", the land developers, the builders, et cetera, got to it.

Somewhere along the line, that land was acquired through force, and that ownership was enforced, most likely, by way of the threat of physical violence. So now the land is "owned", it's sold, bought, sold some more, developed, built on, yada yada yada, and now you, the current "owner", purchases it. Who enforces your ownership of that property? What if I decide to show up with 100 guys with machine guns and take your property? Who is going to tell me that I can't do that? In the perfect Libertarian world, without government, who is going to stop that? You're going to go get 200 guys with machine guns to come and re-claim it? That certainly doesn't sound very orderly to me. Surely me and my group of gun-toting amigos would be arrested, or shot, by one of our existing government agencies, and you, the land owner, would have your property back; an arrangement that I don't believe would be so opposed by the land owner. So assuming I am correct in the above scenario, "some" government intervention is okay, right? If "some" government intervention is okay, then who determines which government intervention is acceptable and which is not? (uh-oh! Here comes that pesky "vote" thing again)

Perhaps I don't completely understand the Libertarian ideals and "no government" is an exaggeration on my part? If so, I apologize. But, also, if that's the case, then my question still stands. If some government intervention is acceptable, then who determines which government intervention is not?

There were a bunch of Southerners in the 1860's that had some "property rights" revoked after the civil war. Was that wrong too?

So, knowing that you've probably encountered these questions before, I expect nothing less than well a thought out response that will make my questions seem irrelevant and/or just plain misguided. As an evangelist, you'd disappoint me otherwise.

imo (flame retardant )