no smoking as of 4-15... ways to get around?

To the Original Poster:
It seems your not going to be able to get a smoking pool hall. The loop holes around it would probably require legal services to insure you get it just right. Providing you do get it right you won't be able to mess up one bit or the state will be there ready to spring to shut you down or fine you.

It will be much easier to have a smoke free enviroment. Just offer something better than your average pool hall. Restaraunt quality food would be good. Along with free refills on non-alcoholic beverages. That is what drives me to visit a pool hall near me. Regardless if I smoke or not.

Your next step is to gather other business owners and make a scene. I don't smoke but this is wrong and you need to fight this. You can possibly take points from these posts. Gather smoking people around and fight it. But when you fight it don't try to make it where you can smoke in a pre-mature baby nursery in the hospital. Find middle ground. Say you want smoking in your place and your willing for now to have say 1 section non-smoking and the other smoking.

Also don't argue "Smokers-Rights" or "Non-smokers Rights". Then it does become a heated debate. Look civilized. If anything find non-smokers to argue for you.
 
smittie1984 said:
To the Original Poster:
It seems your not going to be able to get a smoking pool hall. The loop holes around it would probably require legal services to insure you get it just right. Providing you do get it right you won't be able to mess up one bit or the state will be there ready to spring to shut you down or fine you.

It will be much easier to have a smoke free enviroment. Just offer something better than your average pool hall. Restaraunt quality food would be good. Along with free refills on non-alcoholic beverages. That is what drives me to visit a pool hall near me. Regardless if I smoke or not.

Your next step is to gather other business owners and make a scene. I don't smoke but this is wrong and you need to fight this. You can possibly take points from these posts. Gather smoking people around and fight it. But when you fight it don't try to make it where you can smoke in a pre-mature baby nursery in the hospital. Find middle ground. Say you want smoking in your place and your willing for now to have say 1 section non-smoking and the other smoking.

Also don't argue "Smokers-Rights" or "Non-smokers Rights". Then it does become a heated debate. Look civilized. If anything find non-smokers to argue for you.
Click to expand...


Tap, tap, tap. Very good advice, IMHO.

Flex
 
Flex said:
You seem to like using vulgar language, unfortunately. Perhaps you should also offer an apology to Melissa, the original poster, for calling her a man.

Flex
Click to expand...

#1, I do not see where she stated that she was not a man so no apology necessary Flex.
#2, If I offended you with my vulgar language, I apologize to you Flex.
#3, You totally missed my point. Why even waste your time responding. Do you think it makes you look good, or better than anyone else?
Purdman:rolleyes:
 
pete-biker said:
You're welcome, i'm glad if that helped.

Seriously, this whole argument is strongly in two groups and what is mainly forgotten is the fact that with a respect AND tolerance from both parties we wouldn't be in a situation that normal behavior must be ruled by laws instead of it being normal.
Click to expand...
I actually do think that 99% of smokers are considerate. The problem is it only takes one in the room to make it bad for a whole room full of people. You know I think one of the draws of bars that have smoking is I think most smokers don't smoke in their own homes or cars and find themselves hanging at the bar. No one want's their car or house to stink from smoke especially if they are the only family member who smokes or they have children.

I doubt a smoker on their way to a business meeting will want to be sitting in a car full or smoke and go into the meeting maybe in a small office with their $800. suit stinking of smoke. People who smoke in their cars really stink you can smell them from 10 feet away. It is not just the smoke that can be offensive but the peoples whole being in many cases. It's an awful habit no matter how you look at it.
 
Purdman said:
#1, I do not see where she stated that she was not a man so no apology necessary Flex.
#2, If I offended you with my vulgar language, I apologize to you Flex.
#3, You totally missed my point. Why even waste your time responding. Do you think it makes you look good, or better than anyone else?
Purdman:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Hi Purdman,

You must not have seen her post #59 in this thread, where one reads:

i definitely never meant this thread to arouse such a debate! but it is healthy...

people have made very valid points and are very passionate about what they talk about... however it is their opinion and does not have to be shared and we should remember that...

can ANYONE answer my question about becoming a private club an if it is possible?

-melissa <-- pro-choice, but meaning agreeing with your right to make a decision and have your own opinion... in no way agreeing one way or another with pro-life or choice...


===

Thank you for apologizing for the language.

As for your:

#3, You totally missed my point. Why even waste your time responding. Do you think it makes you look good, or better than anyone else?



Why did you make this comment about it making me "look good, or better than anyone else?"

Your point was this discussion should be in another forum. Perhaps the thread could be in another forum, but this thread has become what it is. Put it elsewhere and it won't be read, most likely. Plenty of posters have thought it good to respond in many different ways, and one of the most recent posts giving Melissa practical advice on how to proceed was very helpful, IMHO.

Best,

Flex
 
Macguy, on your last post you are half correct; just missing the fact that about same amount, 99%, of non-smokers are considerate.

That's a fact that a lot of people do not smoke in their homes/cars/offices for various reasons. Also a lot of people do. What that proves? For me nothing, since the problem in here is how to live and enjoy our hobbies no matter of our healty or discusting habits together with people with different habits.
 
pete-biker said:
Macguy, on your last post you are half correct; just missing the fact that about same amount, 99%, of non-smokers are considerate.

That's a fact that a lot of people do not smoke in their homes/cars/offices for various reasons. Also a lot of people do. What that proves? For me nothing, since the problem in here is how to live and enjoy our hobbies no matter of our healty or discusting habits together with people with different habits.
Click to expand...

I only mention the not smoking in their homes as maybe why they would stop coming to a place where they can no longer smoke, it may have been where they do the most of their smoking and the main reason they went there. I see people in the neighborhood walking their dogs or just standing in the yard smoking. I think a lot of people even hard core smokers may try not to smoke in their homes.

You know, I reminded myself of something. I would think that there are places where you wouldn't want to go in just because your clothes stink when you leave especially if you are not a smoker or on your lunch hour and have to go back to work. I know one place I don't go just because of that, the place reeks of smoke. I am no fanatic but who wants to have to drive home with their windows open because of the smell and have to get undressed before you go in the house. The stink seems to follow you.

I won't rent to a smoker not just because they could burn the place down but you can't get the smell out of the place after they leave. I once was on a trip and had a room reservation for non smoking. I was in the room for like five minutes and had to leave. I went to the desk and asked about the room and he told me they had added more non smoking rooms but since they were previously smoking rooms they were having trouble getting the smell out. It was late and no where to go and I ended up sleeping in my car, there was no way I could stay in the room.

To sum it up, I don't hardly go to the pool rooms any more just because of the smoke, I have except at home, all but quit playing. If I had a kid I would never take him or her into that environment and I don't think I am alone.
 
Last edited:
If steak char is deemed to be dangerous to others and i still want to eat it, i'll have to deal with it myself. My point, or side in this, is to argue and spend time when you can win. This is not one of those cases. This legislation is here to stay. it's only a mateer of time nefore all states have these laws.

Non Smoking patrons had no choice before this law. Yes they could talk to bar/poolroom owners. but that' snot very realistic. Bar=smokey. This law will hopefuully change that perception in people's minds. I can't wait to go home from the bar and not have to disrobe before the bedroom for fear of bringing in the stench. Or waking up the next day and not having a sore throat.

This law is progressive imo. And you do need big govt. sometimes to look over us. We are idiots all of us and unable to always make logical decisions.

Again you reference something irrelevant to your point. People want to speed so the speed limits are too low?

Show me your crash test data that shows a negligable difference between crashign at 55 and 80mph. What's that, you can't? oh, thats what i though, you were making it up, completely off base.

Argue relevant points please.

proff positive taht we are stupid is that there are so many smokers paying $5.50 a pack to die.

I am really not a crusador, i quit in january. smoked 14 years 2 packs a day. I am an idiot too.

But as a convert i must say it really is gross how you smell when you smoke.
 
Jude Rosenstock said:
I'm a smoker and I've grown almost indifferent to smoking vs. non-smoking clubs. In fact, every time I leave the state and find myself in a smoker-friendly place, I'm always a bit shocked and a little disgusted and I assure you, I never thought I'd feel that way 3 years ago.

The fact is, it's a step in the right direction. Because of the smoking-ban, I smoke considerably less when I go out and I've grown accustomed to it. The common associations made with drinking & smoking or playing pool & smoking have weakened considerably for me and for that, I'm grateful.

If you're a smoker, I know that you argue against the law because today, you choose to smoke but let me ask you this: If you had to do it all over again, would you be a smoker?
Click to expand...

I'm in CA and I completely agree!
 
Flex said:
You may say what you want about anti-smoking laws not being liberal. And just because New York Republicans want something doesn't make it right. Those NY RINOS (Republicans In Name Only, i.e. really democrats at heart) aren't exactly my cup of tea, and I lived there for 10 years and have a pretty good idea about them.

Actually, if I were you I'd not waste money making a long distance phone call, (which doesn't cost me anything if calling in the evening or during the weekends, probably does though in the Big Apple.) Just take my word for the impact it's having on Chris's.

As for the second hand smoke issue, it's far from resolved scientifically...

(Check out this link: http://tobaccodocuments.org/nysa_ti_m2/TI40481951.html )

even if the hysteria about it has taken hold.

Mr. Rosenstock, you sure seem to like the nanny state... Perhaps it's something in that New York air you're beathing...

Cheers!

Flex
Click to expand...


Look, I'm not going to get into a regional debate on this forum. There's no point but I'd appreciate it if you kept your personal feelings about the state of New York to yourself. It has no relevance to this conversation and is only meant to incite me. Let's just say, there's no love lost on our side either.

If you think the dangers of second-hand smoke is an unsupported rumor and merely being used as a political football, by all means, feel free to live your life accordingly. However, the political arena believes that the majority feel otherwise and they've been passing legislation all over the country more easily than any other law that may be hip for the day. You simply can't do that without bipartisan support.

From my experiences within the business, I can safely say that there is little room to maneuver within the New York law and most states that are passing this legislation now are carefully monitoring any issues other states have had with their legislation for their own drafting purposes. If there's a non-smoking law in your region about to get passed, get prepared to throw away your ashtrays. Any attempts at finding a legal loop-hole can be overwhelmingly costly and fruitless.

A perfect example of this can be seen when New York City passed its law which allowed for a smoking-room with rather expensive ventilation. Only a few months later, the state passed its own version of thw law which banned this.
 
Last edited:
Jude Rosenstock said:
Look, I'm not going to get into a regional debate on this forum. There's no point but I'd appreciate it if you kept your personal feelings about the state of New York to yourself. It has no relevance to this conversation and is only meant to incite me. Let's just say, there's no love lost on our side either.

If you think the dangers of second-hand smoke is an unsupported rumor and merely being used as a political football, by all means, feel free to live your life accordingly. However, the political arena believes that the majority feel otherwise and they've been passing legislation all over the country more easily than any other law that may be hip for the day. You simply can't do that without bipartisan support.

From my experiences within the business, I can safely say that there is little room to maneuver within the New York law and most states that are passing this legislation now are carefully monitoring any issues other states have had with their legislation for their own drafting purposes. If there's a non-smoking law in your region about to get passed, get prepared to throw away your ashtrays. Any attempts at finding a legal loop-hole can be overwhelmingly costly and fruitless.

A perfect example of this can be seen when New York City passed its law which allowed for a smoking-room with rather expensive ventilation. Only a few months later, the state passed its own version of thw law which banned this.
Click to expand...

Fair points.

As for my considerations about New York, as a New Yorker and a taxpayer there for more than 10 years, I think that gives me some insight as to the problems New Yorkers and others faced, at least at that time. I keep current with developments there, and will express myself on matters as seem fit to me.

Although I lived in one of the very best areas of Westchester County, I had to deal with obnoxious attitudes all over the place, and deal with them I did, as appropriate.

Best wishes to you, Mr. Rosenstock.

Flex
 
degenrat said:
And you do need big govt. sometimes to look over us. We are idiots all of us and unable to always make logical decisions.
...


proff positive taht we are stupid is that there are so many smokers paying $5.50 a pack to die.


I won't critique your spelling errors, or punctuation, nor your conclusions about why people smoke.


I am really not a crusador, i quit in january. smoked 14 years 2 packs a day. I am an idiot too.


You sure sound like a recent adherent to the anti-smoking lobby. If it helps you to not smoke, that's fine. However over-the-top intolerance coming from former smokers is more than slightly offensive, IMHO.

But as a convert i must say it really is gross how you smell when you smoke.
Click to expand...

I agree that after smoking the stench can be pretty powerful. But laws to fine people $250 and up? Give me a break.

Flex
 
ridewiththewind said:
No one group of peoples, in this country, should ever be singled out and treated like second-class citizens.....but that is exactly waht has happened in this case. It's a violation of our Constitutional rights.....go read it.
Click to expand...

Agree completely on much stronger penalties for drunk drivers. But don't agree with this at all. If I want to play in a pool tournament, I shouldn't be sick the next two days from breathing in your fumes. Now, if they tried to ban it in your home, I'd obviously be dead against that. It is a free country. You choose to do what you want in your private residence. But the actions of smokers in public places kills others and it's disgusting to breathe it in and have it on your clothes. That has to be stopped. Banning smoking in public places is just plain common sense. I think in 20 years, our children will be aghast that we ever allowed it in the first place.
 
Here in Colorado, a state-wide smoking ban in bars/restaurants/etc is due to go into effect July 1st. There are a few areas of the state (most notably the Boulder area and some other nearby communities) that have had smoking regs for a while.

In the case of the local regs, smoking was allowed in separated areas - you could have a smoking area and a non-smoking area, or the whole establishment was non-smoking.

In the case of the state regs, apparently this will supercede the local regs, and even separate smoking areas won't be allowed. Some establishments will be grandfathered in, and will remain unchanged, however.

Now as a non-smoker, living in/around Boulder the past few years, I've been a big fan of the "compromise" solution. The bar I've played league at for the past three years is one of the places that has a separate smoking area - an area I avoid whenever possible.

Coincidentally to finding this thread today - just last night I was playing in a little 9-ball tournament at a pool hall a few miles north of me, in an area that has adopted the separate-smoking-area regs. In this room's case, they don't have a separate area indoors, but allow smoking on the patio outside.

So last night, we had a few new folks in the tournament, one of which was a smoker. And thanks to his habit, the tournament lasted about an hour longer than it needed to - because he had to go out and smoke every so often. This guy would take his sweet time, get on the phone, etc. The kicker was when he went out to smoke *in the middle of a match* for about 15 minutes or so.

As I was in the hot-seat on the winners side, waiting on this match to finish so ANOTHER match could start and finish and then *I* could play again, I can personally testify that I lost about an hour of my life due to someone else's smoking. :P

I can also personally attest to the dangers of smoking - I lost my mom barely two months ago due to smoking (emphysema brought on from smoking for fifty years).

I understand people's desire to smoke - it makes them feel good, it's addictive and they get uncomfortable when they don't, individual rights and all that - I'm down, believe me. I'm very much a subscriber of that core libertarian belief of "people should be able to do what they want, as long as it doesn't affect other people" - and smoking definitely affects other people. I don't like coming home smelling like a chimney, I don't like breathing second hand smoke, and I certainly don't like not being able to talk to my mom on the phone anymore.

As far as establishments losing business - I've read that in many of the states that have passed smoking bans, that tax revenues have dropped to start with, then climbed back up and sometimes surpassed the pre-ban levels for the establishment types (bars/restaurants/etc) affected by the ban. Non-smokers started coming back out to the places they avoided once the word got out.
 
As a non-smoker, I love the smoking ban in NYC. It's great to be able to go out to pool halls, bars, restaurants, etc. and breathe clean air. However, the laws are a regulatory taking - they infringe on the owner's right to complete use of his private property. I can't square the smoking bans with my libertarian leanings, even if I benefit from them personally.

It's a tough situation. I like to think that the government is just speeding a process that would come about naturally in the marketplace but may take many years. Unfortunately, it is paternalistic and creates bad precedent.
 
My arguement makes perfectly good sense. They passed a law based on health concerns, but gave exemptions to some businesses. Those businesses have employees and customers just like the ones that are being impacted by this law. It's either a health issue for EVERYONE, or it isn't.
My issue with it all is simply having the government tell someone how to run their own private business. If consumers created a demand for non smoking bars, there would be non smoking bars. Obviously, bar owners don't see that demand, or they would be non smoking bars everywhere. This is simply the government taking another step into areas where they have no business being.
The issue isn't smoking vs non-smoking...it's government intervention vs free enteprise. If that doesn't make sense to you, I'm sorry.
Steve
 
Jude Rosenstock said:
, the political arena believes that the majority feel otherwise and they've been passing legislation all over the country more easily than any other law that may be hip for the day. You simply can't do that without bipartisan support.

.
Click to expand...

The political arena thought attacking Iraq was a good idea too, but look how that turned out! There was bipartisan support for that as well.

Steve <---do not trust politicians to do what is best for me, only what is best for them.
 
pooltchr said:
The political arena thought attacking Iraq was a good idea too, but look how that turned out! There was bipartisan support for that as well.

Steve <---do not trust politicians to do what is best for me, only what is best for them.
Click to expand...

Therein lies the problem. If more voters were educated as to what was truly right for them the politicians would have no choice but to do what is in our best interests (because that's what would get them re-elected). Sadly though, they will continue to make decisions on what will get them re-elected, even if they know it's not the best thing.

Bottom line is if we want things to change it is us, the voting public that has to change first!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top