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

The point I was trying to make, although I may not have used the best examples, is.....you cannot pass laws that single out a person or group of peoples....whether it be to their benefit or their detrement.

It is precisely the argument that has been used by nearly every state in the union as to why they will not pass a 'same sex marriage' law. The legislature cannot have their cake and eat it too. What's good for the goose, must be good for the gander.

Also....little lesson on government and the Constitution. Neither local or state goverments can infringe upon the personal freedoms of the citizenry, as guaranteed by the US Constitution.

The writing of the Constitution did not happen magically. There was no federal government after the Revolutionary War. Each state ran it's own affairs. The problem is, they did a miserable job of it....with the 'haves' making all the legislative and judicial decisions. The thing is, that the 'have nots' began to lose everything they had fought for to begin with, and when they couldn't pay the heavy taxes that the 'haves' decided they should pay, they were imprisoned, and their property seized. It caused a rebellion, and that paved the way for our forefathers to sit down and decide that there was a need to protect the rights of the citizenry, in general, throughout the 13 colonies.

Hence, your Constitution was born. The smoking bans are just a polarization point...it could have just as easily been your right to leave your home after 10pm.....this current government, at the federal level, has already removed a good deal of your personal freedoms.....they didn't take them....y'all willingly gave them away. And how did they get you to do that? By scaring the crap out of you!! Government, whether at the local, state, or federal level have been doing this to us for an incredibly long time now....it's just that the freedoms they are getting you to give away now, are freedoms guaranteed to you by your forefathers. As I, and others, have already stated here....the state governments don't give 2 plug nickels about your health......but they sure as heck told you you were gonna die if you allowed one more person to polluted your 'space' with second hand smoke. But they don't tell you about how the PCB's that are being emmitted into your personal breathing space everytime you get into your car.....it's in everthing from the upholstery, carpet, headliner, to the little filters in your heater/air conditioning system. And boy howdy, are they just loaded with carcinogens!! And the really neat part is.....you can NEVER get rid of them.....the gift that keeps on giving!! Oh yeah...and it's even in your furniture at home....almost everywhere in your day to day lives. They don't tell you, because they got some mighty powerful industrial and manufacturing lobbyists in Congress with some very deep pockets. It would be political suicide.

This is okay behavior for many of you here.......just remember how okay this was when they outlaw your right to own a handgun. Yeah...that'll start a whole new can of worms....oh...I got it....no more than one child, no matter the gender.....per household. This is not as outlandish a thought as you might think it is.....be careful of how much government you're letting into your personal lives, and the freedoms that you are just giving away!!!

Lisa
 
Last edited:
ridewiththewind said:
The point I was trying to make, although I may not have used the best examples, is.....you cannot pass laws that single out a person or group of peoples....whether it be to their benefit or their detrement.

It is precisely the argument that has been used by nearly every state in the union as to why they will not pass a 'same sex marriage' law. The legislature cannot have their cake and eat it too. What's good for the goose, must be good for the gander.

Also....little lesson on government and the Constitution. Neither local or state goverments can infringe upon the personal freedoms of the citizenry, as guaranteed by the US Constitution.

The writing of the Constitution did not happen magically. There was no federal government after the Revolutionary War. Each state ran it's own affairs. The problem is, they did a miserable job of it....with the 'haves' making all the legislative and judicial decisions. The thing is, that the 'have nots' began to lose everything they had fought for to begin with, and when they couldn't pay the heavy taxes that the 'haves' decided they should pay, they were imprisoned, and their property seized. It caused a rebellion, and that paved the way for our forefathers to sit down and decide that there was a need to protect the rights of the citizenry, in general, throughout the 13 colonies.

Hence, your Constitution was born. The smoking bans are just a polarization point...it could have just as easily been your right to leave your home after 10pm.....this current government, at the federal level, has already removed a good deal of your personal freedoms.....they didn't take them....y'all willingly gave them away. And how did they get you to do that? By scaring the crap out of you!! Government, whether at the local, state, or federal level have been doing this to us for an incredibly long time now....it's just that the freedoms they are getting you to give away now, are freedoms guaranteed to you by your forefathers. As I, and others, have already stated here....the state governments don't give 2 plug nickels about your health......but they sure as heck told you you were gonna die if you allowed one more person to polluted your 'space' with second hand smoke. But they don't tell you about how the PCB's that are being emitted into your personal breathing space everytime you get into your car.....it's in everthing from the upholstery, carpet, hedliner, to the little filters in your heater/air conditioning system. And boy howdy, are they just loaded with carcinogens!! And the really neat part is.....you can NEVER get rid of them.....the gift that keeps on giving!! Oh yeah...and it's even in your furniture at home....almost everywhere in your day to day lives. They don't tell you, because they got some mighty powerful industrial and manufacturing lobbyists in Congress with some very deep pockets. It would be political suicide.

This is oaky behavior for many of you here.......just remember how okay this was when they outlaw your right to own a handgun. Yeah...that'll start a whole new can of worms....oh...I got it....no more than one child, no matter the gender.....per household. This is not as outlandish a thought as you make think it is.....be careful of how much government you're letting into your personal lives, and the freedoms that you are just giving away!!!

Lisa
Click to expand...

I'm too tired to give another lengthy answer now. Perhaps tomorrow, when I've had some time to think out a response, I'll get back to you.
 
Jude Rosenstock said:
I'm too tired to give another lengthy answer now. Perhaps tomorrow, when I've had some time to think out a response, I'll get back to you.
Click to expand...

It's all good, Jude. :) I was busy writing my thoughts while you were just ahead of me posting yours. You have made some good and valid points. I tried to do likewise.

The one thing that truly scares the crap out of me, especially with the current government, is how adept they are at conning John Q Public into GIVING their freedoms away. Man, is the general populace in for a serious wake-up call!!!!

Lisa
 
Solution=Copenhagen

A little bit nasty at first, IMO better than freezing outside but You can get your nicotine (dont know about the tar) and won't kill the person next to you:D
 
Scottlucasi19 said:
A little bit nasty at first, IMO better than freezing outside but You can get your nicotine (dont know about the tar) and won't kill the person next to you:D
Click to expand...

For the record.....I fight a daily battle against cigarettes, as I am trying very diligently, to quite. Some days are much easier than others. Whether I smoked or not, I would still be against a law which discriminates.....yes, I said it.....discriminates against a group of people.

3rd Edition Webster's Dictionary:

discriminate:To act prejudicially.
discriminatory: Displaying or marked by predjudice; biased.
segregate: To isolate from others.

Please note, from a legal standpoint, the section of the Constitution of which Jude quoted, which prevents a business owner from discriminating as to sex or race, also would prevent that same business owner from discriminating against smokers, by Webster's very definitions above. Therefore, it could be argued that these laws, passed at the state level, are a direct violation of the US Civil Rights Act.......it's still a form of segregation.....no matter how pretty a bow you tie it up in.

Lisa
 
You continue to post these crazy, Big-Brother, Political Conspiracy ideas. Second-hand smoke is dangerous. Every known, credible health agency in this country agrees with that whether they are a government agency or not. No one is telling you that you can't smoke 'till you're blue in the face. The laws being passed around the country are just saying that you can't force others to enjoy your cigarettes with you. What political gain would either party have from banning smoking in public, enclosed areas? There's just no rhyme nor reason that either political party would make up some huge story about how second-hand smoke is dangerous so they could impose the ban. You're just mad because you want to smoke. You don't care who has to breathe it along with you and you're grasping at straws by making absurd, irrelevant comparisons and insinuating that this is all some sort of government conspiracy. I didn't even want to post in this thread anymore, but the arguments that some of you come up with seem to have originated somewhere in the realm of lunacy. Smoke! Please Smoke! Smoke 3 cartons a day! Just don't make others smoke with you just because they happened to want to eat at the same place that you did. Make sense? There's no government conspiracy. There's no Big-Brother taking away your freedoms.

ridewiththewind said:
The point I was trying to make, although I may not have used the best examples, is.....you cannot pass laws that single out a person or group of peoples....whether it be to their benefit or their detrement.

It is precisely the argument that has been used by nearly every state in the union as to why they will not pass a 'same sex marriage' law. The legislature cannot have their cake and eat it too. What's good for the goose, must be good for the gander.

Also....little lesson on government and the Constitution. Neither local or state goverments can infringe upon the personal freedoms of the citizenry, as guaranteed by the US Constitution.

The writing of the Constitution did not happen magically. There was no federal government after the Revolutionary War. Each state ran it's own affairs. The problem is, they did a miserable job of it....with the 'haves' making all the legislative and judicial decisions. The thing is, that the 'have nots' began to lose everything they had fought for to begin with, and when they couldn't pay the heavy taxes that the 'haves' decided they should pay, they were imprisoned, and their property seized. It caused a rebellion, and that paved the way for our forefathers to sit down and decide that there was a need to protect the rights of the citizenry, in general, throughout the 13 colonies.

Hence, your Constitution was born. The smoking bans are just a polarization point...it could have just as easily been your right to leave your home after 10pm.....this current government, at the federal level, has already removed a good deal of your personal freedoms.....they didn't take them....y'all willingly gave them away. And how did they get you to do that? By scaring the crap out of you!! Government, whether at the local, state, or federal level have been doing this to us for an incredibly long time now....it's just that the freedoms they are getting you to give away now, are freedoms guaranteed to you by your forefathers. As I, and others, have already stated here....the state governments don't give 2 plug nickels about your health......but they sure as heck told you you were gonna die if you allowed one more person to polluted your 'space' with second hand smoke. But they don't tell you about how the PCB's that are being emmitted into your personal breathing space everytime you get into your car.....it's in everthing from the upholstery, carpet, headliner, to the little filters in your heater/air conditioning system. And boy howdy, are they just loaded with carcinogens!! And the really neat part is.....you can NEVER get rid of them.....the gift that keeps on giving!! Oh yeah...and it's even in your furniture at home....almost everywhere in your day to day lives. They don't tell you, because they got some mighty powerful industrial and manufacturing lobbyists in Congress with some very deep pockets. It would be political suicide.

This is okay behavior for many of you here.......just remember how okay this was when they outlaw your right to own a handgun. Yeah...that'll start a whole new can of worms....oh...I got it....no more than one child, no matter the gender.....per household. This is not as outlandish a thought as you might think it is.....be careful of how much government you're letting into your personal lives, and the freedoms that you are just giving away!!!

Lisa
Click to expand...
 
APA9 said:
You continue to post these crazy, Big-Brother, Political Conspiracy ideas. Second-hand smoke is dangerous. Every known, credible health agency in this country agrees with that whether they are a government agency or not. No one is telling you that you can't smoke 'till you're blue in the face. The laws being passed around the country are just saying that you can't force others to enjoy your cigarettes with you. What political gain would either party have from banning smoking in public, enclosed areas? There's just no rhyme nor reason that either political party would make up some huge story about how second-hand smoke is dangerous so they could impose the ban. You're just mad because you want to smoke. You don't care who has to breathe it along with you and you're grasping at straws by making absurd, irrelevant comparisons and insinuating that this is all some sort of government conspiracy. I didn't even want to post in this thread anymore, but the arguments that some of you come up with seem to have originated somewhere in the realm of lunacy. Smoke! Please Smoke! Smoke 3 cartons a day! Just don't make others smoke with you just because they happened to want to eat at the same place that you did. Make sense? There's no government conspiracy. There's no Big-Brother taking away your freedoms.
Click to expand...

:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:
 

Attachments

  • head-in-sand.jpg
    head-in-sand.jpg
    43.1 KB · Views: 153
i don't like smelling smoke. i dont like breathing it all night either. i kinda think that if you live in a free country and you own a business you should be able to choose for yourself if you want smoking or not.
or fine, they prove second hand smoke is that harmful. how bout installing ventalation that the state aproves. after all smoking is still legal in casinos (money talks)
i just hate seeing my rights disappear. it doesnt affect me today but maybe it will soon.
 
Lisa;

Love that picture, is that Bush? I agree with you about how easy we are giving many of our rights away. Its being justified by using fear. Fear of everything. We are losing what we have fought for, and people are scared and don't care. The things you brought up about the health of our planet are also true. We are told to believe its beef and its really cat, but some people believe its beef anyway. I don't however agree with the comparison with smoking. Smoking is not, or ever has been, a right protected by the constitution and discrimination can only be based on certain fundamental factors, usually things we can't control. Sex, color, etc.. There are also exceptions to violations of constitutional rights, such as search warrants and wiretap warrants. Sound familiar. The justification must be very strong. Even if smoking was protected, such as speech, there could still be limitations, such as threats or yelling fire in a theatre are not protected because they harm others. Smoking harms everyone, whether it is distributing the rising medical costs to everyone, second hand smoke, or just a persons right to enjoy a little fresh air and not smell bad.

I empathize with your battle and wish you luck, you will live longer for it and will grow old with your family. My parents both smoked, alot, and both died of lung cancer before their time. My children's other grandparents both died of lung cancer from smoking. My best friend died of lung cancer, even though he had quit. All died before their time, expectedly because of smoking. Perhaps the overall good for the public, in many ways, supports the idea that smoking is not a good thing, so if a person really wants to, they can, but it is discouraged. And remember, the far majority of the public is non smoking.

When we speak of changing the face of pool with the IPT, another thread, isn't that part of it. Don't we want to be able to bring our children/grandchildren into a healthy enviorment and learn to love this game as we do. It is part of that change. Having said that, there should be, and most places here in California, have a place for smokers to gather, usually a covered area outdoors, to smoke and visit. The pool business here has never been better. Its smarter and healthier, but a pain in the ass to some.

BTW, of course all the small businesses tried what has been talked about to avoid enforcement of the smoking bans. Law enforcement then started ticketing the owners/bartenders, anyone that was running the place if they were allowing smoking. After a time, everyone adjusted. They just stepped outside and had a quick smoke and then came in and played their game. Not that bad, for everyone.

Again, I am very concerned how easily our voices are being quieted by our elected representatives and I think, and hope there will be some sweeping changes in the near future as people start waking up to what is really happening in our country.

Mike
 
Nothing to do at work for the moment, so let's put some gasoline into flames.

For me it is just about the same if i can smoke or not when playing, but i do feel sympathy for players who really need their cigarette to calm down their nerves. That earlier mentioned solution with two separate "rooms" in poolhall would be maybe the ideal solution to serve both groups of players.

And then my favorite; consipracy theories and Orwell... Have you ever, even for a moment, think about banning also beer and drinks from poolhalls at least during competitions? Why you ask. Because if we go with banning things because of "wee need to be guided" then that should be done. Alcohol is in the doping list from WADA and then just because some people can't handle their drinks we should ban it.
 
Jude Rosenstock said:
Wow, you should really read everything I wrote before responding. My point about "bipartisan support" simply had to do with the popularity of the law and how one could not simply blame one party for it over another. This had nothing to do with whether or not the law was right or wrong. It simply can't be defined as "Republican" or "Democrat".

The problem with most politicians is that they fail to convey the entire truth. Does this have a familiar ring?
Click to expand...

And my response was simply to show that politicians of any party can make decisions that aren't necessarily the best decisions for the general population. They make decisions based on what they think will get them the most votes. My contention is that this smoking law is a bad law that was passed for political reasons. Once this is in place and the dust has settled, they will take another step to limit our freedoms. When they restrict one that you value, you may understand my arguement. Every time they pass a new law, it gives them a little more power, and takes away more of your freedom. You can give a dog one bite of your cheeseburger, but if he can figure out a way to get the whole thing from you, he will.
Steve
 
I have nothing to add, but i like you to remember some words of wisdom from history.

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

And you should know who said that, and that still stands on all issues related to safety. And for me those bans are that; "i want to be safer to be able to live 15mins longer"
 
ridewiththewind said:
... Whether I smoked or not, I would still be against a law which discriminates.....yes, I said it.....discriminates against a group of people....
Lisa
Click to expand...

You're just flat out wrong. There has not been a single smoking ban passed in any state yet that infringes on any individual or group. The bans prohibit smoking in places that the government licenses or owns. Whether or not this is an abuse of the licensing procedure is another debate, but it is not the infringement of smoker's rights. Laws prohibit copulation by couples in public places, does this represent the enfringement of somebody's rights who just wants to get laid? No, it doesn't and it isn't any infringement of a smoker's rights to say he/she can't smoke in public places.
The individual rights argument is totally, absolutely without substance. If they tell smokers they can't smoke in their own homes, then we're talking individual rights violations and you'll see the ACLU there quicker than flies on ___.
 
catscradle said:
You're just flat out wrong. There has not been a single smoking ban passed in any state yet that infringes on any individual or group. The bans prohibit smoking in places that the government licenses or owns. Whether or not this is an abuse of the licensing procedure is another debate, but it is not the infringement of smoker's rights. Laws prohibit copulation by couples in public places, does this represent the enfringement of somebody's rights who just wants to get laid? No, it doesn't and it isn't any infringement of a smoker's rights to say he/she can't smoke in public places.
The individual rights argument is totally, absolutely without substance. If they tell smokers they can't smoke in their own homes, then we're talking individual rights violations and you'll see the ACLU there quicker than flies on ___.
Click to expand...

Actually the ban is in all public buildings in NJ. And no, it doesn't prevent a smoker from stepping outside to smoke, just can't do it inside. So the discrimination factor does not exist here.

Tonight will be my last Tuesday league night and it should prove very interesting whether the bar owner will tolerate smoking or not. Currently the Board Of Health is supposedly regulating the ban. Try and call them up at 10 pm to report a violation! LOL!

Barbara
 
My Story and Why I Quit!

I have been smoking since I was 13 and am 56 now.. My mother died from lung cancer 4 years ago. Her sister died 2 years before. I see older people dragging around oxygen tanks to walk their dogs. My coworker has asophogas cancer and has dropped 100 lbs. in the last 4 months. He has a tube in which he is fed. He is still working but it won't be long. He accidently ripped the tube out the other day and was rushed to the hospital. My wife hates the way I smell when I come home from the pool hall. I put one out in a flower pot full of Pro Mix and just about burned down my house.

Maybe you have your own reasons to try and quit, I highly recommend it. I want to see my grandchildren grow up and spend my golden years with my wife.

There is absolutely no excuse for smoking. It is ruining your health and the health of those around you when you do. I have been without for over 30 days and don't even chew the gum anymore. It really isn't that hard to quit. I encourage you to try. I am determined to never go back.

I hope this doesn't upset all of you who are defending your bad habit.
Purdman:cool:
 
Scottlucasi19 said:
A little bit nasty at first, IMO better than freezing outside but You can get your nicotine (dont know about the tar) and won't kill the person next to you:D
Click to expand...

Talk about gross... the sickly juices that chewy stuff produces in the mouth if swallowed will turn your stomach. Getting rid of it by spitting into a cup and leaving the cup on display is downright funky. The makers of chew add glass ground extremely finely to abrade the inner lip to assist in giving the user a nicotine hit. Can lead to cancer and other very unpleasant illnesses. Nothing quite beats watching someone lose control of the discolored saliva and have it drool down their chin.

Yuck...

Flex
 
everyone is quick to make a big political stink and scream about freedoms, and criticize the government. You should see ho wthe rest of the world lives. you keep pulling this "right" card like you deserve something. You can't kill people with your ciugarettes anymore in nj. Thats it, it's simple. It;s not an infringement on you. It HAS however been an infringement on nonsmokers for a long time.


Owners don't really even have a gripe because this is an across the board move(save for casino's ewhich is not goign to draw customers away from bennigans on a friday for smoking priviledges).

Disclaimer: Grammar and spelling judges in message forums sound petty.
 
Purdman,
I don't think anyone, smoker or non smoker, would deny that smoking is a bad habit. And congratulations to you for your success in quitting. It's not an easy thing to do.
IMO, the arguement isn't about smoking or not, it's about government legislating how some businesses (not all of them, just some) are conducting business. I have no problem with smoking bans in government (tax dollar) owned buildings. But just because the city gives (sells by force) a license to someone to conduct business, or to sell alcohol, shouldn't give them the right to tell that person that they must ban smoking.
This is such a hot emotional topic that it is easy to get sidetracked by whether or not smoking is a good/bad thing. I agree smoking is not a good thing. I just don't think letting big brother make the decision for anyone is a good thing either.
Steve
 
Almost wish they would pass the law in Pa. Then I'd have to quit. Incidentally that doesn't mean I'd vote for it.
 
Oh really?

catscradle said:
The individual rights argument is totally, absolutely without substance. If they tell smokers they can't smoke in their own homes, then we're talking individual rights violations and you'll see the ACLU there quicker than flies on ___.
Click to expand...

Just out today:

A Coast City Bans Outdoor Smoking In Public Places

By JOSH GERSTEIN - Staff Reporter of the Sun
April 18, 2006

SAN FRANCISCO - Anti-smoking activists are hailing a southern California city's near-complete ban on smoking in public places as the strictest in the nation and a model for communities eager to crack down further on tobacco.

Effective Friday, the city of Calabasas is making it a crime to light up in streets, sidewalks, parks, playgrounds, and even the common areas of apartment complexes.

http://www.nysun.com/article/29317

===

Flex
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top