no smoking as of 4-15... ways to get around?
- Thread starter wannaplaySOME?
- Start date
ridewiththewind said:
Tell that to Purdman, who has CHOSEN to not smoke for the past thirty days.
Tell that to my mom, who in '95 when her doctor told her "Quit smoking or die", she quit. (Of course, you can't tell that to my mom - even though she quit smoking ten years ago, the damage was done, and she passed away two months ago.)
And tell that to all the heroin addicts out there who HAVE quit.
There is always a choice. The choices might all be crappy, but they exist.
Smokers chose to start smoking. They can choose to quit - or at least, they can choose to TRY and quit. They can, if they stick with it - but too many folks try and give up because "it's too hard".
Saying that smokers should be forgiven for smoking because they're addicted - bollocks. If you truly believe this, then go out and forgive all the sex offenders you meet because THEY'RE addicted to what they do. Forgive all the gambling addicts for losing the money their families depend on. "It's ok - you're an addict, what else are you gonna do?"
ridewiththewind said:
I fail to see how the addictive nature of nicotine is a compelling argument that banning smoking from bars is discrimination.
I understand that nicotine is an addiction... but it is still your choice to have started smoking in the first place. Plus- *you* are not being banned from bars. Your (lit) cigarettes are. Inanimate objects don't have rights to equal protection.
No thanks. I choose to not use heroin or meth.
Righteous indignation? You're the one comparing smokers who must step outside to smoke to the oppressive racism imposed on blacks on the south for decades. How about a little perspective? How many smokers have been lynched?
ridewiththewind said:
Lisa,
Since you mentioned doing our own research, I would be very interested and impressed to see your study concluding that "you are more likely to be taken out by a drunk driver, than you are by being exposed to 'secondhand smoke' a few hours a week." Maybe you could just post the abstract for the study. That way, we could all save our teeth and stomachs from the acid in the coffee, and could just read your research.
Lisa, 1000 people could probably tell you this without you hearing it, but you are not very skilled in argument. Your posts are littered with inconsistencies. Here are just a few of the funnier ones:
1) already mentioned about "do your own research", followed by a claim of fact about something you specifically said yourself was not supported by any data.
2) You are concerned about us "killing our planet", yet you are clearly killing yourself (a component of our planet) by smoking. A skilled researcher like yourself must be aware of the OVERWHELMING evidence suggesting that cigarette smoking is hazardous to your health.
3) how long do you think it takes for a cigarette filter to biodegrade? How many trees per year do you think are required to manufacture all of the cardboard cigarette packages produced each year, or the paper to roll them? I suppose the cigarettes magically appear in stores, or is there a huge fleet of trucks that burn gas, etc.
4) At least when the clean water is gone, I'll have cigarettes to keep me alive.
Lisa, you have a lot of ideas. It is a shame you don't first give them a little more thought, and then perhaps review what you write before you post it. Keep it coming, though. It is hilarious.
KMRUNOUT
Chris,
I can't give you that. I think I spoke before I thought. Can you help me out? I "feel" like we have the right to live our lives as we choose, but I suppose that that gets into all sorts of slippery slope arguments. For example, I can smoke in my house, but can I worship Satan? What if that worship involves sacrificing animals? What if it involves sacrificing humans? What if it involves damaging my own health and causing my insurance company to have to pay out more for healthcare and pass that extra expense on to the millions of other people who do not choose to damage their health in that way?
I'm sure you see where I'm coming from. But you are right. I did the exact same thing that I criticized ridewiththewind for. I really don't know what the constitution says about private business. If you know, fill us all in.
Thanks for catching me on this. Seriously.
KMRUNOUT
I can't give you that. I think I spoke before I thought. Can you help me out? I "feel" like we have the right to live our lives as we choose, but I suppose that that gets into all sorts of slippery slope arguments. For example, I can smoke in my house, but can I worship Satan? What if that worship involves sacrificing animals? What if it involves sacrificing humans? What if it involves damaging my own health and causing my insurance company to have to pay out more for healthcare and pass that extra expense on to the millions of other people who do not choose to damage their health in that way?
I'm sure you see where I'm coming from. But you are right. I did the exact same thing that I criticized ridewiththewind for. I really don't know what the constitution says about private business. If you know, fill us all in.
Thanks for catching me on this. Seriously.
KMRUNOUT
KMRUNOUT said:
I've looked, and I can't find anything in the Constitution supporting a right to smoke in public places, except possibly in the Ninth Amendment, which could be used to support non-smoker rights to smoke free air just as easily.
From a business owner standpoint, the state apparently has the authority to pass public smoking bans. A federal judge ruled this week on in favor of NJ's ban. Assuming that decision is not overturned, it will likely serve as a federal precedent.
The Dormant Commerce Clause also seems to favor the states authority to regulate private business.
Various state and local smoking bans have been challenged in local and state courts, as well. Most of these challenges have been unsuccessful.
pooltchr said:
I just happened to be re-reading your post and I noticed the use of the phrase "In this country". Are you kidding, try to open any business in other countries and it is almost impossible. In the US a guy can open a brake shop or an auto repair and begin working on peoples cars and he doesn't have to know the first thing about fixing brakes or cars. Going into business here takes little more then the right zoning and a business license and they are free to start making money if they can, this is the easiest place in the world to run a business, any business.
Why do you think so many new people come to this country, not to get jobs but to start their own business. In Miami almost the entire used car business is run by Cubans that floated here on a raft with a rock in their pockets and have made millions. Some business require a few hoops to jump through but not much in most cases. If you can't make money in this country there is something wrong with you. What a joke.
Last edited:
Agree 1 billion percent with Macguy. And that is a point i tried to make earlier. You think this country is bad? Go somewhere else.
I understand it sucks for smokers to not be able to smoke. But again, it has sucked for non-smokers for a long time.
Also what does the addictive nature of cigarettes have to do with smoking in a bar or restaurant? nothing.
Tell the millions of people who quit smoking how hard it is to quit. You make the choice every time you light up. When you are in a restaraunt or bar smoking, you are taking away my choice.
Now i have to leave beacuse of smoke? OR deal with the smoke? Because i want to eat a certain food? or enjoy a certain freind(s) company? Or enjoy an activity such as pool?
I think the point that is being lost here is that these laws are passed by representatives of the people. The majority agrees. This is our government at work. This is why our government works. We elected these officials. A majority of govt. officials agreed to pass this legislation as representatives of the people.
You want the law changed? elect official who agree with you point of view. Write your congressman etc.
This is not rocket science. This is government. You have a choice in this country in everything. That's the beauty of it.
This is the best country in the world because the people ultimately decide. And that's coming from a resident alien(british born).
Us your constitutionally given right, and get out and vote.
I understand it sucks for smokers to not be able to smoke. But again, it has sucked for non-smokers for a long time.
Also what does the addictive nature of cigarettes have to do with smoking in a bar or restaurant? nothing.
Tell the millions of people who quit smoking how hard it is to quit. You make the choice every time you light up. When you are in a restaraunt or bar smoking, you are taking away my choice.
Now i have to leave beacuse of smoke? OR deal with the smoke? Because i want to eat a certain food? or enjoy a certain freind(s) company? Or enjoy an activity such as pool?
I think the point that is being lost here is that these laws are passed by representatives of the people. The majority agrees. This is our government at work. This is why our government works. We elected these officials. A majority of govt. officials agreed to pass this legislation as representatives of the people.
You want the law changed? elect official who agree with you point of view. Write your congressman etc.
This is not rocket science. This is government. You have a choice in this country in everything. That's the beauty of it.
This is the best country in the world because the people ultimately decide. And that's coming from a resident alien(british born).
Us your constitutionally given right, and get out and vote.
I do vote every time the polls are open. The problem is that there are too many who don't do the research before they vote, vote for the best looking guy, or the one who convinces them that he is the real deal. Once they get in office, their prime objective is to get re-elected, not to represent "the people".
I'm not saying this isn't the best country in the world, because I honestly believe it is. But it is also flawed, and unless we make some noise, the only ones who get what they want are the ones who give the money to the politicians. Again, getting back to the original idea of this thread...the casinos got what they wanted for one reason only....$$$$$$$$$$$...the rest of the businesses got what the government decided was best for them. SOMEBODY GOT BOUGHT!!!
Steve
I'm not saying this isn't the best country in the world, because I honestly believe it is. But it is also flawed, and unless we make some noise, the only ones who get what they want are the ones who give the money to the politicians. Again, getting back to the original idea of this thread...the casinos got what they wanted for one reason only....$$$$$$$$$$$...the rest of the businesses got what the government decided was best for them. SOMEBODY GOT BOUGHT!!!
Steve
degenrat said:
I would argue against your claim of the US being the best country in the world. Don't get me wrong, it's not a bad place, but I don't believe for a second that it is the best place. And that's coming from a natural born citizen and US veteran.
In the US, we go out of our way to enforce victimless crimes, such as drug use and prostitution.
We imprison more of our population, per capita, than any other nation in the world, with possible unofficial exceptions of N. Korea and mainland China.
We limit access to higher education from much of the population.
We limit access to health care for much of the population.
We manipulate the UN so that anything that is not decidedly pro-US is either voted down or vetoed by the UNSC.
We lack reliable, nation wide public transit, such as a high speed rail system.
We have allowed corporations to obtain more political clout than individual citizens.
Etc, etc, etc.
There's worse places to live, to be sure. But I don't think we can claim to be best.
KMRUNOUT said:
Restaurants and bars have also closed, and those still open have been struggling. Let me explain this further.
Restaurants use to rely on folks sitting at the bar before their meal and afterwards having a drink, with or without alcohol. Now it seems that those fewer people that still frequent restaurants simply eat and run without the bar time. This is considerable revenue loss that many may not be aware of.
I am not saying to remove these new laws, I'm only pointing out the facts. People think because there are still cars at the restaurant, that everything must be fine.
Backgrounder, the law in NYS was to originally not impact the mom and pop restaurants, but then the chain restaurants felt they would lose business to this group. Neither group wanted the law, but the chain restaurants would have been hurt the most with the original law. The result was that the chain restaurants voted against smoking in any public place to protect their business interests.
In any event, I fault the smoky bars and restaurants that did nothing to clean the air for their patrons also. Yes some had special rooms, but these were the very few. I also fault our politicians for their deceit in creating laws that removed the rights of the owners to operate their business as they please. The correct approach would be to allow bars and restaurants to elect to be a smoking place or not as they always had. It is no ones right to take away this free choice. If the people do not want smoking, the answer is to make cigarettes illegal (here is a clear example of hypocrisy, money and power is more important than health) in which case smoking will only be found in the bathrooms.
What really bothers me is that enabling this law opens the doors to many other laws to come that would have bordered "loss in personal freedoms". As I stated earlier, in a generation all should resume to normal.
NOW what I really do not like is that people use to socialize much more, that is face to face. It was through our socializing with one another that we discussed expectations of our law makers. This was actually a power we all have and the politicians know this. Yes the internet is quite resourceful, however it removes the personal effects. So I say the smoking law has a much impact by reducing opportunities to socialize.
.
.
pete lafond said:
Business owners have never had the right to run their business as they please without any regulation, at least none I have been able to find in several hours of searching for that specific "right."
If you know of something in the Constitution (including Amendments and Federal case law) that I am missing, please let me know.
pooltchr said:
I have done as much reading as I could on it mostly from google searches and newspaper accounts. From what I can gather it seems the casinos had them over a barrel so to speak. The possible loss of revenue it may have caused the casinos and loss of tax dollars would have effected everyone in a negative way. So letting the casinos slide a little was basically just taking the bad with the good.
The casinos just presented a case that called for a compromise that would be best for everyone. It happens everyday. A company wants to build a plant and a city gives them land and tax breaks to come to their town. Some other local businessman may say "Hay that's not fair, no one gave me free land and no one is giving me tax breaks", Well, the answer is you don't employ three thousand people and bring a hundred million dollars a year into the local economy. Politics is getting things done and it usually consists of compromise.
I remember seeing an interview with Jesse Ventura about how naive he was when he became governor. He thought he was going to just stroll in there and make all kinds of changes and he found it was not as easy as he thought. It requires the art of the deal to get things done in politics. In this case even those that I am sure opposed the casinos getting a pass would still have given it to them to get this thing through. They may have been blackmailed a little by the casinos and had to make a choice to get at least most of what the people wanted. It seems unfair but that just the way it is.
A ball team says "build us a new stadium or we are moving". It is either build the stadium or lose the team. The public may be pissed because they use money that was supposed to be used for something else to build the stadium but they may have been more pissed if they lost the team. I am sure anti-smokeing supporters are very happy to have gotten their way with the small compromise of the casinos, I am sure they see it as a small price. They are already now saying they going after the casinos so they see it as a multi step process and this was just one of the steps.
Why do control freaks use violence so casually?
Why is it so automatic to pull out a gun to get what they want? What's so difficult about choosing to not intentionally harm themselves by simply not going to smoky places? This choice requires no initiation of violence...a guy ought to look into that.
Why are they neglecting this rational, peaceful choice, and instead choosing to use guns to START trouble? Do they never consider just how weak and whimpy they are that they must hire thugs to force themselves on others? Why can't they just let people be?
Violent Control Freaks: Come tell me what I can/can't do with my body/property. Bring your guns, and come alone. Oh, that's right, you don't have the balls to do it yourself. Never mind...keep voting, as that disguises your violent ways as a good thing....whoops!, until now, that is.
Impotent and violent voters kill more people than smokes ever have. I can avoid the smoke, but not goons with guns.
Jeff Livingston
Why is it so automatic to pull out a gun to get what they want? What's so difficult about choosing to not intentionally harm themselves by simply not going to smoky places? This choice requires no initiation of violence...a guy ought to look into that.
Why are they neglecting this rational, peaceful choice, and instead choosing to use guns to START trouble? Do they never consider just how weak and whimpy they are that they must hire thugs to force themselves on others? Why can't they just let people be?
Violent Control Freaks: Come tell me what I can/can't do with my body/property. Bring your guns, and come alone. Oh, that's right, you don't have the balls to do it yourself. Never mind...keep voting, as that disguises your violent ways as a good thing....whoops!, until now, that is.
Impotent and violent voters kill more people than smokes ever have. I can avoid the smoke, but not goons with guns.
Jeff Livingston
chefjeff said:
How is voting anything like violence? Were you held at gunpoint to cast a vote in favor of a smoking ban? Did someone start cutting off your fingers one at a time until you voted the way they wanted you to? Your arguments are usually pretty well thought out, even if I do tend to disagree with them, but this post is simply irrational. The non smokers are not using violence to promote their cause.
I have asked others to please indicate where the Constitution guarantees business owners a right to operate their businesses in any way they please. I will extend this challenge to you, as well. Where is this right listed or implied?
macguy said:
Exactly! That take away a little bit at a time, and before you know it, they have taken away a lot!!! Each little step is a little less freedom.
After cigarettes, they will go after cars. I'm sure we all inhale a lot worse stuff sitting in a traffic jam on the freeway than we do in a pool room. Wait until they ban your SUV!
One step at a time!
Steve
"After cigarettes, they will go after cars. I'm sure we all inhale a lot worse stuff sitting in a traffic jam on the freeway than we do in a pool room. Wait until they ban your SUV!"
That is a silly point. the government DOES impose emissions and milage restrictions on automobiles. And they ARE trying to impse stricter limits. This is a good thng for us and the environment. Thank god you don't have to wait for the car company to change by itself.
That is a silly point. the government DOES impose emissions and milage restrictions on automobiles. And they ARE trying to impse stricter limits. This is a good thng for us and the environment. Thank god you don't have to wait for the car company to change by itself.
Chris said:
A federal case as reasoning for justifying whether something is an infringement or not is not in itself not complete. Previous cases are only tools we use in court and in fact this would deny our right to challenge for new court resolutions by only looking at the past.
The answer is to ban cigarettes or leave things alone. If cigarette smoke is harmful then ban it, don't compromise because the politician is worried about revenue and backlash. The politicians are placing economical hardships on business. This is the unfairness, this is clear hypocrisy. Remember it is not the business that is smoking, it is the people (patrons). The people, as long as it is legal to sell cigarettes, have a right to not only smoke or not smoke but to pick and to choose to go to establishments that allow it. To ban businesses from allowing their place to be a choice and to be denied of profits is flatly wrong. It is their choice. To create laws that steal from the livelihoods of a business owner is wrong especially because non-smokers have a choice to not visit that establishment. Cigar bars are still legal to smoke in, another compromise. Again rights are being infringed upon here.
There are more harmful carcinogens at a gas station while filling your tank. Lets ban fuel. But we can't, the economy... (yes this does not apply to smoking, but it shows how spineless politicians really are)
Politics
I think that some of these arguments are great...some are very enlightening on what your opinion is depending of if you are a business owner or a business customer. A few years ago Missouri passed a NO CALL list for telemarketers. But what was kind of funny was that phone companies like AT&T and Sprint were exempt because they lobbied hard in the state. Afterwards all the politicians looked like idiots because it was obvious they were "bought off". Then a new law passed to include the phone companies too. Everything takes place in little steps. That way the world does not end.
I think that a lot of these subjects would be better served to have a whole new category of threads named politics. Everything from Smoking laws to Enviromental laws, Safety and OSHA regulations etc. I remember going to a BCA show a couple years ago and talking to a lot of other billiard parlor owners about regulations and laws. It was so refreshing to speak to others in my boat that understood the financial and mental stresses that it puts on your family and business. Keep up the discussion everyone but lets keep the personal attacks to a minimum. That just feeds the stereotypes people have of our sport of billiards. My $.02.
I think that some of these arguments are great...some are very enlightening on what your opinion is depending of if you are a business owner or a business customer. A few years ago Missouri passed a NO CALL list for telemarketers. But what was kind of funny was that phone companies like AT&T and Sprint were exempt because they lobbied hard in the state. Afterwards all the politicians looked like idiots because it was obvious they were "bought off". Then a new law passed to include the phone companies too. Everything takes place in little steps. That way the world does not end.
I think that a lot of these subjects would be better served to have a whole new category of threads named politics. Everything from Smoking laws to Enviromental laws, Safety and OSHA regulations etc. I remember going to a BCA show a couple years ago and talking to a lot of other billiard parlor owners about regulations and laws. It was so refreshing to speak to others in my boat that understood the financial and mental stresses that it puts on your family and business. Keep up the discussion everyone but lets keep the personal attacks to a minimum. That just feeds the stereotypes people have of our sport of billiards. My $.02.
Last edited: