Poll: Smoking/Non-smoking Pool Rooms

[Roll-Off]

Listen up pal. First of all, this has nothing to do with shooting missles into Iraq. Second, a smoking ban does not take away your right to smoke. If you're a smoker, your second-hand smoke is killing other people and employees of the establishments. This is proven. It is essentially involuntary manslaughter, which by the way, is in the rule book.

MANSLAUGHTER, INVOLUNTARY - In order for a person to be found guilty of involuntary manslaughter the government must prove that someone was killed as a result of an act by the person;
Second, in the circumstances existing at the time, the person's act either was by its nature dangerous to human life or was done with reckless disregard for human life; and
Third, the person either knew that such conduct was a threat to the lives of others or knew of circumstances that would reasonably cause the person to foresee that such conduct might be a threat to the lives of others.

If you think smoking is acceptable, then you're part of a "group". Have a good day.

 

[Barbara]

I played for years in places with the smoke so thick you could hardly see. Was a smoker. Quit. And now I seem to be allergic to the smoke - gives me fits after playing. So I don't play in the bars anymore.
Jack
www.johnmaddencues.com

Ditto. I play in two leagues now and am considering giving them both up because I can't stand coming out of a bar or a VFW smelling like an ashtray. I want to take a shower and wash my hair when I get home, but it's too late at night and I don't want to go to bed with wet hair.

My APA team moved to a different restaurant/bar and it was much better last night than it used to be at the VFW we used to shoot at. I actually didn't reek of smoke when I left.

Barbara

 

[chefjeff]

Listen up pal. First of all, this has nothing to do with shooting missles into Iraq. Second, a smoking ban does not take away your right to smoke. If you're a smoker, your second-hand smoke is killing other people and employees of the establishments. This is proven. It is essentially involuntary manslaughter, which by the way, is in the rule book.

MANSLAUGHTER, INVOLUNTARY - In order for a person to be found guilty of involuntary manslaughter the government must prove that someone was killed as a result of an act by the person;
Second, in the circumstances existing at the time, the person's act either was by its nature dangerous to human life or was done with reckless disregard for human life; and
Third, the person either knew that such conduct was a threat to the lives of others or knew of circumstances that would reasonably cause the person to foresee that such conduct might be a threat to the lives of others.

If you think smoking is acceptable, then you're part of a "group". Have a good day.

I don't think smoking is acceptabe, that's why I don't smoke. So that "group" is one I'm not in. I belong to the liberty-minded group. The group that, in the politcal landscape, places individual liberty as the highest value and principle, currently called libertarian. Not the political party, but the principle of not starting trouble with others.

I never said anything about missles in Iraq. I did demonstrate that your statement about the rules saying "we" are not being able to kill people is false.

Manslaughter? Wow. So anyone who has ever smoked in front of a non-smoker is guilty of manslaughter? OK, now what?

What if the person breathing the second-hand smoke voluntarily enters the place where smokers gather? Has a crime been committed by the smoker(s)?

Jeff Livingston

 

[JustPlay]

Listen up pal. First of all, this has nothing to do with shooting missles into Iraq. Second, a smoking ban does not take away your right to smoke. If you're a smoker, your second-hand smoke is killing other people and employees of the establishments. This is proven. It is essentially involuntary manslaughter, which by the way, is in the rule book.

MANSLAUGHTER, INVOLUNTARY - In order for a person to be found guilty of involuntary manslaughter the government must prove that someone was killed as a result of an act by the person;
Second, in the circumstances existing at the time, the person's act either was by its nature dangerous to human life or was done with reckless disregard for human life; and
Third, the person either knew that such conduct was a threat to the lives of others or knew of circumstances that would reasonably cause the person to foresee that such conduct might be a threat to the lives of others.

If you think smoking is acceptable, then you're part of a "group". Have a good day.

When smoking establishments have allowed smoking and the same patrons (non-smoking) have attended that (and others alike) for years for any significant time each time they go there, they are at risk. Look at all of the law suites against tabacco companies by smokers who got lung cancer who "didn't know" smoking was bad for them! People (non-smokers) who have gotten lung cancer from being around second hand smoke for many years are not going to sue smokers or tabacco companies, but they would have a good case.

How many of us when we were kids lived with parents who smoked and on the cold days had to ride in a car with the windows rolled up with smoking parent(s) and had to breath in that second hand smoke? Besides, I don't play pool that much because everytime I left, my lungs hurt from the smoke, my cloths smelled and my eyes burned. Most pool rooms do not have adequate ventilation systems.

Cigerate smoke is just bad for everyone, period. I never heard or seen a study that smoke is good on any level.

 

[chefjeff]

That's why we have smart people leading this country. .

I don't mean to pick on your political innocence, RollOff, but I couldn't let this go without talking about what I saw on the financial channel yesterday. This is too good to pass up...

Here's one of the "smart" ones in action...he's an old-time Democrat senator from Iowa, Tom Harkin. Here's a actual quote from a real interview he did yesterday at 13:30 ct on CNBC with Ron ____, talking about the drug industry and how he and the "smart people" are going to improve the situation:

Ron: "So, what do we need to do?"

Tom: "We need to do 2 things; well, really 4 things; but the 3 things I'm talking about are..." [laughing too hard to hear any of the rest].

Yep, the "smart" ones are in charge...lol.

Jeff Livingston

 

[Coop1701]

,...and the hits, just keeeep on coming.

These once a month Smoker threads are getting worse and worse. I enjoy a good debate. I really do. But this type of subject gets worse and worse every time it gets drudged up.

 

[Roll-Off]

I don't mean to pick on your political innocence, RollOff, but I couldn't let this go without talking about what I saw on the financial channel yesterday. This is too good to pass up...

Here's one of the "smart" ones in action...he's an old-time Democrat senator from Iowa, Tom Harkin. Here's a actual quote from a real interview he did yesterday at 13:30 ct on CNBC with Ron ____, talking about the drug industry and how he and the "smart people" are going to improve the situation:

Ron: "So, what do we need to do?"

Tom: "We need to do 2 things; well, really 4 things; but the 3 things I'm talking about are..." [laughing too hard to hear any of the rest].

Yep, the "smart" ones are in charge...lol.

Jeff Livingston

Ok, so the farmer from Iowa isn't too swift. In my previous post, I said essentially involuntary manslaughter. Also, where are the 41% of the players who picked "non-smoker who would not play in a smoking room" going to play? I agree with JustPlays statement about your lungs and eyes stinging. Smoke outside!

 

[chefjeff]

Ok, so the farmer from Iowa isn't too swift. In my previous post, I said essentially involuntary manslaughter. Also, where are the 41% of the players who picked "non-smoker who would not play in a smoking room" going to play? I agree with JustPlays statement about your lungs and eyes stinging. Smoke outside!

Thanks for the good discussion...

The 41% who picked "non-smokers who would not play in a smoking room" have the freedom to play elsewhere, not play, or even start their own rooms and make them non-smoking. That's why freedom rocks. They don't have the "freedom" to take away pool room owners' and their smoking customers' liberty via force-backed govt. (that's in the rulebook)

Jeff Livingston

 

[alstl]

I recently quit my first and only league for exactly this reason, couldn't handle the wall to wall smoke. I enjoyed the competition and was actually doing better than I thought I would when I first joined, but I go jogging every day and lift weights, and the smoke had an effect on my lungs. Nothing against the smokers or the owner of the room.


As far as I know there are no smoke free rooms in the St Louis area, and I still go once in a while on a weekday morning when the smoke isn't so bad.

I lost my Dad recently from pneumonia which was caused by a tumor in one lung. He never smoked but worked for many years in environment where he breathed other people's smoke. I have no doubt that's what killed him.

 

[catscradle]

Thanks for the good discussion...

The 41% who picked "non-smokers who would not play in a smoking room" have the freedom to play elsewhere, not play, or even start their own rooms and make them non-smoking. That's why freedom rocks. They don't have the "freedom" to take away pool room owners' and their smoking customers' liberty via force-backed govt. (that's in the rulebook)

Jeff Livingston

Got to jump in at this point Jeff. I agree that the room owners are having their freedom to direct there establishment as they choose infringed, but smokers are not losing any liberty at all, ONLY the proprietor is. Smokers have no right to smoke anywhere they choose, the only place they have an absolute right to smoke is on their own property and even at that subject to fire hazard regulations. Beyond their own property they are completely at the mercy of whoever is the owner. The only one whose rights are being infringed are the owners. That' why I make the distinction between public places wherein the people (that is, the government) are the owners and private establishments.

Steve. <== still thinks smoking sucks.

 

[Travis Bickle]

We've been all over the right-to-smoke vs. right-to-breathe thing, but can anybody tell how me, very roughly, how many non-smoking pool halls have tried to make a go of it in smoking territory? I would think if you had good equipment and there's a reasonable concentration of (that dreaded word "upscale") clientele in the area, you'd have the market cornered and couldn't help but do well. I think few rooms have had the guts to try ... or are run by smoking pterodactyls.

I'm in the 4th category ... will only play in a smoking venue if there's absolutely no choice, and would drive up to an hour to avoid it if I could. I play occasionally in NYC Tri-State tourneys, but though my sked is tight, I won't bother going to the events in smokin' Jersey on the rare weekend I've got free.

Me, though I despise Bloomberg for 1. buying City Hall 2. Boosting parking tickets to $115 3. jacking up property taxes 18% and offering a sorry $400 rebate in return ... I've gotta thank him for having the will to push the smoke ban through.

 

[Barbara]

I'm in the 4th category ... will only play in a smoking venue if there's absolutely no choice, and would drive up to an hour to avoid it if I could. I play occasionally in NYC Tri-State tourneys, but though my sked is tight, I won't bother going to the events in smokin' Jersey on the rare weekend I've got free.

Me, though I despise Bloomberg for 1. buying City Hall 2. Boosting parking tickets to $115 3. jacking up property taxes 18% and offering a sorry $400 rebate in return ... I've gotta thank him for having the will to push the smoke ban through.

Travis,

Sometimes Comet Billiards in Parsippany will ban smoking within the room if the turnout is big enough.

Barbara

 

[Travis Bickle]

Travis,

Sometimes Comet Billiards in Parsippany will ban smoking within the room if the turnout is big enough.

Barbara

Thanks for the tip, Barbara. Always heard it was a top room, but never made the trip. If I knew they were gonna hold off that day, they could be so damned lucky as to have me on the premises for my typical 3-5 matches, lol.

 

[chefjeff]

Got to jump in at this point Jeff. I agree that the room owners are having their freedom to direct there establishment as they choose infringed, but smokers are not losing any liberty at all, ONLY the proprietor is. Smokers have no right to smoke anywhere they choose, the only place they have an absolute right to smoke is on their own property and even at that subject to fire hazard regulations. Beyond their own property they are completely at the mercy of whoever is the owner. The only one whose rights are being infringed are the owners. That' why I make the distinction between public places wherein the people (that is, the government) are the owners and private establishments.

Steve. <== still thinks smoking sucks.

I like your distinction and was wondering if RollOff got it as he failed to answer my inquiry about what a "public" place was. Thanks for bringing that up.

And I like that you understand property rights. Very few nowadays (publik skools teaching envy ) seems to grasp the fact that the one paying the bills should be the one calling the shots. And I was including smokers' liberties into my post as I was considering that they had made a contract with the pool hall owners to act in a certain manner in their pool halls, which includes permission to smoke (or not) there. Remember, a contract between two parties requires liberty. OK?

I'm afraid that the War On Smoking has really just begun. Wait until the control freaks make it is illegal to buy cigs....then the bullets will fly, bigtime. As people accept, as normal, more and more violence against smokers, property rights will go down quicker than Emminet Domain has taken them and the War On Drugs will look like girl scout camp in comparison. Rulebook?..."Fuhk the rulebook, what about the children," will be the rallying cry, I suppose.

On a personal level, I hate smoke, too. Especially when my own teammates blow smoke into my eyes. It's hard enough for me to see with my myriad of eye problems, let alone with some clueless person adding to the problems. But, I respect the owner's wishes, calculate the costs/benefits ratio, and make the tradeoff. So does the owner, btw, as I'd stay longer and spend more money if not for the smoke.

Jeff Livingston

 

[Travis Bickle]

And I like that you understand property rights. Very few nowadays (publik skools teaching envy ) seems to grasp the fact that THE ONE PAYING THE BILLS SHOULD BE THE ONE CALLING THE SHOTS (my caps).
Jeff Livingston

I finally have to agree with you. You've got it! That's why we live in a tyranny, not a democracy.

 

[Secaucus Fats]

Well, since this is the umpteenth thread on the subject--here is my opinion:

 

[chefjeff]

I finally have to agree with you. You've got it! That's why we live in a tyranny, not a democracy.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here, Travis. Are you joking or trying to make a point of some kind, or...?

Tyranny and democracy are not opposites. A democracy can be a tyranny if a majority of voters decide it to be that way. The definiton of democracy I like is: Two wolves and a lamb voting on what's for dinner.

Your agreeing with the mayor's ban on smoking means you agree with taking away property rights---there's simply no other way to read that. That's great when you "benefit" by having (note: another freedom is now gone) to play pool in a smoke-free place (as one of the wolves), but it is not so great when they eventually come for you, your property, and your choice of what YOU want to do there (now, you're one of the lambs). Tyranny (voted in or not) isn't always against the "bad" guys, ya know. Democracy isn't always for the good guys, either.

Jeff Livingston

 

[vagabond]

property rights will go down quicker than Emminet Domain has taken them

Jeff Livingston

go down? we never had them.we can`t choose the color of the paint on your own house in certain areas of the cities.