poolhall smoking

[chefjeff]

hmm...I want the liberty to vote and participate in a society that chooses to ban things that are harmful and endanger the health of people around you. Where should I go for this?

Now we're talking! In my ideal world, you'd have the right and ability to do such a thing, to enslave yourself with others also choosing that, so to speak. But, and this is THE point I've tried to make here...But you do NOT have the liberty to enslave others into your ideal society that bans things.

Now, we can both be happy, right? No one-size-fits-all, but choice....A guy oughta look into that!

Jeff Livingston

 

[chefjeff]

Jeff,
Here you have made the error of forgetting to appreciate the difference between what *you* would do, and what *someone else* would do. If you owned a pool room, you might think about it the way you described. However, there are many people who go into business who simply don't know *ANYTHING* about certain things, like electrical wiring, for example. The simply don't have the knowledge or the capacity to appreciate the importance of issues like these. Do not assume that everyone will think as intelligently as you about how to make certain their establishment is safe.

KMRUNOUT

I don't assume that business owners are smart or moral or whatever. They're just people, like you and me....just like those in govt. who currently run the safety codes systems, btw.

As people, they are of course able to screw up....big time! In a business environment, these screw-ups are costly. Therefore, being selfish and greedy, these business people have incentives to not screw-up, right? That is, if they make trouble for their customers instead of solving it, the businesses don't survive or prosper. That is the controlling element in business. In govt, the controlling element is the gun.

It just depends which side of it you want it on.

Jeff Livingston

 

[chefjeff]

As far as I know, the Federal government has stayed out of smoking ban legislation. It is all state, city, and local government bans, most of which were initiatives voted on by the people and enforced by elected officials who represent us.

Is there something I'm missing here?


Chris

Yes, while the local govts are banning smoking the federal govt is subsidizing it.

Pretty contradictory, isn't it?

Jeff Livingston

 

[chefjeff]

1 - perhaps you should get a dictionary and look up the word fair.

2 - I know people that are actually allergic to the smoke... so how hard is it to walk 30 feet to the patio and light up a smoke. I have nothing against people who smoke, I just don't think it's right for me to have to breathe second hand smoke because I wish to play pool.

3 - Forego what earnings? that doesn't even make sense.

-Rd.

All pool halls should be pink. That would be fair.

Jeff Livingston

 

[chefjeff]

Jeff,

You want every person to have the freedom to do what they wish. I think that's a great idea, except for the presence of greed (raw greed, not capitalist greed), lust, psychosis, and many other human ailments. If everyone on Earth were a good person with common sense, I would support your ideals wholeheartedly.

Personally, I think you might just be in love with Mad Max, and you want the world to reflect that environment

Smoking is bad. It should be frowned upon throughout the world, and made illegal everywhere. They should destroy all crops and force the extinction of the genus Nicotiana

I've intentioanally pointed out and use the terms, "selfish" and "greedy" in this thread for explaining how those natural human traits are the answers to these types of problems, the problems of how people interact with each other.

Think about those posts, please and you'll probably come to the same understanding I did about greed: it is real and it cannot be legislated away by magic laws. Therefore, it had better be integrated into a societal system, or else that system will inevitably fail. Liberty integrates greed into goodness.

A good start on this is Ayn Rand's book, The Virtue of Selfishness. It isn't perfect by a long shot but makes some great arguments about greed. Also, you'll discover just how the "greed" concept is exploited by the parasitical elite to rob us of our freedoms and property.

Jeff Livingston

 

[pooltchr]

As far as I know, the Federal government has stayed out of smoking ban legislation. It is all state, city, and local government bans, most of which were initiatives voted on by the people and enforced by elected officials who represent us.

Is there something I'm missing here?


Chris

I don't know about other states, but in NC, there was no public initiative, no public vote at all. The state legislature handed down their edict.

Steve

 

[justadub]

I don't know about other states, but in NC, there was no public initiative, no public vote at all. The state legislature handed down their edict.

Steve

I believe most states that pass these laws do so without public referendum. That was how it happened here in Maine.

(Of course we have a referendum for virtually everything else, and then if you don't like it, you can gather enough signatures on a petition to do it all over again.... sigh. The Peoples Republic of Maine for ya.)

 

[Tramp Steamer]

Smoking in a poolroom, or anywhere else for that matter, is not, and should not be treated as an emotional issue, but as a medical issue.
Smoking causes cancer, heart disease, pulmonary diseases, and birth defects. We all have seen and heard so much data regarding these ill effects that the information has now become common knowledge. When the argument that second-hand smoke is not harmful to others, even after medical science has proven over and over again that it is, one wonders why it is even listened to.
The right to smoke, as if it were somehow guaranteed by devine charter, is completely without merit, as well. Along with that, the notion that somehow monies gathered by tax, earned through related employment, or any other socio-economic consideration, will cause an undue hardship on the general population is equally preposterous.
In the interim, it is my opinion that ordinances should be passed that would promote, improve, and benefit the health of the two-thirds of the population who do not smoke, by banning this vile habit in poolhalls, poolrooms, and bars, as well as promoting an even more aggressive approach to helping those who are now caught up in its tragic addiction.

 

[LWW]

2 - I know people that are actually allergic to the smoke... so how hard is it to walk 30 feet to the patio and light up a smoke. I have nothing against people who smoke, I just don't think it's right for me to have to breathe second hand smoke because I wish to play pool.

-Rd.

You just refuse to understand things don't you.

Let me make it simple. I know someone who is allergic to peanuts ... if they choose to go to Yankee Stadium should the Yankees be forced to refuse to sell peanuts?

Second ... you do not have a right to play pool anywhere other than your home.

As to income ... wake up. In states that have legislated total smoking bans, revenues at bars and pool halls have plummeted.

But your rights are more important than theirs aren't they.

LWW

 

[D_Lewis]

You just refuse to understand things don't you.

A: Let me make it simple. I know someone who is allergic to peanuts ... if they choose to go to Yankee Stadium should the Yankees be forced to refuse to sell peanuts?




B: But your rights are more important than theirs aren't they.

LWW

A: Try taking a peanut butter sandwich into a public elementary school.

B: Yes, they are.

 

[LWW]

Smoking in a poolroom, or anywhere else for that matter, is not, and should not be treated as an emotional issue, but as a medical issue.
Smoking causes cancer, heart disease, pulmonary diseases, and birth defects. We all have seen and heard so much data regarding these ill effects that the information has now become common knowledge. When the argument that second-hand smoke is not harmful to others, even after medical science has proven over and over again that it is, one wonders why it is even listened to.
The right to smoke, as if it were somehow guaranteed by devine charter, is completely without merit, as well. Along with that, the notion that somehow monies gathered by tax, earned through related employment, or any other socio-economic consideration, will cause an undue hardship on the general population is equally preposterous.
In the interim, it is my opinion that ordinances should be passed that would promote, improve, and benefit the health of the two-thirds of the population who do not smoke, by banning this vile habit in poolhalls, poolrooms, and bars, as well as promoting an even more aggressive approach to helping those who are now caught up in its tragic addiction.

Eating fatty foods in a poolroom, or anywhere else for that matter, is not, and should not be treated as an emotional issue, but as a medical issue.
Eating fatty foods causes cancer, heart disease, pulmonary diseases, obesity, high blood pressure, type 2 diabetes, liver diseases, kidney disease, and birth defects. We all have seen and heard so much data regarding these ill effects that the information has now become common knowledge. When the argument that eating fatty foods is not harmful to others, even after medical science has proven over and over again that it is, one wonders why it is even listened to.
The right to eat fatty foods, as if it were somehow guaranteed by devine charter, is completely without merit, as well. Along with that, the notion that somehow monies gathered by tax, earned through related employment, or any other socio-economic consideration, will cause an undue hardship on the general population is equally preposterous.
In the interim, it is my opinion that ordinances should be passed that would promote, improve, and benefit the health of the two-thirds of the population who do not smoke, by banning this vile habit in poolhalls, poolrooms, and bars, as well as promoting an even more aggressive approach to helping those who are now caught up in its tragic addiction.

Therefor it is only fair that beef burgers be replaced by tofu burgers, potato chips be replaced by carrots, and all fatty foods be removed from pool hall menus nationwide.

After all, how hard is it to walk next door to the nearest McDonalds to have one's arse widened if that's what their addiction compels them to do?

LWW

 

[LWW]

A: Try taking a peanut butter sandwich into a public elementary school.

B: Yes, they are.

Spoken like a true fan of tyranny.

LWW

 

[justadub]

You just refuse to understand things don't you.

Let me make it simple. I know someone who is allergic to peanuts ... if they choose to go to Yankee Stadium should the Yankees be forced to refuse to sell peanuts?

Second ... you do not have a right to play pool anywhere other than your home.

As to income ... wake up. In states that have legislated total smoking bans, revenues at bars and pool halls have plummeted.

But your rights are more important than theirs aren't they.

LWW[/QUOTE

Something you just don't seem to understand.... If the only way to consume peanuts was in a fasion in which they spewed all over everyone in the immediate vicinity, it might become an issue. But as the person with the peanut allergy has to consume, or at least touch them, there is a distinct difference. As oppopsed to cigarrette smoke, which by it's very nature affects everyone near the point of consumption. With no choice in the matter.

(And the response about taking a peanut butter sandwich into an elementary school is spot-on. Had to deal with that for years with my kids.)

My oldest son is allergic to all dairy products. And it is a serious allergy, not an "intolerance"; he could swell up and die under certain circumstances. But that is an issue that he (and we) have to deal with, as it involves his direct consumption of milk, therefore no special regulation is needed or appropriate.

As for bars revenues "plummetting", I would like to see that substantiated. We've had the smoking ban for years now, and if anything there are MORE bars in this area than before. Again, more scare tactics. People will go out, and people will drink. People will adapt to the situation. You, sir, just don't want to. Which I understand. I just don't agree with.

If consuming cigarettes did not generate the smoke that, by it's very nature, cannot be controlled and thus affecting anyone nearby, this wouldn't be an issue, and no one would worry about legislating where you consume them. The issue truly is one of not affecting others adversely, which smokers do. You can wrap it up in the flag and spin it any way you like, but that is the bottom line. Everything else is self-preserving and self-serving your, the smokers, interest.

 

[chefjeff]

For the banners.....

What if cell phones were banned in "public" places by law?

Cell phones cause brain cancer...even in those near a phone, not just those using 'em. Second-hand radiation causes brain cancer...The science is in and anyone not believing it is wrong.

I don't see what's wrong with people going 20 feet outside to use a cell phone!

It isn't about rights, it is about health!

'nuff said.

Jeff Livingston

 

[D_Lewis]

Spoken like a true fan of tyranny.

LWW

Explain more oh wise one. What specifically fits your reply?

Your government IS going to decide the health of the population is more important that an individuals right to smoke and a business' right to allow smoking in their establishment. Every state will follow suit, every single one. Its just a matter of time.

 

[chefjeff]

Explain more oh wise one. What specifically fits your reply?

Your government IS going to decide the health of the population is more important that an individuals right to smoke and a business' right (snip).

Wow...262 million people---just like you and me---murdered by the state...I wonder how many were non-smokers?

Jeff Livingston

 

[duckie]

If you live in a area that allows smoking in pool rooms, chances are that all place allow smoking so there really isn't anywhere else to go.

There is this little concept that has died in this country....consideration for others. It has become all about me and screw anyone else, as shown in this thread.

 

[justadub]

For the banners.....

What if cell phones were banned in "public" places by law?

Cell phones cause brain cancer...even in those near a phone, not just those using 'em. Second-hand radiation causes brain cancer...The science is in and anyone not believing it is wrong.

I don't see what's wrong with people going 20 feet outside to use a cell phone!

It isn't about rights, it is about health!

'nuff said.

Jeff Livingston

Once again, where did you get that proof about cell phones causing cancer? "The science is in"??? IF, and only "if" it is proven that there are adverse effects from cell phones, it wouldn't be a second-hand radiation issue. If you do any RF research, you will find there are a lot of issues with RF, but they are directly related to output power vs distance from the source. The RF output power of a cell phone is less than 1/2 a watt, which might be capable of affecting someone who has it right up next to their head (extreme "maybe"), but it certainly wouldn't affect anyone nearby. It's output isn't nearly strong enough. And even then, the direct effect to the user hasn't been proven. Not enough time has passed to come up with any sort of serious conclusion. Trust me, there are strong lobbies on both sides of that issue, but if there is substantive evidence about cell phones causing cancer, you WILL hear about it. And if it is proven to be harmful to others, I'd fall right in line with limiting their use, as well. Personally, I'd like more businesses to limit cell-phone use to certain areas. Not for any perceived safety risk, just because they are so damned annoying. Yes, I said businesses, not "gummint".

You have a far greater chance of being affected by the RF output of your microwave oven, were it to develop a leak. Or the CB radio hooked up to an illegal amplifier in every 18-wheeler you drive near on the freeway. The computer you are using right now generates RF. Your car has 3 to 4 computers in it, all of them generating RF. (Another pox on society.) Garage door openers, automatic car starters, walkie-talkies, wireless routers or security systems. And all of those devices don't have to submit to the strict RF safety guidelines that cell phones have to.

As you have stated before.... next?

 

[D_Lewis]

Wow...262 million people---just like you and me---murdered by the state...I wonder how many were non-smokers?

Jeff Livingston

"According to the World Health Organization, tobacco is the second leading cause of deaths all around the globe. The WHO estimates that 10 percent of all deaths are smoking related, which comes out to about five million people each year. This number is expected to grow to 10 million by 2020. Half of all smokers will die from their tobacco use. That's about 325 MILLION deaths total. "

http://www.ehow.com/about_4760390_deaths-caused-smoking.html

Looks like your 262 Million was just trumped.

 

[Hierovision]

Let me make it simple. I know someone who is allergic to peanuts ... if they choose to go to Yankee Stadium should the Yankees be forced to refuse to sell peanuts?

...

Eating fatty foods in a poolroom, or anywhere else for that matter, is not, and should not be treated as an emotional issue, but as a medical issue.

<surprise>LWW comes with two incredibly failed attempts to rebut!</surprise>
You just likened peanuts and fatty foods to tobacco smoke. How the hell can you fail so miserably in an argument/debate with so much practice? You just earned a place next to cowboy on my ignore list.