poolhall smoking

[LWW]

Sources? Sounds like this is your idea, without any real data to back it up.

KMRUNOUT

Would you accept the Center for Disease Control as an acceptable source?

Heart disease is the leading cause of death in the United States and is a major cause of disability. The most common heart disease in the United States is coronary heart disease, which often appears as a heart attack. In 2009, an estimated 785,000 Americans will have a new coronary attack, and about 470,000 will have a recurrent attack. About every 25 seconds, an American will have a coronary event, and about one every minute will die from one. [1]

The chance of developing coronary heart disease can be reduced by taking steps to prevent and control factors that put people at greater risk. Additionally, knowing the signs and symptoms of heart attack are crucial to the most positive outcomes after having a heart attack. People who have survived a heart attack can also work to reduce their risk of another heart attack or a stroke in the future. For more information on heart disease and stroke, visit CDC's Division for Heart Disease and Stroke Prevention. ...

A healthy diet and lifestyle are the best weapons you have to fight heart disease. Many people make it harder than it is. It is important to remember that it is the overall pattern of the choices you make that counts. As you make daily food choices, base your eating pattern on these recommendations:

Choose lean meats and poultry without skin and prepare them without added saturated and trans fat.
Select fat-free, 1% fat, and low-fat dairy products.
Cut back on foods containing partially hydrogenated vegetable oils to reduce trans fat in your diet.
Cut back on foods high in dietary cholesterol. Aim to eat less than 300 mg of cholesterol each day.
Cut back on beverages and foods with added sugars.
Choose and prepare foods with little or no salt. Aim to eat less than 2,300 mg of sodium per day (or less than 1,500 mg if you are in a higher risk group for high blood pressure).
If you drink alcohol, drink in moderation. That means no more than one drink per day if you're a woman and two drinks per day if you're a man.
Keep an eye on your portion sizes.

Neither. These are both wrong. The state, in theory, should not own anything. "ME" is a concept that involves not only my body but my thoughts and mind. This is something that no one owns-certainly not the state. However, to say that "I own me" is a little ridiculous, because when I die, I not only stop owning me, "me" disintegrates. I control my own actions, and the state imposes regulations against certain of those actions. The state enforces these regulations and may imprison or otherwise harm or control me. That's it.

KMRUNOUT

What is your point here? That I'm wrong because I'm right? Or that you agree with and comply sheepishly to tyranny?

Not true. Certainly not true just because you say so. I believe that the state can and does determine to *some* extent what I ingest. I cannot ingest cocaine whenever I want to. I believe that I am part of the state, and the state is part of me. Neither "owns" the other.

KMRUNOUT

And you can't ingest what you want because you agree to the concept that the state owns you, and you live under the mirage that you are a free man Shake off the chains brother. The first step is reading what you posted and understanding the ramifications of it.

This is what is called "hyperbole". We have not determined that at all. We have clearly established that a property owner absolutely *can* determine the use of their own property WITHIN THE CONFINES OF THE LAWS IN EFFECT REGARDING THAT PROPERTY. For example, I can choose who to invite into my home. That choice is mediated only by (legal) a court ordered warrant to enter or (illegal) anyones choice to forcibly enter my home. So I do not need to ever invite a non-smoker into my home if I don't want to. I believe that a homeowner has the right to smoke in their own home, but might face additional consequences as a result of exercising that right, such as higher insurance premiums, health problems that place a burden on the scarce medical resources we have, and harm caused to other members of that household.

KMRUNOUT

Again read what you are posting. You believe you are free to use your property as you see fit ... as long as your master approves.

Now, if the state can the property owner (Pool hall in this case.) that they cannot use their property as they see fit because you might willingly stop by ... how short of a step is it for the state to say you can't smoke at home because the meter reader might willingly stop by.

Freedom doesn't have an on and off switch. You either have it or you don't. You either believe in it or you don't.

You want to live in a fantasy world where the state can inflict your will on another, and then delude yourself to believe it will never use the same power to inflict another's will upon you.

LWW

 

[stumpie71]

If a business is open for PUBLIC use the owner is subjecting himself to some public regulation especially for the welfare and safety of the public. If the owner doesn't agree with the regulations keep it private problem solved.

 

[LWW]

If a business is open for PUBLIC use the owner is subjecting himself to some public regulation especially for the welfare and safety of the public. If the owner doesn't agree with the regulations keep it private problem solved.

I can only speak for Ohio, but here that makes no difference.

You cannot smoke in a public place.

Period.

That my friend is tyranny.

LWW

 

[LWW]

That's not carnage imo.

Some rich people have less money and some other people had to find new jobs so that everyone involved can live longer healthier lives and not stink.

Very good choice imo.

Fine.

I want your car banned from the public roadways forever since you represent a potential danger to me.

So what if you have to find a new job closer to where you work, and might have less money because of that. Irrelevant. You can always walk or bike anyway ... and because of it you can live a longer healthier life.

LWW

 

[Luxury]

I think it is wiser to judge every situation individually with all the pros and cons taken into account. Analogies are WAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY over rated.

Smoking outdoors= way bigger positives than negatives.

No cars= way bigger negatives than positives

Fine.

I want your car banned from the public roadways forever since you represent a potential danger to me.

So what if you have to find a new job closer to where you work, and might have less money because of that. Irrelevant. You can always walk or bike anyway ... and because of it you can live a longer healthier life.

LWW

 

[LWW]

I think it is wiser to judge every situation individually with all the pros and cons taken into account. Analogies are WAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY over rated.

Smoking outdoors= way bigger positives than negatives.

No cars= way bigger negatives than positives

What difference does any of that make.

You want to be able to impose your will on me ... regardless of consequences to me ... yet balk at the idea of allowing someone to do the same to you.

Freedom and property rights are something you believe in or something you don't believe in.

Believing that mob rule is OK as long as you agree with the mob, but that somehow YOU should be protected from the mob ever trumping your personal property rights is, at best, an intellectually indefensible position if you actually believe in the principle of personal property rights and freedom.

Now, will some of the anti freedom folks explain to me how they get the right to de facto take the property of a business owner and make it jive with our constitution?

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Now, if you tell me as a business owner how I must operate my business and what legal activity I may or may not allow in my business ... and smoking tobacco is legal ... then you have de facto taken a part of my property. Specifically you have taken the part that I lose because the state decides to placate the mob. How am I compensated?

To anyone who has read the thoughts of the authors of the constitution, the idea that the state would ever have the authority to manipulate others at this level is high comedy.

Yet my friends, we lie down and take it.

Once again ... I am not a smoker and find it a disgusting habit.

LWW

 

[stumpie71]

I can only speak for Ohio, but here that makes no difference.

You cannot smoke in a public place.

Period.

That my friend is tyranny.

LWW

So whats the answer. Smoking has inherent risk to OTHERS who chose not to smoke. If done in a public forum whether privately owned or not it is open to public regulation which is the government's responsibility.

 

[Luxury]

You want to be able to impose your will on me ... regardless of consequences to me ... yet balk at the idea of allowing someone to do the same to you.

Here is where you are wrong. If the government had a very good reason for imposing their will on me in an instance where the pros outweighed the cons I would totally understand.

Let's just stick to one topic: Do the pros of allowing smoke indoors outweigh the cons?

Do you really believe that life in general would be better in my state if they reversed the smoking ban? I can't believe that you do.

Do you really think that because this ban was allowed that it is going to lead to the government making outrageous laws that don't make good sense? I really don't think that you do.

I believe I am extremely fortunate to live in a spot on Earth where the government decisions and laws are in the top 1% on the planet.

 

[LC3]

So they made a decision to protect all the people with bad judgment (practically everyone)...

That sounds to me like the definition of a nanny state.

 

[Luxury]

That sounds to me like the definition of a nanny state.

Well they made a good, logical decision on the smoking ban which will probably lead to more and more people moving here even if they renamed it the Nanny state.

By the way, I'm anti-analogies and anti-generalization.

Saying it sounds like the definition of a nanny state after hearing about one law that was passed falls into the generalization category.

 

[LC3]

Well they made a good, logical decision on the smoking ban which will probably lead to more and more people moving here even if they renamed it the Nanny state.

Not to nitpick, but I doubt non-smoking statutes will be that big of a draw. Most people are more concerned with things like job availability, cost of living, and quality of schools.

Saying it sounds like the definition of a nanny state after hearing about one law that was passed falls into the generalization category.

I wasn't talking about the smoking ban or your state, but about the comment that legislation is justified by the assumption that practically everybody has bad judgment. It's that belief that gives rise to a nanny state.

 

[Slide Rule]

by Luxury
The laws in Washington state have not caused any carnage at all.

Even the casinos that are close to tribal casinos where you can still smoke are still open after many years of this law being in affect.

I used to smoke and what I noticed is now a group of people tend to go outside to smoke and many pleasant conversations are started between strangers that would have never approached each other inside the bar.

Move to Washington and enjoy our smoke-free bars and pool halls where all the owners are still doing fine because it's equal.

Very good choice Government!

I took a job in Pullman WA in 94. A college town. There was a new radio station about to go on the air and were restrained by a judge decision. Basis was the electromagnetic waves in the air from an AM station would cause cancer.

About 4 months later there was a stay on the order. In 24 hours the owner, got his station up and running before the order could be reinstated. Good for him.

This is NOT a very good choice government! They obviously needed another station as I could not hear Rush. Only at night from of all places CA.

Oh, I remember a spoon feeding questionnaire from Tom Foley. Yes what a great political environment.

 

[stumpie71]

Don't get me wrong LWW. I agree with most of what you say about property rights and a man being able to do as he wishes as long as it does no harm to others. But that's where we disagree. When a person enters a public place they can be unwillingly subjected to harm. I think the reason most people have a problem with this issue is because it's not immediately noticeable.

 

[LWW]

So whats the answer. Smoking has inherent risk to OTHERS who chose not to smoke. If done in a public forum whether privately owned or not it is open to public regulation which is the government's responsibility.

The only risk smoking has to others is scientifically questionable at best. Secondly, it is a voluntary risk that the person takes on of their own free will.

If I seriously believe that second hand smoke endangers my health, which I don't, then I simply don't go there. That is what liberty demands.

A reasonable, IMHO, compromise would be to require all public establishments such as bars and pool halls to post at the door whether they do or they don't tolerate smoking. There are more non smokers than smokers ... and thereby have the power to bring the businesses to their knees if the problem is really that bothersome to them.

That brings us to why the supporters of tyranny don't want to take this route ... they want their will imposed upon others for something that they themselves are unwilling to make any sacrifice to bring into being.

Business goes down after smoking bans. It stays up without the bans. This demonstrates clearly that the anti smoking crowd in reality doesn't feel that their health is endangered from second hand smoke and simply wants the state to enforce their moral code upon the balance of society.

LWW

 

[LWW]

Don't get me wrong LWW. I agree with most of what you say about property rights and a man being able to do as he wishes as long as it does no harm to others. But that's where we disagree. When a person enters a public place they can be unwillingly subjected to harm. I think the reason most people have a problem with this issue is because it's not immediately noticeable.

Fair enough.

I therefor demand that you never drive your car again because it represents a potential risk to my safety.

I also demand that you reduce you lose 20 pounds just in case we are ever on the same airplane or elevator so that you represent less risk to me.

LWW

 

[chefjeff]

The laws in Washington state have not caused any carnage at all.

!

There are opportunity costs (an economic term) that are unseen.

Even the casinos that are close to tribal casinos where you can still smoke are still open after many years of this law being in affect.

Yes, choice is an option that works the best, doesn't it?....well, at least it DID work and now only works for some.

I used to smoke and what I noticed is now a group of people tend to go outside to smoke and many pleasant conversations are started between strangers that would have never approached each other inside the bar.

Is it really the govt's job to create incentives for small talk? Can't ANYthing be done without govt?

Move to Washington and enjoy our smoke-free bars and pool halls where all the owners are still doing fine because it's equal.

Equal serfdom is fair, isn't it? As long as we're all equal victims, it's OK. If they made bowling illegal everywhere, just think of the benefit pool would gain!

Very good choice Government!

Good choices, pushing pool hall owners around....great....Why didn't someone think of this before?

Jeff Livingston

 

[chefjeff]

Jeff,

With all due respect, I don't think you get it. You sound stuck on an ideal that while interesting and possibly appealing on its own, is quite unrealistic in the context of a society. Your ideal requires that people always do the right thing to their fellow person in order to work. This doesn't always happen in reality though. You spell out a slippery slope of control. Any slippery slope is only worth mentioning if you are implying that the first step on that slope is a mistake. Are you implying that the very first step of any kind of regulation of any kind is a mistake? For example, laws against blasting a fog horn at 3 am every night in a quiet neighborhood? Think that through...I'd like to hear what you think.

Thank you,

KMRUNOUT

Thanks for considering my posts.

My "ideal" as you label it not perfection. It does NOT require perfect people....not by a long shot. In fact, the imperfection of people is why libertarianism is the ONLY thing that does work. Why? Because it merely draws the line at where one imperfect person's fist-swinging meets another imperfect person's nose. To draw the line elsewhre is to CAUSE MORE trouble, the opposite of rational govt.

Laws agianst blasting horns in the middle of the night are property right problems...I've already covered those here numerous times. In this case, you have no right to place your noise on my property.

Apply the same property principles to ANY* issue concerning others and 99% of the time 99% of the problems will disappear immediately. Compare that distinction to govts' ego-laws that are based on politics, not rationality, and it becomes obvious which of the two paradigms is utopian rquiring perfect people to implement successfully.

Jeff Livingston

*Libertarianism is not a set of issue statements that must be followed blindly. It is an integration of principle into whatever issue comes up. It works for any future issues that are currently unknown because it is a universal principle that works. It also works better than the state's ego justice to deter criminal behavior, as it is the ONLY poltical principle that correctly identifies trouble-makers and focuses ONLY on that.

If that objective line is unrealistic, all the subjective line-drawing in the world will also fail and humankind is doomed. I dont' believe that for a minute.

Jeff Livingston

 

[chefjeff]

Like a gun in your face Jeff? Is that what you need to be "controlled" by someone else? Cause you keep bringing that idea up. Simple courtesy isn't sufficient?

Not sure what you mean here, KM.

My point is that EVERY law is backed by the gun...EVERYone of 'em. A little consideration for my humanity and liberty would be nice instead of a big gun.

Jeff Livingston

 

[chefjeff]

Ok, but what prohibits Michael's owner from paying Joe's Good Food Insurance Agency for the A+ rating? If Joe is a private individual, then Joe has something to gain (potential tangible property in the form of money) by a bribe. In therory, the government, not being a private individual, ought to have nothing to gain, because the government should not own any property. (I know I know, keyword "should")

KMRUNOUT

Nothing other that Joe is also selfish and greedy and wants to protect his ratings and reputation because that's the only source of his funds. That's his business, after all. He doesn't get paid if wrong. Also, his insurance/protection agency will demand oversight beforehand and investigate before they pay up for damages. This incentive is really great. It is the same incentive that you have for not crashing your car into a tree (mad wife chasing you with a golf club changes incentives temporarily:wink

Now, what incentive does a govt official have to make sure a restaurant is clean? None but his conscience. He visited it twice last year, per the rulebook. He gets paid anyway.

Now, either one could just cheat and innocent people could be harmed. Perfection is not one of the choices. But, which one will be punished for that? The business owner will lose many customers and probably go out of business...the govt employee will still get his paycheck and the agency he works for will probably get more funding to "fix" the problem. Rinse repeat.

Jeff Livingston

 

[chefjeff]

Jeff,

Sounds like a good idea. Let me know when you have successfully established your own state that offers the situation you are after. Until then, you are living in *this* state. *This* state has a system of laws because that is what the "members" of this state have decided upon. I am ok with laws. So, apparently, are most of the other people here. If you want to live in a lawless state, you are going to need to go somewhere else. Though I'm pretty sure all the other places are already claimed. Perhaps, then, that an already existing state has the kind of arrangement you are after. Can you think of any? I can't.

KMRUNOUT

I don't want statism so I wouldn't ever establish such a thing.

I don't want to live in a lawless state or lawless anything.

I am for law.

I am not for subjective law.

I am for objective law.

I am for natural law.

I am for universal law.

I am for God's law.

The law came first. The real law. It exist with or without govt. It existed before govt did. Govts were formed on the pretext that only they can enforce that real law. Yet, those were formed by the very crimes they're supposed to stop!, i.e., by initiating force and fraud. That contradiction will not---and a study of history show is does not---stand for long and is THE reason for all wars and all falls of empire and for 99% of the troubles in the world today.

Jeff Livingston