poolhall smoking

[KMRUNOUT]

No sweat. Not wanting to smell like a cigarette is not the end of the American Dream. It is in fact THE American dream. You can choose. Go into a smoking establishment or not. But then, the Peoples Republic of Maine has made that choice for you now haven't they? (by the way, after I posted this I felt bad that is seemed I was taking a shot at you or Maine- that was not my intent. I mean no malice since I am from one of the biggest nanny states- The People Republic of Massachusetts... and oh, by the way Deval- we are still waiting for our property tax relief!)

Bob

Bob,

Something that I haven't heard you mention, and that many people seem to overlook is this simple question:

Do you like pool, and want to see it succeed? Is it fair to say that the more people that can play together, the better the business will do as a whole? For example, you often see competing tournaments come up. You can't go to both of them. So you get 2 small tournaments, instead of either one large one, or two large ones on different nights. Now take this idea to players. If everyone can play together, is there not an enhanced likelihood for larger, cooler events to come up? Isn't this the kind of thing that makes pool flourish?

For what it's worth, I used to go to Pockets. I hated the smoke and stopped going. When it went smoke free, I returned and went on and off until you closed. Sorry that happened. But it happened to about 10 other rooms in the area LONG after the smoking ban.

KMRUNOUT

 

[KMRUNOUT]

I am a cancer survivor; pacemaker wearing old guy. I am a non smoker except for the 2-3 cigars I cherish each month. But as much as I rail against having a ban shoved down my throat, when I owned the pool room it was great. It was cleaner, smelled a lot better and everyone had enough room to shoot without interference because almost half my customers went away! My problem with the ban was that my city was one of the first in the state to pass a ban. Customers could go two towns over and smoke and play pool. When the state eventually went non smoking, even that pool room closed. But times change. And it is sweet for you liberty-squashing nanny state favoring, free choice canceling non smokers. But there was a time that spittoons were in every restaurant and bar. Times are different and times have changed.

And- to one of your earlier posts....it is in fact all about liberty. Having the choice to enter a pool room with smoking is in fact the definition of liberty. The condition of being free from restriction or control.
(n.) Freedom from unjust or undue governmental control.

Bob

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?

 

[KMRUNOUT]

I have no problem with you cherishing your cigars.
I just wish you'd cherish them:
A. In your own home
B. In your own car
or
C. Somewhere outside in the 200 gajillion square feet of land we have on planet earth that does not have an enclosed space sitting on top of it.

Russ

A- I can't smoke em in the house because my wife would kick my arse!
B- I can't smoke em in the car because my kids would kick my arse!
C- which is why I had one yesterday, out in the freezing cold, snow and dark!

And I'm a C player too so you get no weight from me! :wink:

Bob

Are you saying that you have to respect other people? Even in/on your own property? What is this world coming to? :wink:

KMRUNOUT

 

[KRJ]

Touche

Hard to argue with this. That is certainly the Libertarian viewpoint. However, here are some things to consider that might make the question a little more complex:

1) Employee's. Currently the law forbids employing people to work in an unsafe or unhealthy workplace environment. This is different for each state I'm sure. Should businesses have to declare their smoking status to the employees and the state?
2) Likewise, would the employees have to declare their employment status (at a smoking establishment) to their health insurance providers?
3) Personal freedom is great of course. However, *someone* pays for the health problems caused by certain activities, like smoking. The question soon becomes, "are we as a society willing to pay for the health problems arising from smoking and second hand smoke?" What happens if society has decided that no, we are not? We don't want to let that decision impact *personal* liberty, which is why we are still allowed to smoke all we want in our own homes, cars, outside, and in designated areas, as well (in MA) in private clubs.

Let's just look at it this way: many smokers make the short-sighted point of "if you don't like smoke, don't go to a smoking establishment". Ok, if that's the way you see it, lets try: "if you don't like states that collectively vote for no smoking in public places, don't go to or live in that state". Does that still sound ok smokers?

KMRUNOUT

Your making some valid points here KMRUNOUT.... Some poeople change with the times and others time just passes them by !!

 

[KMRUNOUT]

Everything you say must make sense to anyone that is logical.

Well put Donnie. I think he seems like a pretty sharp guy!

BTW, my dad lives in Naples. I've played in Art's Pool hall. Ever been there? I am pretty sure it was smoking when I first went there. Not sure now. What is the current law as you understand it in FL? I thought the state *did* go non-smoking?

Thanks,

KMRUNOUT

 

[KMRUNOUT]

Why? Four times more people now use "illegal" drugs than before the DEA was formed. Is that better than before when people had a free choice?

And THE question: Do you own everyone else?

Jeff Livingston

Jeff,

How has the population changed since then? Surely you're not saying that the percentage of the population is 4 times greater? Also, lumping all illegal drugs together doesn't really speak to the crack cocaine example.

KMRUNOUT

 

[KMRUNOUT]

So, you're saying the owner doesn't care about his own property as much as you do or at least enough to keep from burning it down and maybe dying in the process? lol You've made the very common error, propagated by the publick skools mostly, that without govt force, NOTHING would be safe!

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

 

[KMRUNOUT]

If I have a party at my house and invite 50 people, I get to decide if I will allow smoking at the party or not. It is, after all, my house. You can decide to attend or not. It's your choice.

If I own a pool room, how is that any different?

Steve

You do not see a difference between a private residence and a business open to the public? Really?

 

[donny mills]

Yeah, just like car seats for kids.. hey its my kid and if i want him to be thrown thru the windshield like a human projectile, that is my call.
Hey, I own the airline and if I want to carry explosives in the cargo area to make a few extra bucks, that is my call.
Hey, these damn school buses should not stop at all train tracks, the bus company can make the call on this, not big government.
Hey, we should let people drink and drive, it's their business and they own the car for heavens sake. Stay out of my bottle big Gov.
Hey, if Joe Shmoe wants to sell defective heart valves to hospitals, that is his business and nobody should tell him how to run his business. Buyer beware.
Hey, If I want to sell cheap guns to 15 year old gangbangers, that is my businesess.
Hey, If I own the pool room I should be allowed to sell crack, fully automatic weapons, plutonium, airplane landing parts (really, they work fine). I should be able to pimp out the 18 year old drug addicts in order to make a few bucks as well, it is my store after all. Heck, maybe even give them the drugs so I can piimp them out. They are my customers, so I shall do with them as I please.

GIVE ME A FREAKING BREAK

exactly this is right I think

 

[TATE]

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

 

[KMRUNOUT]

I just find it amazing that people are willing to dictate the rights of a property owner and influence his ability to feed his family based on their own judgement. Instead of simply taking your business elsewhere, you want to force him to follow your rules. It seems like all of you would argue that it's unhealthy and it effects other people.

Other things that are unhealthy and effect other people:

Obesity - hell, even I carry around a few extra pounds I don't like. We know it's unhealthy and leads to heart disease. We know it not only adversely effects the individual, but their friends, family, and others depending on the situation. Let's ban fatty foods, and while we are at it, everyone must complete an hour of exercise every day, so they don't adversely effect themselves and others.

Speeding - we know that speed kills, and a higher rate of speed in an accident causes more likelihood of injury or death. With a speed limit of 55mph everywhere, there would be less chance of death. Actually, with 40mph, we would save more lives. Oh, and we could put a governor on all cars to make sure they cannot exceed that speed. Why do we need cars that can go faster than the law?

Contact sports - we know that contact sports effects a persons quality of life, look at some of the retired boxers and football players that can't walk. Since it hurts themselves, their families, and their friends (ie, others), let's make them illegal.

Birth - stats show that criminals, especially violent criminals, often come from impoverished families or broken homes. They not only hurt others, but they cost societly billions every year. We should regulate births - if you can't afford to provide for your child, you can't have one. Welfare impacts society as we pay for your kids, so you don't get one. I'm not talking about abortion - you need to provide financial responsibility before the govt will unlock your chastity belt.

This arguement of harming others is a slippery slope. 50 or so years ago doctors smoked and there was really limited discussion around the impact on health. In 50 years, what will we discover???.....do I have to give up chicken fried steak or yummy french fries, will we stil have football, can I only drive 40 mph (or will I even be allowed to drive or will the computer do it), will my grandson need a birth ticket to have a kid?

I'm sure those on the other side of this topic will write these examples off, but there is a bit of logic here, at Donny's request :wink:

Umm...maybe with the right lens, one might see a *bit* of logic. Let's see:
Obesity: Yeah fatty foods are bad for you. I hate that insurance premiums go up based on all the health problems related to obesity. IF you are obese and want health insurance, you should have to pay extra, rather than making me pay. Until the insurance industry changes, I would be ok with a ban on fatty foods. Other than insurance and medical scarcity, I fail to see how obesity effects others. Ok maybe having to sit next to someone huge on an airplane. I guess I could see that. Is that the kind of thing you meant?
Speeding: This is a good example. Not sure, though, how it supports your initial statement. Are you saying there should be no speed laws?
Birth: you know, your totally right here. I wish society would stop thinking so selfishly. If you want to live in society, you should abide by the wishes of that society. I hate that our society is dragged down by people who have children and have no means to support them financially or emotionally. Why should this be a right?

What we will discover in 50 years, or what we didn't know 50 years ago is largely irrelevant to how we choose to regulate our society *today* with what we *do* know.

Thankfully, I think based on his previous post that Donnie is capably of identifying logic when he sees it :wink:

 

[pooltchr]

to use an example already stated...I am planning on opening a restaurant. I don't know anything about food handling, refrigeration, etc. I'll do my best, but there is a pretty good chance you will eat spoiled food at my restaurant. Are you ok with being one of my first customers? You seriously prefer that the govt. doesn't regulate the conditions under which I do business?

Are you going to make it known to the public before they order food from you that you don't necessarily handle all the food properly? That would be the only way a customer could know what to expect.

Most people know before they walk through the front door if smoking is allowed, and it will be quite obvious as soon as they step inside.

Steve

 

[stljohnny]

I've not read this thread.

The truth is that smoking in publlic is abuse of the right to smoke. Anytime one does things that hurt others then it's abuse of the right to do what you want. Nobody has the right to do anything that hurts others. It's that simple.

Second-hand smoke is akin to breathing while on the highway in a traffic jam. Ever tried to breathe in diesel exhaust from a bus - it's far worse than secondhand smoke. So should we never drive to make sure not to hurt the other drivers or people living by the streets? You could take this a lot further and say that we can't heat our houses with natural gas. Long term pollution. Electric is okay? Nope, remember all those cancerous people who lived under the power lines. Well, at least we can have a beer ... ooh. wait. nope. We could hurt someone by being drunk and getting into a fight or saying mean things or commit adultery.

So, no gas, no electricity, no beer, no smoking, no driving, no cutting of the grass, no tv, internet, no... anything that indicates we are a developed society.

Having said all of that... I am not a die-hard "non-smokers SUCK IT" kind of smoker. I don't force people to choose the smoking section when I'm the only smoker, I don't smoke in people's cars or homes who don't invite me to do so, I don't let my smoke flow into the face of other people, especially non-smokers and i don't throw a fit at a restaurant or club for not allowing smoking. If they have a smoking section outside, and it's reasonably well kept, I'm happy. But I firmly hold the belief that ONLY organization who is allowed to say if smoking is okay or not is the property owner. Period.

 

[KMRUNOUT]

For the umpteen millionth time, it's not about smokers rights. It's about the rights of a business owner to make the business decisions that directly affect his income!

Steve

Louder please. Louder will make the point better.

 

[LWW]

I'm reading through this thread and this post is the first to directly answer the OP. On the surface, this line of reasoning makes sense. However, when you look a little deeper, it gets complicated. So lets assume a bar owner should have the right to make his establishment smoking. John goes there because he likes to smoke. Tom does not go there because he doesn't like smoke. John contracts lung cancer and requires $165,000 in treatment over the next 10 years. As it turns out, John and Tom both have the same health insurance company. Tom doesn't care much for the doctor and rarely gets sick. He cost the insurance company $485 over those 10 years. John's *choice* to generate $165,000 in expense to the insurance company is passed along to Tom, since they both will see increases in their premiums as a result of all the John's out there. Now is the next reply that "Tom should go to a health insurance company that doesn't cater to smokers"? Starts to sound a little ridiculous when you look at it this way.

Just a little food for thought.

KMRUNOUT

That's how insurance works.

It's really no different than a casino.

The house benefits when someone makes $165,000.00 gambling at the casino ... because it lures in others wanting to have the same fate. They also know that almost always the winner will pay a lot of it back because they feel lucky they were there.

The house benefits when someone has a $165,000.00 insurance claim ... because it scares others not wanting to have the same fate. They also know that almost always the recipient will pay a lot of it back because they feel lucky they were insured.

Both know that for every $165,000.00 they pay out ... they will take in more than $165,000.00 and make a profit.

Insurance and casinos are both a numbers racket from the house's POV ... you have a few big losses and a whole lot of small wins. Why do you think both plaster TV with people getting paid a lot from a relatively small premium/bet.

From the consumers end it's risk management. Can I risk $6,000.00 a year to make sure I can get a $1,000,000.00 lung transplant ... which I know I will almost certainly never need ... in case I need it? Yes.

Can I risk a few Franklins at the boat on the long shot that I walk out fat? Yes ... even though I know the odds are very long that I will leave a bit lighter.

So ... why do you, the non smoker, believe you have a right to dictate that nobody can smoke in public because you don't want to be exposed to it when you willingly visit property you don't own?

LWW

 

[pooltchr]

You do not see a difference between a private residence and a business open to the public? Really?

Not when we are talking about freedom of choice.

People know I do or do not allow smoking in my home, and can choose whether or not to enter my home.

People know I do or do not allow smoking in my business, and can choose whether or not to enter my business.

Nobody is forced to enter my home.

Nobody is forced to enter my business.

"Open to the public" does not mean anyone has to go there...it simply means people are welcome to choose to go there or not go there.

Churches are open to the public, but nobody has to go, anyone can choose to go. If I don't like the smell of burning candles, I go to a church where they don't burn candles.

It's called freedom of choice.

Steve

 

[KMRUNOUT]

Actually my analogy is perfect as my inability to swim is something I account for when making day to day decisions. As a non-swimmer, you will not find me jumping into rivers and lakes despite how much fun it may be. As a non-smoker, you will need to make the decision of whether or not you want to engage in an activity where there will be smokers. Sticking a gun in the room owner's face and telling him to not allow smokers is fascist behavior and theft of property rights. Just because everybody agrees with it, doesn't make it right. So, what if I stuck a gun in your face and told you that your swimming pool must be no deeper than 3ft?

Actually, Drew, you have just restated what you said the first time, clearly without understanding my criticism of the applicability of your analogy.
You stated "They're forcing us non-swimmers to risk our safety by making the pools so deep". For the analogy to work, someone would have to force a non-smoker to risk their safety by creating a condition that could be avoided by a change in the non-smokers *capability*. You don't know how to swim. You could learn to swim. I don't know how to make smoke not bad for me. I can *not* learn to do that. Get it now?

I think what you were going for in your analogy (based on this response to me) was this: "I don't know how to swim. But no one is forcing me to go in a pool, particularly a deep one. I have the choice to stay out of pools just like non-smokers have the choice to stay out of smoking establishments."

And by the way, do you have any accounts of rooms in which the non-smoking laws were enforced at gunpoint? DOITFORTHEGAME? Did you ever have that experience? Did anyone come in and put a gun in your face regarding the enforcement of non-smoking laws?

 

[KMRUNOUT]

With all sincerity, your tone is condescending and insulting.....add to that the fact that you seem to be twisting my words, and those of others, simply to prove yourself right.....at no point did I nor others say that customers could not express their opinions - the point was they could not dictate policy and force a private business owner into.....

forget it.....good day and good luck in your quest to put everyone in their place......

You are better than me if you are able to impart a "tone" to a post on a message forum. Perhaps it rubbed you a certain way, but I don't think you really have enough information to make this criticism, since you have no clue what I'm thinking or why I'm saying it.

I enjoy philosophical discussions, the more so when they are based on logical argumentation. Not everyone is interested in logic or articulate expression. Not being interested in logic can lead to one believing things that don't make sense. Inarticulate expression can lead to people intending to express one thing, but not doing so clearly and being misunderstood.

I don't care about putting anyone in their place, certainly not people on a forum about pool. However, I enjoy trying to help cut through some of the logical errors people make to help us all arrive at a better view of the ideas we are trying to discuss. If you are not into that, that's ok. You don't have to be. At least not until the govt. tells you you have to be :wink:

My experience tells me that 9 times out of 10, when I hear the phrase "twisting my words", it is usually being said by someone who just said something that was either illogical or inarticulate. My apologies if you are the 1 in 10.

Did you read my entire post? You said "the point was they could not dictate policy and force a private business owner into....." In my post that I believe you are addressing, I disagreed with that statement. Did you not want me to disagree, did you want me to express it differently (perhaps more like you would?), or did you want me to keep it to myself? A little clarification please, because I thought the point of the forum was to discuss our ideas.

KMRUNOUT

 

[KMRUNOUT]

Are you going to make it known to the public before they order food from you that you don't necessarily handle all the food properly? That would be the only way a customer could know what to expect.

Most people know before they walk through the front door if smoking is allowed, and it will be quite obvious as soon as they step inside.

Steve

Of course not. Why would I want to hinder my business. My post was targeted at the concept that in general government regulation of private business is bad. Do you think that some regulation is ok, and where do you draw the line?

 

[KMRUNOUT]

That's how insurance works.

It's really no different than a casino.

The house benefits when someone makes $165,000.00 gambling at the casino ... because it lures in others wanting to have the same fate. They also know that almost always the winner will pay a lot of it back because they feel lucky they were there.

The house benefits when someone has a $165,000.00 insurance claim ... because it scares others not wanting to have the same fate. They also know that almost always the recipient will pay a lot of it back because they feel lucky they were insured.

Both know that for every $165,000.00 they pay out ... they will take in more than $165,000.00 and make a profit.

Insurance and casinos are both a numbers racket from the house's POV ... you have a few big losses and a whole lot of small wins. Why do you think both plaster TV with people getting paid a lot from a relatively small premium/bet.

From the consumers end it's risk management. Can I risk $6,000.00 a year to make sure I can get a $1,000,000.00 lung transplant ... which I know I will almost certainly never need ... in case I need it? Yes.

Can I risk a few Franklins at the boat on the long shot that I walk out fat? Yes ... even though I know the odds are very long that I will leave a bit lighter.

So ... why do you, the non smoker, believe you have a right to dictate that nobody can smoke in public because you don't want to be exposed to it when you willingly visit property you don't own?

LWW

Good points. What I am saying is that I think *either* we should ban smoking because of the insurance things discussed, *or* we should change the insurance rules so that people that willingly do things that risk their health will have to pay more. Then we could go back to the room owner deciding whether to have smoking or not, and it seems like it would be fair for everyone. This is of course totally beside the arguments I've made regarding promoting a good pool industry.