poolhall smoking

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

I think the difference that I and others were making is regarding the reasonable expectation of safety when entering a "public" business. I expect that there will be a fire control system, health code adherence, etc. Where do you draw the line. I assume that there will not be excessive carbon monoxide in the air. This is not far from saying that I expect that the air quality will not contribute to me getting cancer.

Is it the business's or the customer's responsibility to make sure these things are taken care of? Should businesses solve the problem by just posting a sign outside "no fire control system inside, enter at your own risk". ? Just trying to understand your position here.
 
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.

Fair enough.

Now ... what part of the constitution grants the state the power to ban tobacco?

I can tell you where they have the power to tax it.

I can tell you where they have the power to regulate for a certain quality or purity.

I can't find where they have the authority to ban tobacco, cocaine, heroin, alcohol, or whatever from the consumption by a fee adult.

Ultimately ... that comes down to the ultimate personal property right, and that is the individual's ownership of one's own self.

If I an a free man then I own me. If I own me then I am free to ingest tobacco or alcohol or cocaine or heroine or marijuana. The state has a right, and a vested interest in public safety, to punish me for acts I may commit while using them ... but they have no constitutional authority to say that I simply can't consume them because they say so.

Examples ... they have a right to arrest me if I operate a vehicle drunk while smoking a joint. My rights end when I put another at risk.

OTOH ... if I want to open a pool hall where hashish is openly smoed I should not be constrained from so doing. Punishing me for causing a public nuisance because I cannot keep my clientele under control would be legit. Fining me if reasonable fire precautions aren't observed would be legit. Banning the act simply because someone says so shouldn't be.

FWIW ... I do not consume tobacco. I haven't smoked hashish for over 30 years. I haven't used cocaine for over 30 years. I am a very light, but occasional, consumer of alcohol and marijuana. I have never had a DWI. I probably wouldn't attend a business where hashish was openly used. If I had a choice between a smoking and non smoking business I would choose non smoking unless the pricing was prohibitively different.

None of that means that I would think I have a right to force my choices on another.

LWW
 
Fair enough.

Now ... what part of the constitution grants the state the power to ban tobacco?

I can tell you where they have the power to tax it.

I can tell you where they have the power to regulate for a certain quality or purity.

I can't find where they have the authority to ban tobacco, cocaine, heroin, alcohol, or whatever from the consumption by a fee adult.

Ultimately ... that comes down to the ultimate personal property right, and that is the individual's ownership of one's own self.

If I an a free man then I own me. If I own me then I am free to ingest tobacco or alcohol or cocaine or heroine or marijuana. The state has a right, and a vested interest in public safety, to punish me for acts I may commit while using them ... but they have no constitutional authority to say that I simply can't consume them because they say so.

Examples ... they have a right to arrest me if I operate a vehicle drunk while smoking a joint. My rights end when I put another at risk.

OTOH ... if I want to open a pool hall where hashish is openly smoed I should not be constrained from so doing. Punishing me for causing a public nuisance because I cannot keep my clientele under control would be legit. Fining me if reasonable fire precautions aren't observed would be legit. Banning the act simply because someone says so shouldn't be.

FWIW ... I do not consume tobacco. I haven't smoked hashish for over 30 years. I haven't used cocaine for over 30 years. I am a very light, but occasional, consumer of alcohol and marijuana. I have never had a DWI. I probably wouldn't attend a business where hashish was openly used. If I had a choice between a smoking and non smoking business I would choose non smoking unless the pricing was prohibitively different.

None of that means that I would think I have a right to force my choices on another.

LWW

Well expressed. It sounds like you might be more familiar with the constitution than I am. Do you know anywhere in there where it says anything about govt. mandated fire safety or food handling practices? I would be curious cause I really don't know.

I don't think it is fair, however, to say that smoking is banned "simply...because they say so". I think the reason we were talking about fire safety and food handling is because the reason that smoking is banned was because it presents health risks, just like a super rare hamburger that, while I love it, I can't get at most restaurants because they have mandated laws against undercooked food.

I really do know where you are coming from and I agree that personal liberties (including the liberty to run a business you own as you see fit) is important. I just thing that allowing people to do that without *any* regulation allows personal stupidity and greed to run wild. And God know's we have no shortage of those two. It is not an easy situation, nor a cut and dry one. I think we all want some regulation, but disagree about where to draw the line. To some extent, this makes that line sort of arbitrary. BUT...it is a decision that we make *as a society* through the laws that we enact.

Thanks for your insightful comments. This is a good threat and good debate.

KMRUNOUT
 
Nobody is suggesting "no regulation" ... but if smoking isn't banned "because they say so" why is it banned?

Public safety is of course a concern ... but there is nothing at all about one time exposure to cigarette smoke being dangerous to the average individual, and the evidence of second hand smoke being dangerous long term is questionable. Fire is a much more immediate danger that can and will cause immediate death and serious injury.

A reasonable compromise would re a requirement that whether or not an establishment allowed smoking be placed clearly at all entrances and in advertising.

As another example ... I prefer a very healthy diet for health reasons. I don't eat out a lot because very few establishments meet the criteria I'm looking for.

Do I have a right to demand that they have a menu just for me? After all, I can demonstrate that their standard menu presents at least as much danger to me as continued exposure to second hand smoke?

Back to the constitution ... no place does it grant the feds power in any of the smoking areas we have discussed, which kicks it to the states to determine.

Most state constitutions pretty much mirror the COTUS... but if an individual state legislature wanted grant the legislature the power to prohibit smoking it would be within their power to do so.

I know of no such state constitution. In America over the last 75 years we have had a series of small increases in statism where the government acts as if they have the legal authority to do something when in fact they do not. That is why we have seen a slow loss of freedom and why "WE THE PEOPLE" are getting restless.

LWW
 
Canada.

Here in ontario nobody can smoke in doors anywhere and it is great... The only downfall is when playing a ring game your arm can get cold and the game action can die waiting for someone to take smoke breaks every few racks. But I get headaches and a scratchy throat when around smoke... All pool halls should make people go out on the patio to smoke, it's only fair for everyone.
-Rd.
 
All pool halls should make people go out on the patio to smoke, it's only fair for everyone.
-Rd.

1 - How is that more fair than requiring every pool hall to allow smoking?

2 - Fair has nothing to do with it. Since when is anyone guaranteed fairness?

3 - How is it fair to the property owner who decides they prefer to allow smoking because that is the niche they wish to market to? Why should your idea of fairness force them to forego a portion of their earnings?

LWW
 
1 - How is that more fair than requiring every pool hall to allow smoking?

2 - Fair has nothing to do with it. Since when is anyone guaranteed fairness?

3 - How is it fair to the property owner who decides they prefer to allow smoking because that is the niche they wish to market to? Why should your idea of fairness force them to forego a portion of their earnings?

LWW

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.
 
I agree with Steve on this issue. While I don't like super smokey pool rooms (don't worry Steve your cigs didn't bother me one bit) I dislike the government dictating what business owners can have their customers do.

If bars and pool halls lose all of their non smoking customers (including the smoke only when I drink customers) they would be mostly non smoking by default.

I don't think the smoking ban will effect bars or pool halls around me, but it will definitely effect the ones that closely border states that do not have a smoking ban. I certainly hope those owners can write off that loss in their tax returns since it was a government mandated loss.
 
Breathing second hand smoke is detrimental to ones health.

Smoking in public is therefore damageing to others.

That makes smoking in public an abuse of the right to smoke.

Doing anything that hurts others is abuse of your right to do what you want.

People do it anyway.

They are sociopathic as regards smoking.... and other addictions.

There oughta be a law.
 
Breathing second hand smoke is detrimental to ones health.

Smoking in public is therefore damageing to others.

That makes smoking in public an abuse of the right to smoke.

Doing anything that hurts others is abuse of your right to do what you want.

People do it anyway.

They are sociopathic as regards smoking.... and other addictions.

There oughta be a law.

I agree with you Jim and something else to note. It is only after these findings and the cost not just of human life ,but of health care as well. And when I say this it , the cost of health care due to cancer causing carcenigens found in the additives of cigarettes. Had the facts been know sooner we would have had these issues addressed at that time.
I remember when they ( the knowing they ) tried to say that their was no proof cocaine was harmful...we know the results of that one as well.
Sometimes for the good of ALL we have to look past ourselves.
True wisdom begins with understanding ones own ignorance.
 
The poolhall is open to the public.

(snip the ducking of responsiblity for personal health)

I personally think the smoking bans are a no brainer.

(snip illogical conclusions):

And there, folks, is a perfect example of how it is done!

Jeff Livingston
 
Don't businesses need a license to operate?

In that sense, it is NOT like your house as there are rules to follow to even be in business or you get your license yanked.

The business owner doesn't make those rules, the state and government do.

Thank you.

Thaks for demonstrating another control tool: Licensing!...THE great controller.

It takes "only" 1500 days or so to get a business license in Haiti. Can't have people trading without other (special) peoples' permission, can we?

You guys are making my arguments for me....thanks....keep it up.

Jeff Livingston
 
If every place around went non smoking, and everyone was forced to smoke at home or in the street, there would be no difference in income.

Yeah, and if we just killed everyone, all problems would be gone!

Too dratic and silly? OK, then, let's just throw everyone in prison!

No? OK, then how about we just point a gun at everyone and make them smoke only where Superstar, et al, allow them too....Oh, that's what YOU'RE proposing....Now I get it....Do you?

Jeff Livingston
 
The people arguing that it is about business owner's rights to conduct business as they see fit need to watch the movie Erin Brocovich.

This is a perfect example of (snip the fiction)

Lol...You think that was real? It was a entertainment movie, not a factual documentary.

Btw, what organization allowed that pollution...by law?:rolleyes:

The greatest polluters will save us from pollution. The institutionalized violent will save us from violence. The biggest thieves will save us from theft. The biggest killers will save us from death.

Delusions and pretending....things best left to childhood.

Jeff Livingston
 
Ahhhh...now we are getting somewhere..

Here is the rub of the thing, right here.

A. People inherently DO want the government to control some things. They will not fight if the government attempts to control these things..

B. People inherently DO NOT want some things controlled. (snip)

Just to clear up another misrepresentation of control....

The govt does NOT control THINGS; it control people!

Now, if YOU think that YOU should be able to control ME, you'd better have more than your vote to do it, bud.

Jeff Livingston
 
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 :D
 
I was a 3 pack a day smoker until Dec 31 2009. I have not had a cigarette this years. I quit cold turkey because of the price of Cigarettes not for health reasons. I could be driving a Rolls Royce for what I spend on Cigarette over the last 50 years. So my point is, Stop crying about smokers and just vote more taxes on Cigarette. I plan to be the last reformed smoker who b1tches about smoke.
 
Jeff,

I hear what you are saying, I think we have been back and forth on this before. I read the link you gave--I think that provides one possible view of what constitutes private property. However, the article does not really provide an explanation for the example of commercial property intended for the occupation of the public. It seems hard to believe that you haven't thought of the alternative scenarios one can immediately think up to make this line of reasoning fall apart. "If a pool hall owner REALLY owns his place..." You could complete this sentence 1000 different ways. If he really owns it, he could allow people to snort coke and have sex with children for money, etc. The point is that property ownership, whether personal or commercial, gives no one the right to violate the law. Our "social order" had created a law system by way of which laws were enacted forbidding smoking in public areas. Whether or not you like that outcome, your only recourse is to either use the legal system to change it, or else change the legal system. "Not liking" it or believing it infringes on personal property rights does not accomplish either of these outcomes.

KMRUNOUT

Sigh. It IS about property, people. A property owner canNOT take another's property and use it without permission anymore than a non-smoker is morally able to take the room owner's property and use it as the non-smoker thinks it should be used. The room owner canNOT take a child and put him/her into prostitution. Why is the law that way?...Because he doesn't own that person!

My only recourse is to use an immoral system, built on violence, to stop violence??!! wtf?

I've tried the "legal" way....it is no longer effective, anymore, if it ever was....Why? Because it violates property as it main tool, as its main paradigm. That contradiction makes it insane, immmoral, and therefore unworkable. It is a tool for violence, not peace.

Jeff Livingston
 
Jeff,

I think this example helps build the case that many who smoke are selfish and inconsiderate people. Also, I'm sure there are many poolhalls that own the space outside their door, the entire parking lot, etc. If I understand your wife's logic, those people were fine when they smoked inside and willfully endangered the health of themselves and the people around them, but they become "creepy" when they go outside and limit their ill effect on people's health to the whiff of smoke you get walking by and their rude inconsideration of passers-through. I don't think I would try to make any kind of point based on this logic...

KMRUNOUT

No point other that the listing of another unintended consequence.

Plus, the sight of smokers outside the businesses (now really in public view, with the kids seeing it, etc), will trigger more controls against property owners....just wait.

Jeff Livingston
 
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?

I arrive out front of your new restaurant "Honey, should we eat here?"....I google the info on it from my cell phone because I don't see the sign I'm looking for. Oooooo, not registered or rated yet with my protection agency's food quality-control company, Joe's Good Food Insurance Agency. I think I'll pass until more info comes.

Hey, look, there's Michael's across the street...They get an A+ rating for safety and an A for quality....Let's go there instead.

Jeff Livingston
 
Last edited:
Back
Top