Smoking at tournament matches

Here in CA where smoking in indoors and certain places outdoors is banned, the local rooms around here don't have a problem if being busy.

For a big tourney not to consider that some players maybe coming from states with smoking bans such as ca is really not being responsible and receptive to the needs of non smokers.

As non smoker and wanting to play in a major tourney, I should not have to put up with smoking of others.

There are not others tourneys you can always go to. Remember the discussio is about a events that may not happen all the time, DCC, US open comes to mind.

In this aspect, the promoters do have a responsibility to provide healthy playing conditions for all players. Some players may have health issues that a smoking environment would impair their playing.

There is another thread about smoking killing pool rooms. There have been post by room owners that went from smoking to non smoking with a increase in business and more family members coming in also.

There is a difference between a bar with pool tables and a pool room. The biggest difference is that a pool room does not have a minimum age requirement.

A pool room owner needs to consider a wide range of clientele. Two come to by mind, kids and seniors. There is also family nights out, dates and so on.

The growth of pool is gonna come from non smokers more than smokers. There needs a place for them.

Lastly, the statement made by several that "We all learn to play pool in smokey places" is utter non sense.

I learned to play pool in the towns rec center, a non smoking place. The room I went to way back had no smoking.

When I returned to playing pool seriously, I play in a non smoking room since I live in Ca.

I really would not like to decide about going to play in a a major tourney that happens once a year if they allow smoking.

And for you smokers that do not understand this, well, learn some manners.
 
duckie said:
In this aspect, the promoters do have a responsibility to provide healthy playing conditions for all players.
Click to expand...

I disagree. The only legal obligation a promoter has it to provide safe playing conditions. If he chooses to allow smoking then he chooses to do so at the risk of having a certain number of players choosing not to play.

That said...

I sure wish all pool rooms were non smoking. I hate it! But I keep going back. I did build a practice room in my backyard so I had more choices. If you smoke in there I'll have your butt! :D
 
duckie said:
Here in CA where smoking in indoors and certain places outdoors is banned, the local rooms around here don't have a problem if being busy.

For a big tourney not to consider that some players maybe coming from states with smoking bans such as ca is really not being responsible and receptive to the needs of non smokers.

As non smoker and wanting to play in a major tourney, I should not have to put up with smoking of others.

There are not others tourneys you can always go to. Remember the discussio is about a events that may not happen all the time, DCC, US open comes to mind.

In this aspect, the promoters do have a responsibility to provide healthy playing conditions for all players. Some players may have health issues that a smoking environment would impair their playing.

There is another thread about smoking killing pool rooms. There have been post by room owners that went from smoking to non smoking with a increase in business and more family members coming in also.

There is a difference between a bar with pool tables and a pool room. The biggest difference is that a pool room does not have a minimum age requirement.

A pool room owner needs to consider a wide range of clientele. Two come to by mind, kids and seniors. There is also family nights out, dates and so on.

The growth of pool is gonna come from non smokers more than smokers. There needs a place for them.

Lastly, the statement made by several that "We all learn to play pool in smokey places" is utter non sense.

I learned to play pool in the towns rec center, a non smoking place. The room I went to way back had no smoking.

When I returned to playing pool seriously, I play in a non smoking room since I live in Ca.

I really would not like to decide about going to play in a a major tourney that happens once a year if they allow smoking.

And for you smokers that do not understand this, well, learn some manners.
Click to expand...

So it is fvck you if you don't like the non smokers deciding what goes on in normal poor rooms?

As I previously identified. An in your face crowd.


Organize your own non smoking rooms and tournaments? Leave the others alone. The owner can post a sign of either Smoking Room, or Smoke Free Room. Economics will determine the survivors.

Since when does a non involved person, decide what goes on in someones private business? Well it is those rent seekers, who have discovered that they are better than the minority group.

Rent seeking

Bring out the white robes. They think they are in charge. And they have not a lesson to learn. Give me a break.

Your sensitivities are driving pool establishments out of business. Or is that the real plan? :grin:



 
whats with font...kind of annoying...cant you just use a normal font like everyone else? smoking is a habit and a bad one at that and it invades peoples personal space. I also smoke but curse the day i started!! i try not to offend others with my bad habit and its not a necessity in life like a car,etc is that also pollutes the air and if you have issues with authority, protest or get an army together and overthrow the govt...my opinion
 
Last edited:
Smoking bans - coming soon to a park near you

Smoking bans - coming soon to a park near you


I always hesitate to write about this topic for fear that some local nanny state government will decide to copy the idea. But if we don't educate ourselves about such efforts, they will continue unabated.

My husband's been doing some work in Pennsylvania and has brought me several newspapers from the area. In a recent Lancaster, PA, paper, I read an article about a plan to ban smoking in parks.

An effort to stamp out smoking in public places was introduced in Mountville Borough on Monday, but officials took no action.

Angela Trout, communications coordinator for the Lancaster YWCA, and Mary LeVasseur, manager of community health and wellness for Lancaster General Health, presented details of the Young Lungs at Play initiative to borough council members.

"One of our initiatives is to have smoke-free, tobacco free outdoor areas," LeVasseur said.

The program seeks to ban smoking in all municipal-owned open areas and parks in the county.


From what I could find on line, the Young Lungs At Play program is primarily in Pennsylvania and New York - so far. Soon, however, I'm sure it will be coming to a town near you.

When smoking bans first started, they were only going to be in airplanes - an enclosed area where people couldn't get away from the smoke. Then they extended to restaurants and other eateries, and to public buildings and then to entrances to public buildings. Arkansas, California, Louisiana, Maine and Oregon, and also Puerto Rico - have banned smoking in cars when children are present.

And now, under the convenient 'for the children' excuse, towns are banning smoking outside.​

You can see that those who warned of a slippery slope were, indeed, correct.

Don't get me wrong - I don't smoke and don't like inhaling it, second-hand or otherwise. I find it to be a vile practice and hate that too many smokers believe the entire world is their ashtray so they leave their butts everywhere. I've known polite smokers (whom I appreciate) and rude ones. I believe much of the problems with smoking and the desire for smoking bans relates more to a lack of manners than anything else.​

I don't have a problem with a private business - even one open to public accommodation - making their business smoke-free. And I don't have a problem with a local government deciding that their office buildings and work environment will be smoke-free.

What I do have a problem with is the imposition, through the force of government, of someone else's choice on me and others, even when it is one I agree with.

Because I didn't like the smell of smoke and the way it lingered on my clothes and in my hair, I didn't go to bars. I made a choice based upon my own wants to not subject myself to such an environment. There were plenty of others who chose differently, as is their option in a free society.

But along came the busybodies - people who decided they knew better than the rest of us - who pushed to have their non-smoking preference mandated and enforced by government through threat of criminal sanctions.​

And, not surprisingly, there were plenty of politicians and newspaper editorial boards (who also hand out endorsements to the politicians) ready to jump on the bandwagon to exercise control over what should have been handled by a free market and a private property owner's business decision-making.

Yes - I do believe that a free-market solution existed. I do believe that increasing amounts of non-smokers would have influenced the decisions of business owners to make their establishments smoke-free. And while it might have resulting in some places being completely smoke-free while others were not, this is the path I would have chosen. People could then patronize only those places that served their interests - as it should be in a free market.

But just when others were beginning to think along the same lines, "for the children' comes along - and no one wants to be (gasp!) against children!

So now we have more busybodies pushing towns to outlaw smoking outside to "protect children from the effects of secondhand smoke" and preserve "green spaces as a model for a healthy lifestyle." See? They obviously know better than you do.
​
But do they?

Supporters of outdoor smoking bans will point to studies that say any exposure to smoke is harmful, especially to people with certain conditions like asthma or other breathing issues.

But one of the studies referenced by many groups, has details that aren't always shared by smoking ban supporters.

"We were surprised to discover that being within a few feet of a smoker outdoors may expose you to air pollution levels that are comparable, on average, to indoor levels that we measured in previous studies of homes and taverns," said Wayne Ott, professor (consulting) of civil and environmental engineering at Stanford and co-author of the JAWMA study. "For example, if you're at a sidewalk café, and you sit within 18 inches of a person who smokes two cigarettes over the course of an hour, your exposure to secondhand smoke could be the same as if you sat one hour inside a tavern with smokers. Based on our findings, a child in close proximity to adult smokers at a backyard party also could receive substantial exposure to secondhand smoke."

Unlike indoor tobacco smoke, which can persist for hours, the researchers found that outdoor smoke disappears rapidly when a cigarette is extinguished. "Our data also show that if you move about six feet away from an outdoor smoker, your exposure levels are much lower," Klepeis added.


"...outdoor smoke disappears rapidly..."
"...if you move about six feet away from an outdoor smoker..."
These are the two points rarely mentioned by outdoor smoking ban supporters.

So if you're outside at a park and there is a smoker there, just move away from him. Or, if the smoker is upwind of the playground equipment, politely ask if they wouldn't mind moving to a downwind position.

As I've found most smokers respond well to being asked politely to accommodate others, common courtesy - from both the smoker and the requesster - could easily address outdoor smoking and (gasp!) without the involvement of government. See how easy that is?

There are costs associated with making a law to ban smoking in public parks. Legal fees and advertising costs to adopt and publicize a new law could be a challenge for some towns, especially smaller ones or those that have budget problems.

Never fear, though. In the time-proven approach, the Mountville supporters of the smoking ban are perfectly willing to accept incrementalism:​

At the very least, she (Trout) said municipalities could look at establishing designated smoking areas that are not near areas where children play.


Just like with restaurants, they'll start with designated smoking areas and then keep moving the ball down the field. And after they get this law, they will find that further protection of the children is necessary. 'We've done so much to protect children in public, but the real problem is what they're exposed to in private,' they'll say.

Think about it - who brings children to the park? Their parents. And if the child's parents don't smoke, it's likely that they'll be exposed to smoke from the parents of their friends and neighbors.

So what is a nanny state supposed to do? Well, ban smoking at home, of course. It's already being supported and suggested by individuals in the U.S, as well as by publications from the National Institutes of Health. After all, it's "for the children."

Let's not forget Obamacare, either. When the government controls your health care, they'll control your health habits, as well.

To a nanny state, and increasingly to people within the nanny state, this makes perfect sense. If the government (taxpayer) is going to cover the costs of your medical treatments, they have every 'right' to tell you how to live and what things you are allowed to do to reduce the costs of your care - costs that everyone (well, taxpayers) are covering.

And since government is all about a one-size-fits-all approach, banning unhealthy behavior is clearly the best way to go about regulating medical costs.

Yes, this is a slippery slope.

My solution would be easier and wouldn't result in an erosion of liberty for everyone: don't cover the health costs of anyone and they'll be more likely to be responsible in their health choices and/or be willing to suffer the consequences of bad decisions. See how easy that is? And it's so much better and cheaper than creating a law to ban anything and everything that might cause one (or some) people harm while not impacting others.

But the goal in these efforts is NOT freedom.
​
Sadly, too many Americans just don't understand the slope they're on.

 
Topic

Hasn't this topic been discussed to death ... let's let it die. You non-smokers are killing me!!! :D:D:D
 
champ2107 said:
Smoking is optional, whereas breathing is not. <<< think about it

you like that font?[/QUOTE]




Going into a smoking room is optional. That means, you do not
have to go in. And breathe there.

We both know that thought and thinking counts more than
intimidation by government.

I do like your font. Quite legible. Perhaps you could experiment
with #7.
Click to expand...
 
Red Shoes said:
Very good post "Slide Rule".
Click to expand...

Thanks.

I attended many smoking meetings for the owner of Glass City Billiards. Marty was a very heavy man and he asked me to represent him.

I did a TV interview that made the local channel. The first question was, "Did I smoke?"

In Toledo, the smoking ban was passed. That shunted business to over the line establishments in Michigan. The city harassed one owner who was active in getting the ban stopped into closing his shop just this past month.

Michigan passed a smoking ban. But it was too late to recapture what local businesses that had closed.

I see smoking in the establishments, but it is low key.

I had advised that the local businesses go after the persons, family, and friends of those who opposed them. Get information, photos, film whatever. And publish for all to see, what the relationships they were having. But the group was too timid. They needed to escalate to save themselves.

These people just wanted to continue their business. The non smoking in your face people were happy to close down these establishments. Or, lie about the consequences.

The problem was that the establishment owners were liberal minded or they would not have started the businesses they had. They were surprised that other liberal thinking people would screw them. People who they considered like minded.

And, did I say, I never smoked. It is an issue of freedom, capitalism, and economics for me.

:D

 
Slide Rule said:
champ2107 said:
Smoking is optional, whereas breathing is not. <<< think about it

you like that font?[/QUOTE]




Going into a smoking room is optional. That means, you do not
have to go in. And breathe there.

We both know that thought and thinking counts more than
intimidation by government.

I do like your font. Quite legible. Perhaps you could experiment
with #7.
Click to expand...

Going into a business, any business is also optional. And it is so optional, that the business owners were fully informed there would be city, county and state laws and regulations in which they would have to abide by. Well, rather than opening a poolroom in Sticksville, Montana, they decided to come to the populated areas anyways. Then when they are regulated, the seem a bit confused about it after the fact.

As you know, I too don't like big government and imposing their better ways. But sometimes for consistency, and the protection of all workers equally, this is a must.

Yes, I guess the waiters, waitresses, bus staff, cooks, etc. etc. could find jobs elsewhere, but I'm sure the same could be said of the coalminers, window washers, and other dangerous occupations that went unregulated or under regulated far too long.

I can't bring a lot of stuff in my employers office due to government regulations; hazardous waste, and other dangerous stuff, and I'm not really sure why smokers believe they should get a free pass just because they are addicted to the hazard.

But it's all good. Smoking laws are here to stay, so I'm a happy camper, and even happier pool player.... and don't be hating on my fonts :)

Click to expand...
 
ChicagoRJ said:
Going into a business, any business is also optional. And it is so optional, that the business owners were fully informed there would be city, county and state laws and regulations in which they would have to abide by. Well, rather than opening a poolroom in Sticksville, Montana, they decided to come to the populated areas anyways. Then when they are regulated, the seem a bit confused about it after the fact.

As you know, I too don't like big government and imposing their better ways. But sometimes for consistency, and the protection of all workers equally, this is a must.

Yes, I guess the waiters, waitresses, bus staff, cooks, etc. etc. could find jobs elsewhere, but I'm sure the same could be said of the coalminers, window washers, and other dangerous occupations that went unregulated or under regulated far too long.

I can't bring a lot of stuff in my employers office due to government regulations; hazardous waste, and other dangerous stuff, and I'm not really sure why smokers believe they should get a free pass just because they are addicted to the hazard.

But it's all good. Smoking laws are here to stay, so I'm a happy camper, and even happier pool player.... and don't be hating on my fonts :)

Click to expand...

I know you hold a conservative view on some things. Sorry you
feel that way about government intrusion. I am a non smoker, so
I appreciate it when smoke is absent or filters are installed.

Yet it is an in your face issue brought to you by the We are
Better Than You group. That is morally superior
to you low lifes. Not sure these guys even play pool. Those
people who are offended that there is smoking somewhere on the
planet. Like smoking in someone else's car, in a park or on a
sidewalk.

This is certainly not in the "fine upstanding young man spirit".

Font War
I use font 3, our friend uses font 6, and you are using font 4.

Somewhat splitting the difference.

I do though like the blue. :D




Correction.
Corrected quote of ChicagoRJ that was incorrectly attributed.
 
Last edited:
Uh oh...slide rule is arguing with himself again...(check your quote tags)
 
champ2107 said:
he or she usually has an avtar with a guy that has a cigarette dangling from it too. Some of you americans get all freaky and paranoid over your government
Click to expand...


I am a He.

While others look to government to make all of their personal
decisions.

It is a matter of degree of comfort and freedom.

We Americans are not Europeans, nor comfortable of European
style government control.

.
 
im guessing you have a bomb shelter out back too, right and its all stocked up with food and a nice arsenal of weapons just encase anarchy hits the world?
 
I smoked for over 25 years and quit in 1994, but I don't go around bashing smokers. However, I do prefer frequenting places where smoking is not allowed. That doesn't mean I don't go into places that allow smoking...it just means I prefer non-smoking.

With that being said, I don't really see what the problem is here. As long as businesses are following the laws concerning smoking indoors, then the WHOLE decision falls upon the customer. TO ENTER, OR NOT TO ENTER!

If you like smoking indoors and they don't allow it...put up with it and SHUT UP ABOUT IT and smoke outside...or choose NOT to go there.

If you don't smoke and they allow smoking indoors...put up with it and SHUT UP ABOUT IT...or choose NOT to go there.

I started smoking way back when you could smoke anywhere...planes, trains, automobiles, restaurants, etc. Over the years when smoking was being pushed outside, I stood in the cold, rain, etc. in order to smoke. I may have preferred doing it indoors, but I couldn't...SO I SHUT UP ABOUT IT and followed the rules. WTF IS SO HARD ABOUT THAT?
 
Last edited:
HawaiianEye said:
I smoked for over 25 years and quit in 1994, but I don't go around bashing smokers. However, I do prefer frequenting places where smoking is not allowed. That doesn't mean I don't go into places that allow smoking...it just means I prefer non-smoking.

With that being said, I don't really see what the problem is here. As long as businesses are following the laws concerning smoking indoors, then the WHOLE decision falls upon the customer. TO ENTER, OR NOT TO ENTER!

If you like smoking indoors and they don't allow it...put up with it and SHUT UP ABOUT IT and smoke outside...or choose NOT to go there.

If you don't smoke and they allow smoking indoors...put up with it and SHUT UP ABOUT IT...or choose NOT to go there.

I started smoking way back when you could smoke anywhere...planes, trains, automobiles, restaurants, etc. Over the years when smoking was was being pushed outside, I stood in the cold, rain, etc. in order to smoke. I may have preferred doing it indoors, but I couldn't...SO I SHUT UP ABOUT IT and followed the rules. WTF IS SO HARD ABOUT THAT?
Click to expand...

It is good that you can accommodate to rules voted on by others.
You may accommodate to other losses of freedom. But it is
good to be comfortable. Nothing hard about giving up freedom or
your life for that matter. Go ahead, rest easy. :p

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top