He didn't make them do it. The law did. The law is a representation of the will of the people. This is quite the opposite of the will of a king.
KMRUNOUT
Smoking at tournament matches
- Thread starter JoeyA
- Start date
He didn't make them do it. The law did. The law is a representation of the will of the people. This is quite the opposite of the will of a king.
KMRUNOUT
I don't think "extremist" is the word you were looking for, at least not if you are not going to proceed to point out all the ways that his example did not go far enough. I'm sure there is some term to fit this sort of analogy: "because other things are harmful, it is extremist of you to target any one thing".
KMRUNOUT
I don't know how they do things down there in America land, but up here business owners have the responsibility to provide a safe establishment for the pubic and their employees.
They do not have the right to pick and choose what's safe and what's not. Nor should they because when the rubber hits the road money will always triumph over people.
As far as your opinion on whether or not smoking and second hand smoking kills there is pretty conclusive evidence out available. If you choose to ignore or disbelieve it that's your choice, but don't use it as a basis for any argument here in the real world.
Good luck with that.........
Go back and read your post I was replying to:
Now read my reply a couple times:
Now, if you've actually read your comments and my reply, does it make more sense? Pay attention to this part of your comment:
"Now.. if there are no smoke free places around, you say.. "Ha, Too bad!" Now.. why is this too bad? I am no longer allowed to do things I enjoy, because I am bothered by something a small amount of people enjoy doing?"
You're saying that every business should cater to your desires, and forcing you to simply go somewhere else is just unfair. But that's how life, and the free-market system works. As I said in another post, my local bar plays nothing but country music...if it bothers me that much, instead of ranting that the owner should cater to me, I'd just go somewhere else. Does that example make more sense? You and everyone else does the same thing every day of your life. If you don't like the decor/service/atmosphere/prices/selection/quality of one business, you simply choose to go somewhere else. I don't understand how a business being smoking or not breaks this basic economic thought process for some people.
And my example of a pool hall being an hour away...if it bothers me it is so far, I should either open my own place or quit crying about it. That's called "free choice", which is what I was hoping you would get from the example. Nobody has a gun to my head forcing me to enter any business, and nobody should have the government's gun pointing at the owner's head telling him how he should run his business. People make rational choices like this every single day in every business transaction they are a part of. From which gas station they go to (balancing convenience vs price) to which grocery store they go to (balancing convenience vs price vs selection) to which restaurant they eat at (balancing selection vs quality) etc etc etc. This is basic micro101 stuff here. Every transaction is a balance of the customer's preferences, and that is what determines where they bring their business.
My local restaurant serves chinese food, because the owner WANTS to serve chinese food. If I want him to serve mexican food instead that's 'too bad' for me, it is his place of business. But the anti-smoking nuts want every business to cater to them and damn the owner's thoughts. If he wants to run a scuzzy smoky pool room, it should be his right to do so, and your right as a hopefully thinking adult to choose not to go there. But that's not what you are saying, you are saying YOU should choose how he runs his business. It's the height of selfishness and convenience: every place should do things MY way, no exceptions, because hey, I have the right to go into any business and have it be how I want it. That's the basic problem here, and why people in favor of property rights, the constitution, and personal freedom get annoyed when people sit there advocating fascist/totalitarian policies just because they are too short sighted to see the other side of the coin. The health arguments are all bullshit, the fake concern for employees..more bullshit, it's all about "I think there should be a law so things are done my way."
The difference is he's not the one advocating totalitarian-style intrusive nanny-state laws. He's saying he'd act like a thinking rational adult, and just go somewhere else. Which is apparently a shocking concept to some people, despite the fact they do it every day in every business transaction.
Last edited:
Classic example of a deflectionist. Instead of providing concrete facts and logic in an argument they bring in outside issues to deflect the issue at hand.
Spider1:
Normally, I wouldn't jump in the middle of any active debate between two parties, but in this one, I had to grab the opportunity to point out something that I think illuminates the major flaw in the "it's all about the business owner's preferences... don't like it? Go some place else!" stance.
We are indeed mixing apples and oranges here. *Business* preferences are not to be confused with public safety ordinances. But the anti-no-smoking crowd are conveniently overlooking this basic point -- perhaps by mistake, or perhaps by design.
Like it or not, smoking falls into the public safety ordinance category. It is NOT a business preference. At least in most major highly-populated areas of the country (e.g. both the west and east coasts, and certain large cities in the heartland). In those areas of the country that've not caught up yet, yes, it may be a preference for the time being, but not for long. A country-wide ban on indoor smoking has already started, and is creeping across the country. I don't care to get into a libertarian argument about the woes and the wrongs about this, nor whether the studies about second-hand smoke are wrong/biased/evil/agenda-bolted, but suffice to say it's happening, and I support it. And then it won't be a question of "business conduct preferences" anymore.
-Sean
We've been over this before, but there is something called assumed risk. A person ordering food at a restaurant assumes the food is not spoiled and rotten. A restaurant owner who advertised risky food preparation by a disclaimer such as "Notice: The consumption of raw or undercooked eggs, meat, poultry, seafood or shellfish may increase your risk of food borne illness." is off the hook if you order raw fish and get sick.
I can see people asking for smoking establishments to have prominent warning signs at the door (as someone mentioned earlier in the thread), but blanket bans are just absurd.
Careful Sean, you know how logic confuses people
Bottom Line: Smoking laws are here, they are not leaving anytime soon, and if you don't have them, they will be there shortly......
And you know what? I think that's fair -- in fact, not to take credit from anyone else in this thread, but I think I mentioned it in an earlier post.
The problem? It's unenforceable at the moment. And it's also undesirable from the business owner's perspective. Given the choice whether to put a sign in his/her window that says "Warning: smoke-polluted air inside" (or some other creatively-worded verbiage), or not, do you really think the business owner is going to elect to install a "business filtering mechanism" in his window like this? Of course not. He/she wants bodies walking in from the street -- the more, the merrier. If a customer suddenly finds that his/her eyes are watering from the smoke and had to walk out, oh well, at least the customer "walked in." <press that little clicker-counter on the belt>
This is why ordinances are created -- minimum-acceptable levels for those life necessities -- safe food, water, air, and environment.
-Sean
First it was asbestos, then it was set, then it was mercury.... Whenever will it end? If the business man wants to use those substances on HIS property, then he should be able to do so, dammit. Don't like it, go somewhere else.
Yep, we're being nicked to death because we prevent the usage of unsafe products and substances
Yep, we're being nicked to death because we prevent the usage of unsafe products and substances
I am all for this health kick movement and how who what and why gets regulated.lets kick it up a notch to protect everybody.private business has to qualify as grade A health certified.customers have to carry a grade A certified health card to enter.both customers and properties have to be re certified weekly. lets fix this door so it swings both ways.
bill
It might have been you indeed, but it is an awesome idea all around. Would solve this entire issue nicely!
You'd think that, but it isn't the case. Bar owners are in business (like everyone else) to make money, simple as that. And if it comes down to hanging a sign or possibly losing most of their most profitable demographic, trust me...that sign is going up! And the owner will most likely be saying 'halleluja' if he was at least given that choice to make! If his/her place caters to a clientele where smoking is a huge problem, he is going to do that instead, as should be their right!
Bars spend a lot of time and money catering to different demographics to maximize their profit. This is why decor is important, staffing choices is important, and even something like dress codes. Notice how when bars or clubs have dress codes they are always pretty similar? Why is that? Because by turning away the 'most likely to cause trouble' demographic they are hoping to attract and make-feel-safe the upper middle class drinking/dancing clientele who will spend more money. Simple as that. They should be able to do that because it is their business they can run how they see fit.
Someone earlier posted about how the pool hall they bought turned non-smoking and business did better, with more families and similar types coming in. Which is GOOD! Meanwhile there was still a smoky old pool hall up the street for people who want that sort of ambiance. Choice is good, it really is as simple as that. :smile:
anti smoking is an in your face sport.
It is nice to see ^^^^ a voice of reason.
Smoke Nazis join the group of other Nazis.
We live in a free country. The owner of an establishment calls the shots, not some anti group that has never picked up a pool stick.
My town saw the results of smoking bans. That is there are empty establishments where there was business before. Of course most anti smoking people are also anti gambling and anti pool. In case you haven't noticed. I have yet to see a pool table in a Starbucks.
If there are non smoking leagues, fine. Establishment can cater to them. It is just the denial of a basic right to use a legal substance.
And as for smoking breaks, I suppose it is ok to smoke illegal substances.
There is no reason for an anti smoking thread, as there have been anti smoking threads before. But I forgot, anti smoking is an in your face sport. And if you are wondering, I have never smoked.
:grin: :grin:
It is nice to see ^^^^ a voice of reason.
Smoke Nazis join the group of other Nazis.
We live in a free country. The owner of an establishment calls the shots, not some anti group that has never picked up a pool stick.
My town saw the results of smoking bans. That is there are empty establishments where there was business before. Of course most anti smoking people are also anti gambling and anti pool. In case you haven't noticed. I have yet to see a pool table in a Starbucks.
If there are non smoking leagues, fine. Establishment can cater to them. It is just the denial of a basic right to use a legal substance.
And as for smoking breaks, I suppose it is ok to smoke illegal substances.
There is no reason for an anti smoking thread, as there have been anti smoking threads before. But I forgot, anti smoking is an in your face sport. And if you are wondering, I have never smoked.
:grin: :grin:
Oh trust me, I knew what you were saying, and I know what I have wrote.. but Even when you explain your posts, You still don't make much sense to me, I dunno why.. but when you tell me about how it is my free choice to go to a place that smokes or doesn't and if I don't want to be around smoke, I just don't have to be!
Then follow it up with a post about how you have to travel an hr away to go to a pool hall, and it upsets you, and you don't get to go much, but you need to go to practice, so you suck it up, and if you didn't you had every right in the world to open your own business! You just can't demand someone else build one! right? Well.. you make it sound easy for someone to just go out and do whatever they want. If there isn't a pool hall within 30 mins of me that is non-smoking or in someone elses case smoking, and it upset them of not going, then we all have the ability to open our own pool hall (or business)!
Well.. I don't know about you.. but I don't have the financials to do what you act like anyone can do.. and i am sure that is the case of about 85% of the people who don't have business' themselves as well... So..
If there is a pool hall in my area, and it allows smoking, and it is always full of smoke, and I can't stand it.. but there isn't a non-smoking pool hall within 2 hrs.. You claim I should just open one. (Well... here give me about 200k, and I will go open a nice one, since you obviously have the spare cash! Haha). When in all reality, it doesn't hurt the smoker one bit to walk outside every so often and smoke for 2 mins, come back in, and start playing again. This solves everyone's problems, and it doesn't put anyone out. How can you count going outside to smoke as a problem.. I don't understand it.. At this point, I don't really see why anyone is arguing it.
It really doesn't matter though, because as my last 3 posts have ended.. In the end, non-smoking will be the norm, and the smoking ban will be national.
I hear tinfoil hats are being fitted for the the big bad government conspiracy theorists at noon tomorrow. I'll ask them to save you a spot in the line.
Neil:
First, thank you, as always, for your always-well-written opinion. No matter if we agree or disagree, I find your prose to be interesting reading.
Now, on topic, I mentioned I didn't want to get into a repartee about the woes or wrongs about the government stepping in on this whole smoking issue -- just that it's happening, and whether we like it or not, it's... well, happening.
I know there are a lot of readers here (including yourself) who subscribe to the X-Files-esque "gradually giving away control to those Bilderberg groupers." Everyone is entitled to his/her beliefs, and frankly, sometimes conspiracy theories are fun -- especially when you see some of the boneheads that work in government, compared to some of the unexplainable things that go on.
But putting those conspiracy theories aside, and just thinking about the past compared to now, I can't imagine that you'd say that all laws/ordinances enacted are due to someone taking the marbles out of your hand one by one. Seat belts and bicycle helmets, Neil? Really? Those really need to be explained? While it can be argued that perhaps these laws shouldn't exist for the mere purpose of culling dumb people from our midst (yes, I've heard that stance, too), it's more from the limiting lawsuits factor when some bonehead has a bike accident, injures themselves, and then tries to sue the city for millions for... I don't know... a raised flagstone in the sidewalk or something. Or better yet -- how about that all-time CLASSIC where some woman sued McDonalds for millions when she spilled coffee in her lap, it was 10-degrees hotter than what "hot coffee" is defined to be, and the fallout that ensued? (E.g. mandates on maximum temperature of hot liquids; plainly labeling coffee cups with a warning that contents are hot, etc.)
In one way, you can say you can blame your fellow boneheaded human beings for this crap. They are the catalyst for this, not some power-hungry entity that is looking to take your marbles away from you one by one. Laws and ordinances can be thought of as "scabs" and "scars" left from the healing process when a person, company, or government was injured by a lawsuit or other action. It's there to prevent it from happening again.
The long and short of it is that humans by and large *need* to be controlled, otherwise chaos ensues. (Or prairie justice, depending on the people being hurt / taken advantage of.) Some people are so thick, so aloof, and so inconsiderate, that they *need* to be told that "this behavior" is not allowed. I wish all human beings had the same level of minimum-accepted common courtesy for his fellow man. But the fact is, they don't.
As for this topic of smoking during a tournament, unfortunately this thread seems to have lost its way due to its lightning rod nature. But in a way, it's a good thing, because the more lightning strikes that happen, eventually that thundercloud bleeds-off all its excess current and the strikes stop.
-Sean
I think you misunderstood justadub's post. He was being facetious and sarcastic.
-Sean