smoking ban and the effect on poolhalls??

[BHQ]

But as a room owner I will respond again for the umpteenth time. Check out all the rhetoric in the hundreds of prior threads on this subject. But I will put you in your place because you are so wrong it is becoming an embarassment for you.
I could make a lot of points in favor of non smoking over a smoking room as I owned one for 30 years that had to go no smoking and I was a heavy smoker but I do not think you have enough common sense to accept them.
Pool rooms are not going out of business because of non smoking. If a pool room cannot increase business because of this law they are not doing the right things. The bottom line is 75 percent of the nation does not smoke. If you cannot replace most smokers with non smokers based on that disparity you do not deserve to stay in business.
You are trying to say only smokers can support a business. That is hogwash.
The real problem is that pool is in a downward spiral in some parts of the country. Wake up and smell the roses my man.

thanks for putting me in my place.
did you read what i said?? "according to them......"
i said what the poolroom owners are saying, that's all.
i knew this would turn into a pissing contest.
maybe you can put them in thier place also since that seems to be your way

 

[ScottW]

Stick it in your ear. As a room owner it is not out of line. Read his rant in his first post on this subject. Those room owners are complaining, as I did but what they need is patience and new customers. Now go take a chill pill.

Apf. How is it "embarrasing" to BHQ, why does he have to "wake up and smell the roses" when he's just relating issues with his local pool room? If he was the OWNER of said room and was on here ranting about how HIS room was losing business, that's one thing. BHQ is merely a customer of the room in question.

You have problems with context.

 

[BHQ]

Apf. How is it "embarrasing" to BHQ, why does he have to "wake up and smell the roses" when he's just relating issues with his local pool room? If he was the OWNER of said room and was on here ranting about how HIS room was losing business, that's one thing. BHQ is merely a customer of the room in question.

You have problems with context.

exactly.
if i was the owner, i'd have half nekid women rackers.
smokers & non-smokers alike would both like that

 

[Russ Chewning]

This post is in response to cardsfan:

Dude, let me summarize your argument, if I might. You say that business owners should be allowed to do whatever they want as it pertains to their business, and government should get out of the way.

Here's where I blow your argument out of the water. If your reasoning were valid, then construction companies would still be allowed to use asbestos in insulation. Companies that make paint would still be allowed to use lead in their products. Farmers would still be allowed to use certain pesticides that are known to be toxic to humans, and have a proven vector path to reach humans through the food chain. Logging companies would still be allowed to use mercury.

When the government sees a public health risk, they are duty bound to step in and take action. The action may not be to totally ban the substance, but they can take action to limit the general populace's exposure to it.

So, come up with another argument ratehr than "the government should stay out of business owner's way.", because that does not hold water. Government has gotten in the picture before, had good reason, and protected innocent citizens along the way.

I think you are either a smoker, or you have a business, and are incapable of finding ways to make money without catering to smokers. Sorry, I feel no sympathy if it is the latter. There used to be opium parlors back in the days of the Wild West. Government saw that "that might not be such a good idea." So they shut down the parlors.

The people who invested in opium parlors either found something else to sell, or went out of business. That's the danger of business.

Get over it.

Russ

 

[BHQ]

Stick it in your ear. As a room owner it is not out of line. Read his rant in his first post on this subject. Those room owners are complaining, as I did but what they need is patience and new customers. Now go take a chill pill.

i wasn't ranting.
i was simply stating what i saw saturday nite at what usually is a very busy poolhall.
yes, there are other factors involved.
i'm well aware of that.
i don't live in a cave.
i'm out all the time picking up cues for repairs & dropping off.
sometimes i see more people playing poker than i do playing pool.
THAT does make me want to RANT. i hate cards

 

[Russ Chewning]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9376772&dopt=Abstract
(This one is most entertaining. Shows current and ex-smokers to be more prone to being psychotic. )
I suggest you go take logic 101. Smoking nicotine doesn't make you psychotic. But being psychotic makes you more prone to nicotine. Hasty gerneralization. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasty_generalization

Is it the smoking that makes a lot of people totally discount the feelings of their fellow man, or is it that antisocial people are drawn to smoking?

Umm, why do I need to take Logic 101? (Even though I actually did take Logic 101, 2003 at Hillsborough Community College.. Thanks for being concerned about my mental processes.. ) I asked if antisocial people might be drawn to smoking, as quoted above. I'm not sure what you think I was "generalizing"? I seem to have made my point very clear that smokers are either antisocial because of smoking, OR antisocial people are drawn to smoking. Either way, i submit that as a group, smokers are more antisocial. Maybe I'm not the one that's making hasty generalizations? Perhaps it would help if you would actually bother to try to figure out the point(s) I am attempting to make? I know it's hard.. Take a few extra minutes to think, if necessary.

http://www.tturc.uci.edu/media/pr-200402.html
(This one shows that persons with a hostile personality are more likely to become addicted to nicotine.)
" study suggest that the brains of hostile people are more likely to be stimulated by nicotine" No shit.

More proof for the fact that antisocial people are drawn to nicotine. Good. We agree on this.

http://www.une.edu.au/news/archives/000516.html
(Smokers tend to be more disagreeable, less conscientious and more neurotic than non-smokers, making it difficult to treat them for their addiction, a University of New England study has found.)
BECAUSE IT'S AN ADDICTION. But Crack heads are the most conscientious and mild mannered of all addicts.WTF?

So you agree that smokers as a group tend to be more disagreeable, less conscientious and more neurotic than non-smokers? SWEET! We are making progress, Dr. Watson!

http://www.physorg.com/news94367483.html
(In a study of U.S. Navy service women, Regular smokers were significantly more likely than non-smokers to be discharged for medical reasons, bad behaviour, misconduct, including drug misuse, and personality disorders.)
The findings are based on an analysis of the career progression of almost 5,500 women entering the US Navy over a period of 12 months between 1996 and 1997. Wow, that's a long study, gee I wonder why they stopped?

Oh, my my my my! NOW who's being intellectually dishonest? Either that, or your reading comprehension skills are exactly ZERO. (But thanks for suggesting I take Logic 101, wink wink.)

It says the analysis was of women entering the US Navy over a period of 12 months between 1996 and 1997. To those of us with adequate reading skills, this means this was a study of a specific group of woman who entered the Navy during this time period. Nowhere in the study does it say this study lasted a year. Either you could not comprehend that, or you quit reading when you had that "Hah ha ha! I 0wN him!" moment, when you "thought" the study only lasted a year. The study tracked these women for at least 5 years, as that is the normal enlistment time for a first enlistment, which was tracked int he study.

You read two sentences from the study, and thought you had a valid point. How embarassing.

Yo man, lemme know if you need more. This was from Google results 1 - 50 of about 710,000 English pages..

While your at it, don't forget to try FoxNews.

Ohhhhh.. Right. So you are against everything Fox News stands for. I guess that means Big Business too? So wait a minute.. You are probably FOR government interfering with Big Business, right? Just not for interfering in "Small" Business? Well, as long as you're intellectually consistent, right? (*guffaw*)

Gosh gollee gee. Validation is good, eh?

If believing everything you read makes you "feel validated", go for it.

Except you agreed with some of the articles when you "thought" they supported your worldview. Of course, I know you look at the world through smoke-colored glasses..

Russ

 

[MOJOE]

Same thing in Ohio!

In many cases, like here in Arizona, the "government" didn't pass the new smoking ban. The people passed it when they voted on it. Why do people continue to blame the government?

What really cracks me up is when I hear someone complaining about the smoking ban (and other poll results) and I ask them, "which way did you vote on that?" You already know the punchline ... they didn't vote.

Just as Jimmy M stated, the same thing happened in Ohio. The smoking banned passed by a considerable margin. It's not the state, it was the people that passed the ban.

I voted for the non-smoker, as I am one. The laws are not yet being enforced but soon enough, all of the Ohio pool halls and bars will be smoke free from what I hear!

 

[Russ Chewning]

I have one more point to make..

Let's look at it from a long term perspective.. Smoking is becoming less and less popular in American society. Legislation is being enacted, whether by the voters themselves, or by the state government.

Face it. It's GOING to happen. It's only a matter of time before ALL states enact legislation to prevent indoor smoking in businesses. It might take 10, 15, 25 years, but it's GOING to happen. So, business owners can either fight this trend, or they can plan for it.

I see a lot of people on here fighting it tooth and nail. When those businesses go out of business, they have no one to blame but themselves. Some of these businesses have such bad management skills, that the only reason they are showing a profit is because they are acting as one of the last few sanctuaries for smokers.

Here's a clue. Let's hope these business owners catch it. Non-smokers outnumber smokers by a HUGE margin. Catering to smokers in a business is just stupid. If you don't have the management skills to run a business that caters to non-smokers, don't blame the law. In fact, if I was the owner of a bar/pool hall, I would be pushing for a statewide smoking ban. It's just good business! I have seen the customer service of a lot of bars/pool halls that allow smoking, and they tend to be horrible. The smokers basically destroy the furniture, and the employees see what a smelly dump they work in, and just stop caring.

And one more piece of advice for the room owners that care about their customers, and want to make a profit. Just because I am a player, doesnt mean I don't have money to spend. At a certain pool hall in Lakeland, Florida, which shall remain unnamed, (ha-ha, everyone int he area knows there is ONE pool hall there) I have NEVER been asked if I want a soda, something to eat, etc. And I'll practice there for 6 hours sometimes! This hall makes it seem like anyone who has their own stick and case is a liability!

Sorry for this last second rant, but I'd like to feel like I am appreciated as a customer. The smoke in the place is bad enough. It's the only place in town. But then to be ignored by the waitresses.. That takes the cake.

I'll repot this in the room owner's section.

Russ

 

[Big Perm]

YES, this fun and energetic opinionated topic again

IMHO, it should be the choice of the owner.....if he wants folks to smoke, he can, but he'll lose business from the non-smokers.....if he doesn't want them to smoke, he can ban it.....just like it's his choice to have certain size tables, or liquor, or beer, or food, or sell retail cues, or have a jukebox, or TV's.....people can make a personal choice to deal with the smoke/non-smoking, and they vote with their pockets....

Just like Aimes Pool Hall......no music, no booze, no cards.....just pool....and smoking, as I remember

 

[SphinxnihpS]

The smoking bans are ANTI-AMERICAN!

I do not smoke, which is my choice. Others should be allowed to choose to smoke or not, where they like, and if other don't like being around smokers, they can go elsewhere. This also includes those poor poor people who work at these places. If they don't like the smoke, they can go elsewhere.

For a country based on the principle of freedom, we sure have been busy painting ourselves into corners lately.

The world is an unsafe place, and no amount of legislation will make it so, only more unbearably repressive.

 

[whitey2]

I agree with the last post

I agree with the last post, it seems anti-American to me.
As John Wayne said, "Smoke'em if ya got'em". I feel it
should be the choice of the owner of an establishment.

When does the alcohol ban go into effect?

 

[Russ Chewning]

The smoking bans are ANTI-AMERICAN!

I do not smoke, which is my choice. Others should be allowed to choose to smoke or not, where they like, and if other don't like being around smokers, they can go elsewhere. This also includes those poor poor people who work at these places. If they don't like the smoke, they can go elsewhere.

For a country based on the principle of freedom, we sure have been busy painting ourselves into corners lately.

The world is an unsafe place, and no amount of legislation will make it so, only more unbearably repressive.

So in my situation, you are cool with the ONE pool hall in my entire city being filled with smoke, requiring me to go 20 miles out of my way because of a habit belonging to a minority in the population, right?

Get off it. Noone is telling them they can't smoke. We are talking about having them walk outside and do it. This is NOT a major inconvenience, unlike having a person drive 20 miles out of their way.

And what if you happen to live in a remote area? Where there migt not be a poolhall closer than 50 miles away, like in areas of Texas?

Oh, oh, oh yeah. I see. A smoker's right to smoke indoors supercedes the rights of the other 75% of the population to be able to choose the ONLY available business.

Seriously.. Do people think before they enter intellectual discussions? I mean, what is the problem here? Smokers know that the vast majority of non smokers DO NOT LIKE the smell of smoke. So why make a big deal about going outside when you need a fix?

Russ

 

[BHQ]

Just as Jimmy M stated, the same thing happened in Ohio. The smoking banned passed by a considerable margin. It's not the state, it was the people that passed the ban.

I voted for the non-smoker, as I am one. The laws are not yet being enforced but soon enough, all of the Ohio pool halls and bars will be smoke free from what I hear!

hi joe. been meaning to come see your place . if you have time , could you email me some directions. was planning a trip to airway tonight, may stop in. brent, stix4sale@aol.com

 

[Russ Chewning]

I agree with the last post, it seems anti-American to me.
As John Wayne said, "Smoke'em if ya got'em". I feel it
should be the choice of the owner of an establishment.

When does the alcohol ban go into effect?

You conveniently ignored my other post.

Was it "anti-American" (versus "un-American".. ) for the U.S. government to ban smoking opium back in the days of the old West?

Was it "anti-American" for the U.S. government to tell construction business owners they were not allowed to use asbestos insulation any more?

Was it "anti-American" for the U.S. government to tell logging companies they could not use mercury in the logging process any more?

Was it "anti-American" for the U.S. government to tell farmers they could not use pesticides that leaked into the water supply anymore?

Was it "anti-American" for the U.S. government to tell U.S. Corporations that they had to follow a set of accounting standards, at risk of management going to prison if they refused?

Was it "anti-American" for the U.S. government to tell newspapers that they are not allowed to print the addresses of rape victims?

Was it "anti-American" for the U.S. government to tell businesses that they sometimes have to follow rules that may make their business less profitable, because the "will of the people" has spoken?

Face it. Government has been telling businesses what they can, and cannot do for a LOOOOONNNNNG time. And there is not one business person alive today that did not know that before setting up shop.

Often, the greater good overrides the business interests of a person, or group of people. And the business may suffer a little. That's just the way things are. The business owneers can fight it, and end up going out of business, or they can adapt and cash in on the new healthier America.

And just to let you know, it's not the government driving this non-smoking legislation as a whole. It's the people. So ***** to your fellow non smoking neighbor, if you must complain to anyone.

Nonsmokers are the majority, like it or not. And they say they want to go into any business that does not expressedly ban them, and not have to deal with what they consider to be "unsanitary" conditions.

And yes, having smoke soaked into every available surface is "unsanitary".

Russ

 

[ScottW]

The smoking bans are ANTI-AMERICAN!

I do not smoke, which is my choice. Others should be allowed to choose to smoke or not, where they like, and if other don't like being around smokers, they can go elsewhere. This also includes those poor poor people who work at these places. If they don't like the smoke, they can go elsewhere.

So, as a fellow American, I should NOT be free to go where I want to go and NOT have to breathe second-hand smoke?

By that logic, people should be able to set up a giant sound system wherever they want - outside a nursing home, for example - and blast death metal music as loud as they want. Those elderly people, if they don't like it, should just go somewhere else. :/

 

[TX Poolnut]

For a country based on the principle of freedom...

America isn't based on freedom. America is based on the democratic process. The vote is being taken in municipalities around this great nation. The majority gets its way. Sorry business owners.

The majority has spoken.

 

[cigardave]

What really bothers me about the smoking bans... btw, we've had one here in WA for a little over a year now... what bothers me is the blanket approach to the legislation... it covers all private businesses where there are employees. (the public sector had already been addressed)

I believe that there should be some businesses that are exempt from the ban... such as cigar stores... cigar bars... VFWs, Eagles, Moose, etc.... maybe even bars in general. But by lumping all private businesses together, the smokers didn't stand a chance when the issue went to a public vote.

Oh well... life goes on... just not the same way as it had previously.

 

[whitey2]

Oops, my bad...

[...]
Was it "anti-American" (versus "un-American".. ) for the U.S. government to ban smoking opium back in the days of the old West?
[...]

I should have said "un-American". As in, land of the free, home of the brave, etc., etc..

 

[Russ Chewning]

What really bothers me about the smoking bans... btw, we've had one here in WA for a little over a year now... what bothers me is the blanket approach to the legislation... it covers all private businesses where there are employees. (the public sector had already been addressed)

I believe that there should be some businesses that are exempt from the ban... such as cigar stores... cigar bars... VFWs, Eagles, Moose, etc.... maybe even bars in general. But by lumping all private businesses together, the smokers didn't stand a chance when the issue went to a public vote.

Oh well... life goes on... just not the same way as it had previously.

Not sure the smokers ever had a chance at all, thank goodness

I am sure there is some sort of process for getting an exemption. Businesses specifically catering to smokers, such as cigar shops, cigar bars, etc should in my opinion be exempt. The problem is, the pool halls and regular bars would soon attempt to take advantage of this work around by remaking themselves as a cigar bar.

I don't know what the solution is, all I know it is NOT just letting smokers smoke in whatever business they damn well please.

Russ

 

[Russ Chewning]

I should have said "un-American". As in, land of the free, home of the brave, etc., etc..

Oh NO NO NO! I'm not going to let you off that easy. I specifically asked you a number of questions.

Please respond.

Russ