The smoking issue

[spktur]

But,,,, in my opinion, A person who owns a poolroom or bar, should have the right to allow people to smoke. They could have said, "you must post a large sign outside all entrances, saying this is a smoking establishment." I quit smoking, about 28 years ago. I am an adult, and able to make my own decisions about whether to be around someone smoking. I don't need the Government or anyone else to say no. What will all you people do, when the government starts to tell you, coffee ain't healthy for you. it's now against the law to have any product with caffein. Or any product that contains alcohol, such as aftershave. They did that once with Prohibition. Do you think it won't happen again, as they take more and more of our rights away. I realize smoke gets in the air, and into peoples lungs who happen to be around it. But trust me, when you start to forfeit freedom of choice for 1 thing, you open the door to lose other freedoms, that you may not want to lose.

I enjoy playing pool in a non-smoking room, and I imagine the owners of those places are finding it keeps the room a lot cleaner and smelling better. But I think a person has a right to operate their business, and make a living without this rule being forced on them.

you and I are on the same page.

 

[spktur]

It is always amusing to see folks drape their arguments in "loss of liberty" when the decisions go against something they want.

When the governing body of the land decides upon an action that is in the public's best interest, it is not necessarily in the guise of restricting freedom.

Let's see...

It was discovered that lead-based paint was harmful, and it was then regulated and no longer allowed. How was your "liberty" affected?

DDT was once widely used as a pesticide, until it was discovered to be rather harmful to we humans. Its use was banned. And your "liberty"? Affected much?

Coca Cola once contained cocaine. Once that little snafu was discovered, it was eliminated. All chuckling aside, did that affect your "liberty"?

I'm sure we could do this all day. (Actually, we have been doing this, on thread after thread after thread.) Governments ban harmful products all the time, and will continue to do so. The fact that people want to continue to use those harmful products doesn't equate to a "loss of liberty", it simply means that those people will be breaking the law of the land when they choose to continue to do something that will harm other people.

Pretty simple. I am sorry that it bothers you smokers so much, and I understand why it does. The addiction is insidious. Sadly, you smokers aren't at all sympathetic with the fact that non-smokers do not want to be subjected to your harmful habit. And you aren't concerned with my "loss of liberty" at all. Apparently "liberty" has many definitions, and apparently some are more deserving of their particular version of "liberty" than others. Again, we don't care if you continue to smoke. We just don't want to smoke along with you, and smell like you. And die of cancer or some other respiratory disease along with you. That is where your "liberty" ends and mine begins.

I don't care if the owner bans smoking or not, it's his business and I will abide by his rules without question. If you don't like the way an owner runs his business don't go there. If you are in the majority them most likely the business will adjust to your needs.

By the way check your stats the banning of DDT has caused more harm than good. Since the banning the deaths due to mosquito born disease has greatly increased and caused more deaths than the possible damge by the chemical.

 

[beav99_4life]

I'm not talking about me consuming alcohol or cheeseburgers. There needs to be a law to stop you from drinking or eating so that you don't cause a drain on the public in general by your bad habits. These cost an undetermined amount of expense in health care and and lost productivity on the job which society has to make up due to your lack of consideration.

Show me where a serious study shows that little to moderate alcohol consumption is dangerous to one's health. From everything i've read, a glass of wine is considered healthy. As for the cheeseburgers and health care cost, if you really believe that is a viable argument, then there's really no need to continue any kind of intellectual discussion with you, because you're looking through rose-colored lenses. I'm talking about a habit that includes a person inhaling a toxic smoke into their lungs and then exhaling it so that those around them will also inhale those same life-threatening toxins at a lesser degree. Sorry, your dog just ain't gonna hunt in this debate. The people of my state voted not to allow others to jeopardize their health and well-being, who are you to decide if my life should be shortened because others have an addiction?

 

[satman]

I don't smoke

It is always amusing to see folks drape their arguments in "loss of liberty" when the decisions go against something they want.

When the governing body of the land decides upon an action that is in the public's best interest, it is not necessarily in the guise of restricting freedom.

Let's see...

It was discovered that lead-based paint was harmful, and it was then regulated and no longer allowed. How was your "liberty" affected?

DDT was once widely used as a pesticide, until it was discovered to be rather harmful to we humans. Its use was banned. And your "liberty"? Affected much?

Coca Cola once contained cocaine. Once that little snafu was discovered, it was eliminated. All chuckling aside, did that affect your "liberty"?

I'm sure we could do this all day. (Actually, we have been doing this, on thread after thread after thread.) Governments ban harmful products all the time, and will continue to do so. The fact that people want to continue to use those harmful products doesn't equate to a "loss of liberty", it simply means that those people will be breaking the law of the land when they choose to continue to do something that will harm other people.

I just believe, Grady has a right to allow smoking inside, if he chooses to. And anyone who don't want to breathe that air, should go somewhere else. I will add this, If they allow smoking in an establishment, they should not allow any person below the legal age to BUY cigarettes inside the place. Parents should never be allowed to take their kids into a place that allows smoking. If you wanna make a law about smoking, make it illegal to smoke around kids. They don't have the knowledge to realize what the effect could be on their lives.

 

[spktur]

Show me where a serious study shows that little to moderate alcohol consumption is dangerous to one's health. From everything i've read, a glass of wine is considered healthy. As for the cheeseburgers and health care cost, if you really believe that is a viable argument, then there's really no need to continue any kind of intellectual discussion with you, because you're looking through rose-colored lenses. I'm talking about a habit that includes a person inhaling a toxic smoke into their lungs and then exhaling it so that those around them will also inhale those same life-threatening toxins at a lesser degree. Sorry, your dog just ain't gonna hunt in this debate. The people of my state voted not to allow others to jeopardize their health and well-being, who are you to decide if my life should be shortened because others have an addiction?

I agree you can't continue an intellectual discussion. You are typical of so many liberals who "know what's best for everyone". I'm simply saying leave the operation of a business up to the owner of the business. If he wants to run his business as no-smoking I have no issue with that but it is his decision to make.

 

[ronshirley]

I agree you can't continue an intellectual discussion. You are typical of so many liberals who "know what's best for everyone". I'm simply saying leave the operation of a business up to the owner of the business. If he wants to run his business as no-smoking I have no issue with that but it is his decision to make.

Actually it has been determined that it is not his decision because it also adversely affects the health of his workers.

It is now a fact that many states and possibly before too long in most states and hopefully at some point all states will have determined that workers should not be forced to be exposed to harmful chemicals.

Workers do have a right to a non-toxic workplace. And do not give me the line of bull that they can work elsewhere.

I wonder if you would have this same attitude about not regulating behavior that is harmful to others if a driver that is plastered some day runs down your wife or child. I hope that never happens but to those it has happened to I am sure that they would have preferred a bit more regulation and enforcement regardless of any peril to the liberties of the drinker.

By the way, yes I do drive an "electric car" to the pool room. Or as close to one as I can now get, a hybrid. And I do go at least 3 days per week and believe me I would never go at all if there was smoking allowed inside. It's bad enough that they all congregate just outside the door and I have to hold my breath while passing through.

 

[vasilios]

Ahh the savory taste of a t-bone steak fresh off the grill.a little salt and pepper.maybee your favorite steak sauce.
little salad on the side with your favorite dressing sweet,sour or cheese based.some veggies and a hot roll will be nice.
how about a desert,pie,pudding or cake. what would you like,choose something.little things like this you wont have to worry about
going to the polls to vote on so that they can be banned or regulated.When they came with the tobacco trap it wasnt just for
tobacco only.it covers everything that they will say is unhealthy when they say it is unhealthy.They have the permission now.you
gave it to them.Fasten your seat belts,you wont want to fall off this ride you might get hurt.remember it is unhealthy.

bill

 

[beav99_4life]

I agree you can't continue an intellectual discussion. You are typical of so many liberals who "know what's best for everyone". I'm simply saying leave the operation of a business up to the owner of the business. If he wants to run his business as no-smoking I have no issue with that but it is his decision to make.

If by knowing that smoking causes cancer, lung and heart disease and death for those who do it and those who breath it second-hand is "knowing what's best for everyone", then yeah, you're right. Those pesky medical research results are a b*tch huh? If you have proof against these facts, i'd love to hear or read them.

 

[LWW]

90 percent of Ohioan's love the smoking ban. The 10 percent who don't are smokers and bar owners.

Then why are bars and pool rooks collapsing statewide since the smoking ban?

Please don't blame the economy because the downturn in business was immediate and before the downturn.

LWW

 

[LWW]

But smoking doesnt do "bad stuff" to just the smoker, but those around them too. Sorry, the health of those around them trump the bad habit of the individual.

Has anyone ever forced you to enter a pool room where people smoke?

What's that?

They haven't?

Then you exercised free will to enter.

So, why do you expect that your rights should have preference over the rights of the property owner?

LWW

 

[LWW]

Want to hear something funny? Go to any bar in Ohio and listen to the smokers complain about the ban, and then ask how many of them actually got up and went to vote against it if they despise it so much.

And then count the non smokers who come out now but didn't before.

What's that?

There aren't any?

I know.

LWW

 

[LWW]

The only reason 90% of your customers are smokers is because non smokers stay away. When the smoking ban goes into affect the ratio will be 0% smokers to 100% non smokers so you will be gaining a lot of new customers.

That is a fantasy.

LWW

 

[LWW]

Grady,
20% of your customers smoke.
Not 90%. This is the fundamental flaw in your reasoning.
You can't seem to understand that your current business model serves ONLY 20% of your customers.
Eddie

And you know this how?

LWW

 

[LWW]

The pool hall owner does, of course. (He and the bank, natch.)

But that doesn't give him the right to endanger the lives of his patrons, by allowing smoking or any other legal but dangerous activity to occur on his premises, when being licensed by the community and/or state that he does business in. Smoking has been determined to endanger the lives of those who partake, and of those who are subjected to the secondhand effects of that partaking.

And the presence of all these other cars on the road endangers my life when I drive.

I demand that the roads be devoid of cars when I go somewhere.

LWW

 

[LWW]

DDT was once widely used as a pesticide, until it was discovered to be rather harmful to we humans. Its use was banned. And your "liberty"? Affected much?

Actually ... DDT has been proven to be totally safe to humans, yet the ban continues and has cost many millions of people their lives from malaria and mosquito borne diseases.

But, as compensation the goody-goodys don't have to admit they were wrong ... so I'm sure the dead will understand.

LWW

 

[LWW]

If by knowing that smoking causes cancer, lung and heart disease and death for those who do it and those who breath it second-hand is "knowing what's best for everyone", then yeah, you're right. Those pesky medical research results are a b*tch huh? If you have proof against these facts, i'd love to hear or read them.

Sorry, but the science just isn't on your side on that.

LWW

 

[Dave Nelson]

LWW

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

Are you sure that Einstein said that? Can you show us the context?

Dave Nelson

 

[chefjeff]

(snip what's already been refuted) That is why these restrictions need to be state-wide, or even country-wide.

Then we will truly have a healthier environment.

Healthier than what, freedom? Impossible. Compare the no-freedom world to the free world: which is healthier? Kill business (freedom) and you quickly kill all health, i.e., real persons die unnecessarily.

Last century, just in case anyone missed that one, govts murdered over 262,000,00 real live persons. Not exactly "healthier."

fwiw...embrace the deadliest threats to life if you wish, but not I. I can choose to enter a private business OR NOT, but I can't choose to effectively avoid the state because they hold the big gun in the (pool)room.

Jeff Livingston

 

[Bambu]

I was going to answer Donny Mill's query about could anyone justify smoking in today's pool rooms? On the thread though, it was far off topic. I'll try and please non-smokers don't light into me. As I do this, remember I don't smoke.
90% of my customers smoke. Go out my front door in either direction one mile and it is legal to smoke but not in my little parcel of the township where my room is located. My town wants me to be non-smoking and also build a deck for my customers to go outside to smoke.
Playing pool and having a few drinks and enjoying smoking with friends is Americana at it's finest,NOT going outside in
the cold to enjoy one of life's greatest pleasures.
American pool rooms have to fade internet poker, casinos, inflation, taxation up the ying-yang. Lots of places are out of business and more to come. How about giving me and others a break about the smoking? I promise that I have suffered a lot more from alcohol and drugs than I ever did from smoking.
Thanks for your kind attention.
"The Professor"

I am with you Grady. Your room, your money, your rules....end of story.

 

[chefjeff]

It is always amusing to see folks drape their arguments in "loss of liberty" when the decisions go against something they want.

(snip).

But I want a non-smoking pool hall. I enjoy clear air.

I want maximum liberty for all (not just selfish ol' me, but for me, the other players, smokers, pool hall owners, everyone)

So, I'm defending liberty for some single issue that I don't even want (smoky poohalls). See, liberty is a negative thing. That is, it does not require even one thing from another person, save leave me alone, and leaving one alone requires no extra, that is postive, action on another.

One the other hand, the non-smoking "law" is a positive. It requires that the room owners and his paying, voluntary customers do something for another, that is, take actions they don't want to take and wouldn't without the guns of govt pointed at them---even as they've initiated harm against no one. That makes the non-smoking "laws" unatural or non-law, thus those make more trouble than they solve....by nature. It can be no other way.

Law came before governments.

Jeff Livingston