Not true.
.
Then please, explain to us all how referendum voting works.
Not true.
.
Your assumption is incorrect. The govenment did not intervene.
All smoking bans, that I am aware of, were done at the local level and were done mostly by referendums where citizens circulated petitions requesting the question be placed before the voters who then decided whether, or not, to allow smoking in public places. This is how our democratic republic has operated for lo these many years, and hopefully, will continue to do so.
Then please, explain to us all how referendum voting works.
38 of 50 states so far have enacted legislation implementing state wide smoking bans. All of this is done under reference and pressure from the EPA (Federal Government). Some local governments have enacted their own ordinances when the states have been slow to act. Once the states laws are in force, they supersede local ordinances.
You can look at it state by state:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/...ate-by-sta_n_826672.html#s244219&title=Alaska
, I'm defending what should be basic civil rights and voting against the Government intervening in our lives. I can't find any argument for smoking being good for you. However, I also believe obesity is a far greater problem than second hand smoke but you don't see the Government closing McDonalds do you? If anyone thinks Government should be allowed to pass laws because they're "for your good", prayers sent. I don't have any desire to have a bunch of slime ball morons who can't run a business without going in debt by $15 trillion telling me what's good for me.
38 of 50 states so far have enacted legislation implementing state wide smoking bans. All of this is done under reference and pressure from the EPA (Federal Government). Some local governments have enacted their own ordinances when the states have been slow to act. Once the states laws are in force, they supersede local ordinances.
And your point is what?
If you come in to my pool room, you can't smoke. End of story.
I have a zipper in my chest and four stents, so if you think I'm going to rally around the flag on this one you've got another think coming.
And your point is what?
Mr.S, if this thread runs much longer, smoking and its effect on pool will be gone, cough cough .......................:groucho:
Nice try. After smoking for over 30 years, I quit a 2 pack + per day habit 5 years ago. Cold turkey, haven't had a puff since. BTW, I'm not defending the smoking habit, I'm defending what should be basic civil rights and voting against the Government intervening in our lives. I can't find any argument for smoking being good for you. However, I also believe obesity is a far greater problem than second hand smoke but you don't see the Government closing McDonalds do you? If anyone thinks Government should be allowed to pass laws because they're "for your good", prayers sent. I don't have any desire to have a bunch of slime ball morons who can't run a business without going in debt by $15 trillion telling me what's good for me.
Nice try. After smoking for over 30 years, I quit a 2 pack + per day habit 5 years ago. Cold turkey, haven't had a puff since. BTW, I'm not defending the smoking habit, I'm defending what should be basic civil rights and voting against the Government intervening in our lives. I can't find any argument for smoking being good for you. However, I also believe obesity is a far greater problem than second hand smoke but you don't see the Government closing McDonalds do you? If anyone thinks Government should be allowed to pass laws because they're "for your good", prayers sent. I don't have any desire to have a bunch of slime ball morons who can't run a business without going in debt by $15 trillion telling me what's good for me.
I'll say it again, Face Book, video games, Slot's, Poker did more damage to pool than any smoking ban's.
You hear this type of argument all the time. However, obesity in one person does not affect another. A persons "right" to smoke does affect the health of those that otherwise choose not to be harmed by the habit. The "rights" of a person to smoke do exist, just not over the rights of others aroun them to not be affected by it, thus they are the ones go have to take he habit elsewhere. It makes common sense.
This discussion is futile. The rule is going to expand, not shrink. This, pool either needs to adapt to it and find ways to thrive, or continue to complain about it instead, and continue to become more and more irrelevant as a choice of people for entertainent.
your right dead nuts!!!!!!i'll say it again, face book, video games, slot's, poker did more damage to pool than any smoking ban's.
The people concerned with second hand smoke, allowed to occur by the person who own the business, have every right in the world not to go in that establishment. That establishment is not a public building rather, a privately held business. Your argument implies an inalienable right to go into a privately owned property, such right doesn't exist. Nor should it.
In the case of buildings where people must go, such as schools, court house, bureau of motor vehicles, doctor office, etc., I would agree with a smoking ban.
I agree. It was the ban combined with the fact that someone could smoke while they did these other things. It made the choice easy. You can go to the casino and play the slots and smoke. You can go over to your buddy's house and play poker and smoke. You can stay home and do facebook and smoke. You can play video games at home and smoke. To a young smoker, "Who needs pool if you can't smoke while you do it? I will go do something else."