Why Pool is devastated by the new Smoking Laws.

[hunger strike]

This might hurt some feelings, but......

I think it is far to simplistic to blame pool halls closing on something as small as a smoking ban. If you consider what you posted about lower income ppl being more likely to smoke then how is it that all these low income smokers have all this cash to spend at a pool hall?

I live in a smoking ban state and haven't seen a drop in the amount of ppl at the hall I go to.

If the only thing a pool hall has/had going for it is ash trays I would say there is something wrong with the business

The fact that lower income people spend more of their income on recreation has many reasons, including: the choice to spend more time enjoying life than making money; more spare time to spend it because many higher income people earn more through working many extra hours; and unfortunately, a prime reason is that "poor" people spend every penny they get their hands on in order to retain all the social advantages of being "poor." I know a book author who not only takes in social security but sells his books for high dollars, yet is constantly "broke" by playing hot potato with every buck. It's called learned helplessness. It is correct that many of these "poor" are smokers, who are willing to literally burn their money. Personally I play less pool in public because of smoking but also to avoid these types. In the pool hall they are friends; outside they are called mooches.
Regardless of the reasons for the fact that there are fewer pool halls for smokers to play in, there is one inescapable fact to consider: when almost all pool halls allowed smoking, there were almost NO places for non-smokers to play. I guess smokers now get to know how it feels to have fewer recreational opportunities. Now I get to enjoy the pool room, too.

 

[ndakotan]

Economy Decides

So the world changes and some things will get left behind or the people and the economy adjust to them. Billiards halls have had adjustments in the past (spitoons, gun bans, and popularity of 8 ball versus 9 ball and straight pool come to mind) and either people accept them or the businesses fail.

But regulations drive the changes now. I just read part of the OSHA directive to night clubs regarding workplace violence. It is more than 100 pages long, and it is produced by the SBA to help small businesses understand OSHA's expectations for workplace violence prevention. Tell me that doesn't put a dent in the pocketbook for the poor people that have to train employees.

If smoking bans are the death of pool rooms, then not much can be done to save pool. Think of a much more heavily regulated industry, like construction. I build buildings. I have several large manuals I have to follow regarding workplace injury prevention. If I don't follow them, I can be fined or thrown in jail. Before the 60's, it was expected people were going to die on construction sites. Now it is a zero tolerance policy on injury, much less deaths, and all for the better. Did increased safety standards spell the death of construction? No, it just raised the cost significantly and decreased the human cost.

The question is can billiards adjust to tighter regulations? If not, the business model will fail. Is the health of bartenders and waitresses worth the cost impacts? We have to decide as a society.

I believe it may be illegal for me to have my workers work in a smoky poolhall, I would be subjecting them to unreasonable safety issues (smoke). Contractors have been heavily fined for failure to protect worker health in general. Smoke is more hazardous than a lot of stuff we see in the construction industry that is much more tightly regulated. Why the disparity.

FYI - to the derision of my employees, we had to agree with one employee that complained that spitting tobacco on the concrete floors where we are working exposes them to bloodborne pathogens. No more spitting on work surfaces. You guys think that poolhalls have it bad, welcome to my world.

Either bars/nightclubs/poolhalls adjust to the times (nanny states with zero tolerance policies), or they fail. Maybe prices need to go up. If people cannot play pool for 5 an hour, they may have to spend 6. The consumer pays for every regulation we have at some point. Get used to prices going up.

 

[gunzby]

I'm at the bars at least (3) nights a week here in NC. The business has not declined at all. In fact, it may have increased. There are more people coming out that didn't want to deal with the smoke,etc. I can't imagine going back to the way it was years ago.

***The US Amateurs in FL didn't allow smoking in the bar during matches this past year..:thumbup:. Smoking is allowed in FL.APA heard feedback from everyone from 2010. It looks like smoking in bars may take business away rather than other way around??

I had mixed feelings when they banned it in NC even though I am a non smoker. I was ecstatic that I wouldn't be forced to deal with the chain smokers at the hall I was going to at the time, but didn't like the government meddling in business considering that government is the worst run business on the planet.

Overall I would say the smoking ban hasn't affected pool halls here one bit. Much like the smoke wouldn't keep me away the lack of smoke hasn't kept them away.

 

[KRJ]

I had mixed feelings when they banned it in NC even though I am a non smoker. I was ecstatic that I wouldn't be forced to deal with the chain smokers at the hall I was going to at the time, but didn't like the government meddling in business considering that government is the worst run business on the planet.

Overall I would say the smoking ban hasn't affected pool halls here one bit. Much like the smoke wouldn't keep me away the lack of smoke hasn't kept them away.

Yep, same here in Chicago area no matter how many folks think the opposite. One guy complained about Quentin Corner Pockets going under last year.... they had NO liquor license, and this guy was blaming the smoking ban....yikes....

 

[whammo57]

The quality of your response leads me to believe you are a smoker...

No, I am not a smoker......... It's just that I have seen the no smoking ban affect the bars and pool halls and listened to the BS about it.

My personal opinion is that no establishment has ever lost a nickel because of it. Just the opposite.....I think some have done better. The non smokers are the majority now. I won't play pool or drink where smoking is allowed. It just plain stinks.

Losing customers and profit because of the smoking ban.....Smokers would like you to think that. It is likely that those establishments that complain the loudest are owned by smokers.

Poor business practices or just plain stupidity about attracting, pleasing, and keeping customers is the likely cause of business failure.

Kim

 

[Atlatlien]

But the point is, you don't have to quit. Just take it outside.

I reiterate that I only like to be in bars/pool halls that I can smoke in. Having to "take it outside" disqualifies that place from being a place I want to be.

 

[chefjeff]

All I know is I only like to be in bars/pool rooms I can smoke in. That said, I have no idea how I'd feel about it if I quit. My guess is the opposite. So the real question is, are there more pool players who smoke (or tolerate smoke), or more who do not? Tough to say.

Anyway, it's always funny for me when people try to find THE reason why something happens. Generally, it is a mix of not one but MANY different variables.

True.

But now the decision has been yanked from the OWNERS and given to NON-owners. That, in the long run, is bad for the game. As more and more decisions leave the hands of the owners, fewer rooms will open. Why risk the freedom of business ownership when you don't really own anything anymore?

Jeff Livingston

 

[OneIron]

I reiterate that I only like to be in bars/pool halls that I can smoke in. Having to "take it outside" disqualifies that place from being a place I want to be.

Fair enough...

 

[ndakotan]

True.

But now the decision has been yanked from the OWNERS and given to NON-owners. That, in the long run, is bad for the game. As more and more decisions leave the hands of the owners, fewer rooms will open. Why risk the freedom of business ownership when you don't really own anything anymore?

Jeff Livingston

OWNERS would chose to endanger their employees and violate health codes for food prep if you let them. Owners do not and should not have the right to endanger their employees or the public. How long did owners use the 30 second rule for food on the floor?

I cannot send my carpenters/employees into local smokey bar/pool halls without a mask because I am morally and legally obligated to ensure the health and wellbeing of my employees. Bar owners should have the same obligation.

There is a gold mine in Africa that enlists child labor, forces "employees" to take gold-bearing soil home and burn it with mercury to purify the gold and then bring it back to the mine. The employees are typically paid with bags of soil from the mine that they can process on their own for gold. Is that their right? NO.

Immoral business owners play the system, screw the population over, and make it difficult for the moral business owners to be profitable.

The moral obligation of owners to ensure the health and welfare of their employees should make this whole thread a non-issue.

Do bar owners have the right to offer free drinks to anyone that can trip 4 patrons in one hour?

How about a free bar tab to any customer that can jump a cueball off the table and into the crotch of an employee walking by?

These may sound like dumb arguments, but I think they are on par with smoking in an enclosed area with patrons and employees inside.

Did people fight for the rights of airliners to allow smoking on planes?

The bunny ranches in Nevada get their employees tested for STD's and they enforce condom rules. Seems reasonable to me. How icky does that make the streetwalkers and pimps on the corner seem? Do they have the right to spread a little "love magic" around. Gross, and no thanks.

Should patrons be allowed to drink sugarwater all night at the expense of their body? Sounds good to me. Sugarwater doesn't affect other patrons or employees, so drink up. No comparable argument for smokers.

 

[chefjeff]

OWNERS would chose to endanger their employees and violate health codes for food prep if you let them. Owners do not and should not have the right to endanger their employees or the public. How long did owners use the 30 second rule for food on the floor?

I cannot send my carpenters/employees into local smokey bar/pool halls without a mask because I am morally and legally obligated to ensure the health and wellbeing of my employees. Bar owners should have the same obligation.

There is a gold mine in Africa that enlists child labor, forces "employees" to take gold-bearing soil home and burn it with mercury to purify the gold and then bring it back to the mine. The employees are typically paid with bags of soil from the mine that they can process on their own for gold. Is that their right? NO.

Immoral business owners play the system, screw the population over, and make it difficult for the moral business owners to be profitable.

The moral obligation of owners to ensure the health and welfare of their employees should make this whole thread a non-issue.

Do bar owners have the right to offer free drinks to anyone that can trip 4 patrons in one hour?

How about a free bar tab to any customer that can jump a cueball off the table and into the crotch of an employee walking by?

These may sound like dumb arguments, but I think they are on par with smoking in an enclosed area with patrons and employees inside.

Did people fight for the rights of airliners to allow smoking on planes?

The bunny ranches in Nevada get their employees tested for STD's and they enforce condom rules. Seems reasonable to me. How icky does that make the streetwalkers and pimps on the corner seem? Do they have the right to spread a little "love magic" around. Gross, and no thanks.

Should patrons be allowed to drink sugarwater all night at the expense of their body? Sounds good to me. Sugarwater doesn't affect other patrons or employees, so drink up. No comparable argument for smokers.

Is anyone forced to go inside HIS property?

Jeff Livingston

 

[KMRUNOUT]

So the world changes and some things will get left behind or the people and the economy adjust to them. Billiards halls have had adjustments in the past (spitoons, gun bans, and popularity of 8 ball versus 9 ball and straight pool come to mind) and either people accept them or the businesses fail.

But regulations drive the changes now. I just read part of the OSHA directive to night clubs regarding workplace violence. It is more than 100 pages long, and it is produced by the SBA to help small businesses understand OSHA's expectations for workplace violence prevention. Tell me that doesn't put a dent in the pocketbook for the poor people that have to train employees.

If smoking bans are the death of pool rooms, then not much can be done to save pool. Think of a much more heavily regulated industry, like construction. I build buildings. I have several large manuals I have to follow regarding workplace injury prevention. If I don't follow them, I can be fined or thrown in jail. Before the 60's, it was expected people were going to die on construction sites. Now it is a zero tolerance policy on injury, much less deaths, and all for the better. Did increased safety standards spell the death of construction? No, it just raised the cost significantly and decreased the human cost.

The question is can billiards adjust to tighter regulations? If not, the business model will fail. Is the health of bartenders and waitresses worth the cost impacts? We have to decide as a society.

I believe it may be illegal for me to have my workers work in a smoky poolhall, I would be subjecting them to unreasonable safety issues (smoke). Contractors have been heavily fined for failure to protect worker health in general. Smoke is more hazardous than a lot of stuff we see in the construction industry that is much more tightly regulated. Why the disparity.

FYI - to the derision of my employees, we had to agree with one employee that complained that spitting tobacco on the concrete floors where we are working exposes them to bloodborne pathogens. No more spitting on work surfaces. You guys think that poolhalls have it bad, welcome to my world.

Either bars/nightclubs/poolhalls adjust to the times (nanny states with zero tolerance policies), or they fail. Maybe prices need to go up. If people cannot play pool for 5 an hour, they may have to spend 6. The consumer pays for every regulation we have at some point. Get used to prices going up.

Great post. Its nice to see some people giving this some serious thought, and providing real life experience to back it up.

Thanks!

KMRUNOUT

 

[KMRUNOUT]

No, I am not a smoker......... It's just that I have seen the no smoking ban affect the bars and pool halls and listened to the BS about it.

My personal opinion is that no establishment has ever lost a nickel because of it. Just the opposite.....I think some have done better. The non smokers are the majority now. I won't play pool or drink where smoking is allowed. It just plain stinks.

Losing customers and profit because of the smoking ban.....Smokers would like you to think that. It is likely that those establishments that complain the loudest are owned by smokers.

Poor business practices or just plain stupidity about attracting, pleasing, and keeping customers is the likely cause of business failure.

Kim

Wow...I must have totally misread your first post. I agree with everything you say here 100%. For some reason I got the opposite message from your last post. My mistake.

KMRUNOUT

 

[KMRUNOUT]

True.

But now the decision has been yanked from the OWNERS and given to NON-owners. That, in the long run, is bad for the game. As more and more decisions leave the hands of the owners, fewer rooms will open. Why risk the freedom of business ownership when you don't really own anything anymore?

Jeff Livingston

I agree with you in principle. However, I disagree with your premise. I think this is NOT something the government should decide. However, I also think that many room owners are terrible business people. So in this particular case, I think the government imposed rule *could* actually help the game. I guess its like an ultimatum: "learn how to seriously run a business and cater to the people who want to spend their money, or FAIL." Based on the decisions many room owners have made in the past, failure looms large...

KMRUNOUT

 

[KMRUNOUT]

OWNERS would chose to endanger their employees and violate health codes for food prep if you let them. Owners do not and should not have the right to endanger their employees or the public. How long did owners use the 30 second rule for food on the floor?

I cannot send my carpenters/employees into local smokey bar/pool halls without a mask because I am morally and legally obligated to ensure the health and wellbeing of my employees. Bar owners should have the same obligation.

There is a gold mine in Africa that enlists child labor, forces "employees" to take gold-bearing soil home and burn it with mercury to purify the gold and then bring it back to the mine. The employees are typically paid with bags of soil from the mine that they can process on their own for gold. Is that their right? NO.

Immoral business owners play the system, screw the population over, and make it difficult for the moral business owners to be profitable.

The moral obligation of owners to ensure the health and welfare of their employees should make this whole thread a non-issue.

Do bar owners have the right to offer free drinks to anyone that can trip 4 patrons in one hour?

How about a free bar tab to any customer that can jump a cueball off the table and into the crotch of an employee walking by?

These may sound like dumb arguments, but I think they are on par with smoking in an enclosed area with patrons and employees inside.

Did people fight for the rights of airliners to allow smoking on planes?

The bunny ranches in Nevada get their employees tested for STD's and they enforce condom rules. Seems reasonable to me. How icky does that make the streetwalkers and pimps on the corner seem? Do they have the right to spread a little "love magic" around. Gross, and no thanks.

Should patrons be allowed to drink sugarwater all night at the expense of their body? Sounds good to me. Sugarwater doesn't affect other patrons or employees, so drink up. No comparable argument for smokers.

BEST post in this thread so far. The first person that wants to immediately disagree should spend an extra few minutes (or perhaps a lifetime of education) and THINK about this. This is one of those very rare LOGICALLY sound posts on AZ. The fact that I agree with the conclusion is NOT what makes it logical.

Nice job sir!

KNRUNOUT

 

[Spider1]

As somebody who has worked in bars for years and years, it is pretty hilarious and irritating when people throw out the "think of the health of the staff!" excuse.

Especially when A: staff chooses to work there, B: I don't hear you crying for universal health care for the hospitality industry, C: also don't hear people crying about hospitality/tipped position employees getting screwed on taxes and making less than minimum wage, and most of all D: there are literally hundreds of other jobs out there with exposure to carcinogens, are you out shedding tears for them? The guys at your local Jiffy Lube deal with carcinogens day in and day out, are you down protesting in favor of full body suits and breathers for all of them? Why is it just bar employees you're suddenly so concerned about?


It's an excuse, and a rather condescending one. They don't give a flying f*ck about bar staff or their health, they just don't like icky smoke and any excuse to ban it is fine. I have a lot more respect for people who admit their fascist beliefs and come right out and say what they believe in, vs hiding their partisan beliefs behind a smoke screen of "Well I'm concerned about others...". No you're not, you're concerned with getting your way.

 

[KMRUNOUT]

Is anyone forced to go inside HIS property?

Jeff Livingston

Did you *read* the whole post Jeff? If you want to attack an argument, you have to either invalidate one of the premises or show that the conclusion does not logically follow. You have instead raised and unrelated issue. I know you think it is related, but it misses the point of his post entirely.

KMRUNOUT

 

[KMRUNOUT]

The moral obligation of owners to ensure the health and welfare of their employees should make this whole thread a non-issue.

Is anyone forced to go inside HIS property?

Jeff Livingston

It would appear that Cheffjeff is indirectly disagreeing with ndakotan's premise that owners have a moral obligation as quoted above.

Jeff, do you believe that business owners have no moral obligation to ensure the health and welfare of their employees in the work place? That is the only conclusion I can draw from your comment. Straighten me out if I got that wrong.

KMRUNOUT

 

[Spider1]

My personal opinion is that no establishment has ever lost a nickel because of it. Just the opposite.....I think some have done better.

Nice theory.

Ever worked in a bar before and after a smoking ban hit? Ever talked to a bar owner about the effects? Ever looked at the books of a bar before and after a ban?







Bars seem to be the only industry where outsiders will presume to know exactly how everything works just because they frequent that type of business. Nobody thinks they are an expert on being a chef or mechanic just because they go out to restaurants and get their car worked on at a repair place. But for some reason people will presume to know how bars work, how the finances work, and how the industry works just because they go out for drinks now and then. It is really amazing.

 

[justadub]

Bars seem to be the only industry where outsiders will presume to know exactly how everything works just because they frequent that type of business. Nobody thinks they are an expert on being a chef or mechanic just because they go out to restaurants and get their car worked on at a repair place. But for some reason people will presume to know how bars work, how the finances work, and how the industry works just because they go out for drinks now and then. It is really amazing.

I haven't worked in a bar, other than in an entertainment capacity. (DJing, playing bands). However. I run a business, and I understand the associated costs and principles that apply in general to most businesses. And to be frank, your comparison re mechanics and such don't hold water - those are skilled positions that don't equate to a bar. (Not to suggest that there isn't "skill" involved in being successful in the bar business, please...). Most of us understand the principal of selling more (or less) drinks, and their associated costs. I don't need to understand mechanical theory, or know about specialized equipment costs and requisite training, licensing, etc, that mechanics would face. A bar sells booze. The more they sell, at a lower expense, the better they will do.

Here's where your argument fails. What is it about smoking that will make a bar more successful than one without? Or vice versa. There isn't anything intrinsic to smoking in and of itself that is more profitable for a bar, unless they sell smokes. No, the argument is solely one of traffic, fannies in the seats, how much those patrons spend when they are there.

With that in mind, it isn't a stretch for any layperson to be able to comment on positive or negative results in their local bars. None of us can really quantify it, because we dont have access to the books. But if the place has more (or less) people in it, on a regular basis, than it did after a smoking ban, then it stands to reason smoking had an effect. Either way.

Spider, I don't know if you were here in Maine before the ban, but I sure was. I can honestly tell you that the bar business hasn't suffered here, from my uneducated observation. As a regular patron. There are at least as many bars as before, quite likely more.

 

[KRJ]

As somebody who has worked in bars for years and years, it is pretty hilarious and irritating when people throw out the "think of the health of the staff!" excuse.


A: staff chooses to work there,
They have to work someone and it may be the only place they are qualified. Should they recieve less protection than the secretary at the large office complex ?

B: I don't hear you crying for universal health care for the hospitality industry. The employees are covered under WC insurance that would cover injuries and other related illnesses related from the job. The bar owner is more than free to provide health insurance for him employees if he so desires.

C: also don't hear people crying about hospitality/tipped position employees getting screwed on taxes and making less than minimum wage,
Why should we? The get paid below minimum wage because it is the law and they work on tips. The bars CAN pay more if they wish though.

D: there are literally hundreds of other jobs out there with exposure to carcinogens, are you out shedding tears for them? I'm pretty sure those jobs provide forms of protection to their employees and if they don't are required to do so. If not, please advise. I will post a pretty harsh attack on the industry right here on this forum, you have my word.

No you're not, you're concerned with getting your way.

Well, smokers had it their way for 200 years, thus the non smokers are getting the next 200, and you can have it back in 2212. That seems pretty fair ...