Why Pool is devastated by the new Smoking Laws.

[KRJ]

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?
.

Have you thought about reading the other posts first before posting yourself. Several bar owners have chimed in already. The pool room I play in has NOT lost one customer due to going smokeless. We have 16 teams every session, before and after ban, and still have a handfull of teams on the waiting list?

 

[KRJ]

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.

Good points Dub.

But wait... were there not 50K pool rooms in the 1930's..... damn prohibition, oh, they repealed that... hmmmm, what happen.... they all smoked back in those days, did they not ??

 

[ndakotan]

Dignified Response

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.

My way? My way would be everybody working together to better society. You know nothing about me. I am part-owner of a large construction company that promotes safety and profitability. Our employees are instructed and trained to work safely, but productively, and go home in the same condition they came to work in. I risk my money to make money. I make money by keeping my employees working every day and following regulations. Most of your post doesn't warrant a response, other than your thoughts on my character.

BTW - I am mostly republican and think government should stay out of my business. My logic runs into trouble when the guys down the street are violating every safety standard in the book, people are stealing billions from investors, and companies are causing billions of dollars in damaging the environment. BP thought they had a right to drill without any safety standards. Where did that get us?

I was unaware of the plight of the Jiffy Lube workers. I don't think they need to be subjected to chemicals unsafely though. I use one service station that I routinely walk around in, but I haven't noticed any safety issues.

I do love the game of pool and I go to smokey pool halls to play because I love the game. I will be much happier when if/when they are non-smoking though.

In order to keep the conversation civilized and productive I decided not to expound on my estimation of your character. How could I know you from one post? Maybe your someone I'd get along with. I'd rather buy you a beer than make assumptions about you.

 

[ndakotan]

A wager - perhaps

Is anyone forced to go inside HIS property?

Jeff Livingston

If you have a piece of commercial property you can use for a few hours, invite the building inspector over, and tell him you are going to remodel part of the space to something unfriendly to wheelchairs (lots of steps, improper egress dimensions, narrow hallways, or something similar). Tell him that people in wheelchairs may be inconvenieced but you don't care because they can go somewhere else to get the same service you provide. I'll bet you one dollar that you get a slack-jaw response or laughed at.

PS. I do not say this to make fun of people in wheelchairs. They have a much bigger problem in getting access to workplaces and services than I'll ever have playing pool. This post is an illustration of how some people don't consider other people when making decisions.

 

[KMRUNOUT]

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.

Here is the "hilarious" thing that many smokers (and non-smokers alike) fail to appreciate: Saying "if you don't like it, you don't have to go there" is the *essence* of selfishness. It is hard to imagine people not getting this, but it is so common it is really sad. In a place that allows the public in, you have the ability to be friendly and courteous to your fellow person, or NOT. You can punch them in the face when they say hello to you, or you can great them in kind. The law has stepped in and said that if you punch them in the face, you will face legal consequences. Likewise, you can scream your part in a conversation at the top of your lungs, but you would probably be asked to leave for bothering other patrons. Further, you can blow your abrasive smoke all around you and foul the air for the other patrons. Now for some reason, people are still up for this one. If mommy the law doesn't tell you that is inconsiderate, you go ahead and do it anyway. SOME people recognize that their habit is annoying at least and harmful at worst to other people, and are happy to respect those other people. They may not need to be asked to step outside to smoke. See a pattern starting to develop here? The law steps in and prevents people from bothering other people. Why? Because sadly many people are unable or unwilling to recognize this behavior and stop doing it. Instead they take the "you don't like it? leave!" approach. It is not at all surprising that this attitude is prevalent among smokers, since smoking is an addiction. One might expect people who fall for this addiction to be more motivated out of their own base desires, and are compelled to satisfy *themselves* a bit more than some others. This is of course a generalization, but one that fits the bill in MANY examples.

So I must say, you claiming that non smokers are only thinking about themselves is indeed the most hilarious thing I've heard all day. I believe that for ALL people, in any job or setting, I am obligated to be friendly and courteous to them. I want to know if something I am doing is bothersome to people. I am not so self centered that I would not consider changing my ways at a slight cost to myself in order to not bother MANY other people. If I have an activity that is harmful or irritating to others, I will do that at home, or in the homes of other people interested in that activity. Maybe we can get together and create a *private* social club, where we can get together and kill each other in whatever ways we like. But in the public areas, I will treat my fellow person with respect and courtesy to the best of my ability.

KMRUNOUT

 

[Spider1]

The pool room I play in has NOT lost one customer due to going smokeless.

Do you work there? No? Well you've at least seen the ringouts yourself first hand, right? Done the data/ledger entries for the shift ringouts? Compared them to previous years before the ban? Compared specific apples-to-apples holiday weekend/events from year to year and seen the results? Right?

Or are you just...you know...'theorizing'?

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.

Fumes from petroleum products are carcinogenic. Oil getting on skin is a carcinogen.

How many mechanics do you see wearing full body suits and breather masks?

I look forward to you protesting and urging laws to more heavily regulate those industries. The world despises a hypocrite, after all.

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.

It is a specialized industry just like everything else. You have to know your clientele, know your area, and know your field/industry. To be honest, saying "A bar sells booze." just proves exactly what I was talking about: people have no clue what goes on in bars and how they operate. As an example: if bars just 'sold booze' there would be security guards at the door and a bunch of vending machines inside spitting out canned beers or canned mixed drinks (yes, they make them), the bar equivalent to fast food. But you don't see bars like that. Because there are a lot of things that go into running a bar, attracting a clientele, keeping people happy, and maintaining your business year after year. There's a hell of a lot more to it than just "selling booze". Why do you think dj's and bands get hired, after all?

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.

EXACTLY! And guess what? The "goes out drinking and spends money" demographic is largely overlapped by the "smoker" demographic. This is well known. There are absolute exceptions, but for the most part, there's a large overlap there. Smoking IS about getting fannies in the seats.

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.

Which is exactly what I was saying. I've seen before and after effects of smoking bans in two states now (WA and AZ), and seen with my own eyes what happens to sales and traffic, and it sure didn't go up. I wrote a post (here) about the percentages I saw first hand, if you're interested.

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.

I just had this conversation with the guy I bartend for now in ME a couple weeks ago, and he was saying how he hated the fog bank of smoke and stink in the bar, but misses the 20-30% of his ringout that disappeared. He's a non-smoker, by the way. This is a regular 'locals' bar in a small town, and while that might be the worse end of the range, I'd be extremely surprised if business was up overall. It would be a nationwide first.

 

[Spider1]

My way? My way would be everybody working together to better society. You know nothing about me. I am part-owner of a large construction company that promotes safety and profitability. Our employees are instructed and trained to work safely, but productively, and go home in the same condition they came to work in. I risk my money to make money. I make money by keeping my employees working every day and following regulations. Most of your post doesn't warrant a response, other than your thoughts on my character.

Do the painters you hire routinely wear full suits and breathers? And no, I don't mean dust masks, I mean breathers. Oil based paints and fumes are carcinogenic. If you do paving, do the guys running your hot tar and asphalt wear full suits and breathers? Exposure on skin and the fumes are carcinogenic (asphalt especially).

Things like this go on everywhere. OSHA standards are geared more towards immediate death or injury rather than long term. Hell look how long it took them to come down on asbestos. If you work construction you can probably think of dozens of chemicals/materials that are harmful long term, and are not covered by OSHA. It happens in all sorts of places. I don't see people crying over the plight of those poor workers. Why is that? Because they really don't give a sh*t, the worker health angle is just thrown out as an attempt at more 'ammo' and an appeal to emotion in order to get rid of the icky smoke by any means.

I was unaware of the plight of the Jiffy Lube workers. I don't think they need to be subjected to chemicals unsafely though. I use one service station that I routinely walk around in, but I haven't noticed any safety issues.

The fumes from oil and grease are carcinogenic. Yes, even if they are just sitting there. Oil change guys breathe that stuff in all day every day. Oil is also a carcinogen when it gets on your skin, which is unavoidable when doing oil changes (gloves don't cover the entire body). Look closer next time you are at your station. See the guys down in the pit doing the oil? They're breathing heavy fumes day in day out.

In order to keep the conversation civilized and productive I decided not to expound on my estimation of your character. How could I know you from one post? Maybe your someone I'd get along with. I'd rather buy you a beer than make assumptions about you.

Fair enough, and I was not saying you personally are a bad guy, or anyone else using the "think of the workers!" line. Smoking is really irritating to some people, and they get upset over it and upset over people smoking around them, and sometimes their emotional reaction to smoking leads to a "get rid of it at any cost/for any reason" mentality. I don't agree with it, but I understand it.

 

[Spider1]

Here is the "hilarious" thing that many smokers (and non-smokers alike) fail to appreciate: Saying "if you don't like it, you don't have to go there" is the *essence* of selfishness.

Wait, so being offered a choice, as a thinking adult, to enter or not, is "selfish"? :lol:

In a place that allows the public in, you have the ability to be friendly and courteous to your fellow person, or NOT.

The "ability" but not the "legal duty". The owner has the right to allow whatever sort of social environment they like. If they want to run a bar where courtesy or manners get you thrown out, THEY CAN. They might not do much in sales, but that's their business. It's called the free market system.

Likewise, you can scream your part in a conversation at the top of your lungs, but you would probably be asked to leave for bothering other patrons.

Again, if the owner wants to allow you to sit there and yell your half of the conversation, he's certainly allowed to. By the way, loud noises are damaging to hearing and has long term health effects including deafness which is a disability condition. Should we pass laws outlawing loud jukeboxes or live bands? You favor that, right?

SOME people recognize that their habit is annoying at least and harmful at worst to other people, and are happy to respect those other people. They may not need to be asked to step outside to smoke. See a pattern starting to develop here? The law steps in and prevents people from bothering other people. Why? Because sadly many people are unable or unwilling to recognize this behavior and stop doing it.

Laws do not exist to enforce politeness, or to ban all 'annoying' behavior. Especially when you have made a choice to expose yourself to what is irritating you.

I believe that for ALL people, in any job or setting, I am obligated to be friendly and courteous to them. I want to know if something I am doing is bothersome to people.

Ok, now find me some laws on the books somewhere that regulate "friendly and courteous". I'd love to read it.

I am not so self centered that I would not consider changing my ways at a slight cost to myself in order to not bother MANY other people.

Ok, how about this: you are offending, irritating, and annoying people who smoke, and bar employees with bills to pay by insisting that smoking be banned at all bars. How about you "change your ways in order to not bother MANY other people" by going to a non-smoking bar instead?

 

[Island Drive]

Here is the "hilarious" thing that many smokers (and non-smokers alike) fail to appreciate: Saying "if you don't like it, you don't have to go there" is the *essence* of selfishness. It is hard to imagine people not getting this, but it is so common it is really sad. In a place that allows the public in, you have the ability to be friendly and courteous to your fellow person, or NOT. You can punch them in the face when they say hello to you, or you can great them in kind. The law has stepped in and said that if you punch them in the face, you will face legal consequences. Likewise, you can scream your part in a conversation at the top of your lungs, but you would probably be asked to leave for bothering other patrons. Further, you can blow your abrasive smoke all around you and foul the air for the other patrons. Now for some reason, people are still up for this one. If mommy the law doesn't tell you that is inconsiderate, you go ahead and do it anyway. SOME people recognize that their habit is annoying at least and harmful at worst to other people, and are happy to respect those other people. They may not need to be asked to step outside to smoke. See a pattern starting to develop here? The law steps in and prevents people from bothering other people. Why? Because sadly many people are unable or unwilling to recognize this behavior and stop doing it. Instead they take the "you don't like it? leave!" approach. It is not at all surprising that this attitude is prevalent among smokers, since smoking is an addiction. One might expect people who fall for this addiction to be more motivated out of their own base desires, and are compelled to satisfy *themselves* a bit more than some others. This is of course a generalization, but one that fits the bill in MANY examples.

So I must say, you claiming that non smokers are only thinking about themselves is indeed the most hilarious thing I've heard all day. I believe that for ALL people, in any job or setting, I am obligated to be friendly and courteous to them. I want to know if something I am doing is bothersome to people. I am not so self centered that I would not consider changing my ways at a slight cost to myself in order to not bother MANY other people. If I have an activity that is harmful or irritating to others, I will do that at home, or in the homes of other people interested in that activity. Maybe we can get together and create a *private* social club, where we can get together and kill each other in whatever ways we like. But in the public areas, I will treat my fellow person with respect and courtesy to the best of my ability.

KMRUNOUT

On a very similar note. Many businesses have rules that your perfume can not be excessive and napalm the work and business area. Yrs ago we had to put up with smoking on the airplane, but common sense and other concerns came into play and NO one complains Anymore. I wonder how many smokers that are taking a stand on this would enjoy going out to dinner with family and then along comes a group of 6 smoking cigars next to em. hummmmmmmmmmmmmmm

 

[mikepage]

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 am a room owner, and I don't mind a limited level of government regulation.

In particular, because my business is a place of public accommodation, I expect things that relate to the safety and welfare of patrons and employees to be regulated.

(1) I have an occupancy limit
(2) I must provide clean air to breathe
(3) I must provide non-contaminated water and food to consume
(4) I must have a sprinkler system in case of fire
(5) I must have fire exits that are lit and unobstructed

I'm OK with these things.

I'm a fan of limited government regulation. So I would be fine with no drug laws, no prostitution laws, and no seat belt laws.

I think the government should pay particular attention to areas where the level of risk is not apparent. For instance, when you sit in the stands down the third-base line at a baseball game, it is obvious a foul ball could come at your head. And when you sit there, you assume that clear and apparent risk.

The situation is different when you and ten of your closest friends you get on an elevator in an old building, or when you get on a ride at the state fair, or when you eat meat in a restaurant, or when you breathe the air in any public building, or when you get on an airplane. The typical patron is unequipped to determine the level of risk.

It's hard to tell what effect prohibiting smoking has had on pool around here, with so many competing things going on at the same time.

My guess is that the effect is pretty small. Yes, a lot of pool players from a few years ago smoked. Most of those folk are still playing though. And we have a reasonable contingent of newer patrons--the newer demographic Paul was talking about--starting to come in. These are people who wouldn't have considered coming into a smoky place. That transformation--opening pool up to expanded demographics--is a slow process. But it's one for which we need to put our heads down and plow ahead. Because that is the future of pool.

 

[Atlatlien]

I like the smell of cigars

 

[KMRUNOUT]

Wait, so being offered a choice, as a thinking adult, to enter or not, is "selfish"? :lol:





The "ability" but not the "legal duty". The owner has the right to allow whatever sort of social environment they like. If they want to run a bar where courtesy or manners get you thrown out, THEY CAN. They might not do much in sales, but that's their business. It's called the free market system.



Again, if the owner wants to allow you to sit there and yell your half of the conversation, he's certainly allowed to. By the way, loud noises are damaging to hearing and has long term health effects including deafness which is a disability condition. Should we pass laws outlawing loud jukeboxes or live bands? You favor that, right?



Laws do not exist to enforce politeness, or to ban all 'annoying' behavior. Especially when you have made a choice to expose yourself to what is irritating you.



Ok, now find me some laws on the books somewhere that regulate "friendly and courteous". I'd love to read it.



Ok, how about this: you are offending, irritating, and annoying people who smoke, and bar employees with bills to pay by insisting that smoking be banned at all bars. How about you "change your ways in order to not bother MANY other people" by going to a non-smoking bar instead?

Not unexpectedly, you missed every single one of my points. In the simplest possible terms: I think people should be polite and courteous to each other, not because any law says so, or because you are in this or that establishment. I personally see it as the only enlightened moral outlook that is completely defensible. Courtesy runs quite a range, from not punching someone in the face, to not letting the door shut behind you when someone else is coming in. Lots of ground there. For some of these offenses, the law has stepped in and outright prohibited them. For others, it has not. It is a shame that the law is required for any of them. If people respected each other, the law would not be needed. We live in a world in which people "get" this to varying degrees. There are a vast array of approaches to politeness, and perhaps an even more vast array in peoples' abilities to consider concepts like this and discuss them rationally and intelligently. Every example you offer is laced with extreme selfishness. "If I want...if the owner wants...etc."

In the words of the band Rush: "Those who know what's best for us, must rise and save us from ourselves." That is VERY hard to accomplish in a society of fools who cling to their foolishness like a weapon, and demand that their voice be heard and their will be done.

No point talking further about it. These types of conversations usually turn out the same every time.

KMRUNOUT

 

[ndakotan]

Wait, so being offered a choice, as a thinking adult, to enter or not, is "selfish"? :lol:





The "ability" but not the "legal duty". The owner has the right to allow whatever sort of social environment they like. If they want to run a bar where courtesy or manners get you thrown out, THEY CAN. They might not do much in sales, but that's their business. It's called the free market system.



Again, if the owner wants to allow you to sit there and yell your half of the conversation, he's certainly allowed to. By the way, loud noises are damaging to hearing and has long term health effects including deafness which is a disability condition. Should we pass laws outlawing loud jukeboxes or live bands? You favor that, right?

Since i deal with worker safety every day, I'll stick with that. When the Hoover Dam and Golden Gate Bridge were built employers on those sites knew that if someone died, got hurt, or did not like the work conditions they would be replaced by 3 guys willing to do the work. modern contractors do not have that option. federal labor laws prevent me from telling workers to take it or leave it. i do not know how bars handle this with their employees.

all of my work is conducted according to osha regulations. i cannot stay in business by attempting some zero risk policy. if we had to be zero risk we wouldnt be able to drive to jobsites.

99% of workplaces are smokefree by law. bars and nightclubs lobbied heavily to be excluded from this law, but i doubt anyone expected that to be long term.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

 

[billiardchick7]

Wait, so being offered a choice, as a thinking adult, to enter or not, is "selfish"? :lol:

Everyone wants entertainment....A place to go to enjoy hanging out with other people and/or to do the activities that we love. We usually only have a very limited number of choices depending on the businesses available in our area. Since this is a pool forum, I assume most of the people here love pool. In many areas, there is only either smoking establishments or non-smoking pool establishments. The ones that are all non-smoking in the area are usually regulated to be that way by the government. As a business owner in an area that is not regulated by a government smoking ban, the pool rooms and bars all allow smoking. It is a scary thing for a business to go outside of the norm and make changes not knowing how it will affect the business. We decided to change and go non-smoking, and our business have been very positively affected. It is doing GREAT!!!! People in our area actually have a choice; they can chose to come to our place or to go elsewhere that allows smoking, but not everyone has that option.
I personally do not like cigarette smoke, and I was very, very lucky to be in a position to make a change to the business to make it nonsmoking. For the 15 years prior to being involved in a business, my only options were to go to a place with smoking. There was no other option. If there were 100 places to go that allowed smoking and 1 that was nonsmoking, I would have driven out of my way to go to the nonsmoking one. Instead, the options are either "deal with it" or quit playing pool. Sometimes I chose to deal with the smoke to continue playing, and sometimes I did not. That being said, yes, I feel that the people who smoke around me (including my own family) are being SELFISH. They know I dislike the smoke, they know it can make you sick, but they let their own desires interfere with my personal space, health, and well being.
The DEFINITION of SELFISH: seeking or concentrating on one's own advantage, pleasure, or well-being without regard for others.
I think that speaks volumes. No, making a decision on something that only affects you as a grown adult is NOT selfish. Making a decision on something that negatively affects other people without any regard for them whatsoever IS selfish. If you dip (chewing tobacco), I consider that a similar addition to cigarettes BUT I am not affected by the person with the chewing tobacco (unless they decide to spit on me, lol).... But cigarettes are a completely different things, they affect everyone nearby.
So, basically before being able to make a business nonsmoking, my only option was to deal with the smoking or quit pool (which I actually did for 5 years because of the smoke). Do you think that has anything to do with why there are so many pool players that smoke? Have all the smoking areas squeezed a large number of the nonsmokers out of the game?

 

[justadub]

I am a room owner, and I don't mind a limited level of government regulation.

In particular, because my business is a place of public accommodation, I expect things that relate to the safety and welfare of patrons and employees to be regulated.

(1) I have an occupancy limit
(2) I must provide clean air to breathe
(3) I must provide non-contaminated water and food to consume
(4) I must have a sprinkler system in case of fire
(5) I must have fire exits that are lit and unobstructed

I'm OK with these things.

I'm a fan of limited government regulation. So I would be fine with no drug laws, no prostitution laws, and no seat belt laws.

I think the government should pay particular attention to areas where the level of risk is not apparent. For instance, when you sit in the stands down the third-base line at a baseball game, it is obvious a foul ball could come at your head. And when you sit there, you assume that clear and apparent risk.

The situation is different when you and ten of your closest friends you get on an elevator in an old building, or when you get on a ride at the state fair, or when you eat meat in a restaurant, or when you breathe the air in any public building, or when you get on an airplane. The typical patron is unequipped to determine the level of risk.

It's hard to tell what effect prohibiting smoking has had on pool around here, with so many competing things going on at the same time.

My guess is that the effect is pretty small. Yes, a lot of pool players from a few years ago smoked. Most of those folk are still playing though. And we have a reasonable contingent of newer patrons--the newer demographic Paul was talking about--starting to come in. These are people who wouldn't have considered coming into a smoky place. That transformation--opening pool up to expanded demographics--is a slow process. But it's one for which we need to put our heads down and plow ahead. Because that is the future of pool.

And this should just about put a wrap on it, folks...

 

[chefjeff]

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

I'm glad you've brought morality back into the discussion.

Morality starts with self-ownership. This means don't initiate harm on other owners of selves. This includes not only employees, but customers, and all Persons, including pool hall owners and customers who VOLUNTARILY engage in mutual exchanges.

So, yes, I care if a pool hall owner initiates harm against another Person.

Jeff Livingston

 

[chefjeff]

Oh, re self ownership...

It also means no one has to care for others, just not harm others.

The health care of the employees is the employee's responsiblity. The repsonsiblity of the owner is to not do harm to other Persons. That's true of the local govt Persons, too, if it's true for business owners, right?

Morality isn't something to pick and choose depending on what issue is at hand; it is universal and objective or else it is preference, not morality.


Jeff Livingston

 

[chefjeff]

If you have a piece of commercial property you can use for a few hours, invite the building inspector over, and tell him you are going to remodel part of the space to something unfriendly to wheelchairs (lots of steps, improper egress dimensions, narrow hallways, or something similar). Tell him that people in wheelchairs may be inconvenieced but you don't care because they can go somewhere else to get the same service you provide. I'll bet you one dollar that you get a slack-jaw response or laughed at.

PS. I do not say this to make fun of people in wheelchairs. They have a much bigger problem in getting access to workplaces and services than I'll ever have playing pool. This post is an illustration of how some people don't consider other people when making decisions.

My brother in law has lived in a chair for 40 years and you should hear him complain about the ADA.

It's the govt that has dissed those bound in chairs.

And to think I don't care about those Persons just because I don't agree with the use of govt violence to get stuff done, is mean...very mean on your part.

Jeff Livingston

 

[Island Drive]

[I think that speaks volumes. No, making a decision on something that only affects you as a grown adult is NOT selfish. Making a decision on something that negatively affects other people without any regard for them whatsoever IS selfish. If you dip (chewing tobacco), I consider that a similar addition to cigarettes BUT I am not affected by the person with the chewing tobacco (unless they decide to spit on me, lol).... But cigarettes are a completely different things, they affect everyone nearby.

Nicely said......................................

 

[ndakotan]

Oh, re self ownership...

It also means no one has to care for others, just not harm others.

The health care of the employees is the employee's responsiblity. The repsonsiblity of the owner is to not do harm to other Persons. That's true of the local govt Persons, too, if it's true for business owners, right?

Morality isn't something to pick and choose depending on what issue is at hand; it is universal and objective or else it is preference, not morality.


Jeff Livingston

Your getting too many issues mixed up. Healthy workplaces have nothing to do with Health Care. I just heard someone say "Less Filling", I'm going to see what the heck they think they're talking about. Obviously it "Tastes Great" Peace