you can't smoke in a poolroom???

Jimmy M. said:
As far as "not losing" any arugments, that is a matter of perception; not fact. You see, my perception is that you cannot buy property and, just because you own it, do whatever you want on it. You think a business is "private property" in that regard? Go ahead and buy yourself some space and open up a bar without a liquor license. See how that goes over. You have to adhere to the applicable laws surrounding the type of business that you "own". Yes, you own the business, but you cannot do as you please because you own it.

(snip)

This is a perfect expression of Dostoevsky's crimnal mind. You must pay, but cannot control. You have and we want so you must give. We own you.

That was perhaps the most digusting post in the history of AZ.

Jeff Livingston
 
pdcue said:
You are correct sir!
you can see my mia culpa in my "it must be the dyslexia" post


and that is exactly why I am so concerned about the future of pool
rooms and pool bars in Ohio

I am certainly not in lock step with all Joe's opinions on the subject,
maybe because I don't smoke. Buit I have several friends in the biz,
and IMHO guys like Joe are the backbone of pool today.
If they leave, the rooms fold

Dale<still strugling with those pesky Arabic numerals>

FWIW - I know Joe only passingly, but he is IMHO a resonable-ish guy
I KNOW JOE VERY WELL.
joe and the term reasonable-ish don't mesh , like oil & water, haha :D ROFLMAO
he's a great guy, good friend.
we like to F*** with each other, as you may have noticed.
sorry joe, i couldn't resist :p
 
Last edited:
Dale can you give us some documentation to support these "facts" ?

Originally Posted by pdcue
FWIW it was 4 that passed. 5 was the much less restrictive
constitutional amendment sponsored by the tobacco industry

Now that we have the pedantic/anal issues done with,
I am gravely concerned. Esp for BK, where Steve just invested
in all those new Diamonds.

smoking bans have pretty much been disasterous for poolrooms
Many a thriving room with decades of sucess, have crashed and burned when smoking was outlawed, some in only a few months

As I see it, the only hope is, the ban is state wide. Perhaps that
will soften the blow somewhat, but I am not optimistic
Dale Pierce(who is sleepless in Cincinnati)




:confused: I really find this hard to believe, of course it sounds great for the discussion but where are all of these now smokeless defunct Pool Rooms ? or perhaps I should say where were they??? The places I am aware of in NY that cried that they would lose all of their business are still cranking on only now with a healthier and easier to see atmosphere! :D
 
chefjeff said:
You, too, support the elimination of property rights???!!!??? Come on, man! Following your principle, I can come to "your" property (you and Jimmy say that you don't own it, remember?) and smoke all I want, even with a baby around, if a majority says I can. And you can't complain, but you could piss in the wind, I supppose. No, I guess not, as if property rights are gone, you don't even own your penis.

What if the majority said that pool is bad for society? And then they voted to make it the law. You would have ZERO credibility to argue against that.

What if KT never pays? By your and Jimmy's principles, he owes nothing to anyone, because no one can truly own anything, including winnings in a pool match.

You've chosen a losing, destructive paradigm that has been proven to kill millions who have ZERO choice to defend themselves. Compare that to being "forced" to go to pool rooms and breathe noxious fumes. There is no comparison as to the damage such thinking unnecessarily creates.

Jeff Livingston

I never said the majority, it should be illegal no matter what % of the people vote for or against it IMO. Arguing for the right to pollute an innocent baby or anyones lungs is criminal and indefensible.

I don't get your property argument at all, you are free to smoke until you have cancer coming out of your ears in your PRIVATE home. However we are talking about PUBLIC places, no matter who owns them and this IMO justifiably comes under the governments remit.
 
I am so glad that Issue 5 passed in Ohio. I am sick and tired of smelling like smoke, my eyes burning from smoke,and coughing smoke out of my lungs just from pool league night. Smokers do not have a right to fill any enviroment with second hand smoke. If you want to smoke fine. I just do not know why smokers believe their rights are being infringed upon.
 
being a player who started playing around 1950, when it seemed everyone (even doctors prefered camel 2 to 1) it never bothered me. i was lucky enough to be able to quit in my middle 30`s and never looked back. however in the past year i have started playin in 2 vfw`s and practice in a poolroom (on a diamond) when i get home i reek of smoke . even if no one was smoking . ....smoke free would be nice....
 
nyjoe14.1 said:
So issue 5 got passed today in OH, this says theres no smoking in public. my question is this what if any impact do you think this will have on pool in OH. I went back to NY where a similar law was passed and I was god awful, having to go outside in the middle of a set to smoke, just ridiculous. This can’t be a good thing:mad:

that’s what I think, what do you think???

I think its a good thing overall. I smoke myself and ensure i retain somewhat of a respect to others both on and off the table.

If smoking deals with ur playing ability (regardless if it is mental or physical), then u will need to get acclimated. Meet that adversity thru perserverance. :)

Best Regards.
 
nyjoe14.1 said:
Omar: The choice is to be there, when you started you smoked right? Think about that for a minute

The places to play pool are very limited compared to all of the great outdoors. If I make the choice to not play in public rooms where people are smoking in PA, it means I have to quit the game. You are being asked to step outside for a couple of minutes while you enjoy your smoke. Those don't seem like equal sacrifices to me.

I learned to play pool in a little bar in Poughkeepsie. On a Friday night you might have 60 or 70 people in there, all smoking up a storm. It was brutal. You could say I started smoking in self defense. It didn't bother as much when I was smoking too. Now that I don't smoke, I find I am very sensitive to it. Still, I don't mind if somebody wants to have a cigarette once in a while. I can tolerate it. But that guy I mentioned in my earlier post is pretty obnoxious. We might play for three or four hours and he has one going in the ashtray the entire time. His mother must have burned turd incense around the house when he was a kid or something.

After the initial uproar died down, a few of my smoking friends told me they thought that playing after the ban was actually better. The room is cleaner, their clothes and equipment are cleaner, everything smells better, the table cloth isn't all pitted from dummies shooting with a butt in their lips, etc.

Admittedly, it's a drag in January if you live in the northeast. But they banned smoking at work in the 80's after somebody set their wastebasket on fire and almost burned the building down, so I have done my share of smoking outside. It ain't that big of a hardship.
 
chefjeff said:
(you and Jimmy say that you don't own it, remember?)
...
What if KT never pays? By your and Jimmy's principles, he owes nothing to anyone, because no one can truly own anything, including winnings in a pool match.

What are you talking about here, Jeff? Why are you trying to put words in my mouth? Did I EVER say that you don't "own" your business and/or property? And how did we get on the subject of KT and the IPT? I think my views on the IPT are pretty well documented on this forum and they aren't anything like what you describe.

You're grasping at straws here. Like I said in my last post to you, this going back and forth is pointless. The vote is over. It's done. You can "be right" in your mind all you want, but it doesn't change anything. Putting words in my mouth isn't going to change anything either.

You're talking crazy and getting completely off the subject. You're making things up concerning how Craig and I feel about the IPT and you're doing it in a thread about a smoking ban. What the hell do either of the two have to do with each other? Are you insane? Is that the real issue here? While I'm at it, your whole "property rights" argument doesn't stand up to a 2mph wind either. Every business has laws that it must adhere to. If you sell marbles on the internet, you have laws, not to mention rules that are put in place by the credit card companies, that you will have to abide by. Do you "own" the business? Sure. You own it. Does that mean you can make up your own rules and ignore any laws that concern your particlar type of business? Of course not ... and, if you're honest and give up this silly little argument, you know it.
 
chefjeff said:
This is a perfect expression of Dostoevsky's crimnal mind. You must pay, but cannot control. You have and we want so you must give. We own you.

That was perhaps the most digusting post in the history of AZ.

Jeff Livingston

I go back and forth between being somewhat irritated by you and being thoroughly amused by you.

Did I say something in my digusting post that wasn't true? Is that not how it works? Feel free to enlighten me. Since you have piqued my interest, I will no doubt read your educational post if you choose to write it. In fact, throw in a few "ergo"'s while you're at it. I think it makes you sound really intelligent and, as it turns out, I loved The Matrix.
 
I dont smoke, but I think a forced smoking ban on private property is wrong.
Only the government can own public property. I've never seen a, no shirt, no shoes, no service, sign at city hall. The owner should have the right to decide whats allowed in his store.
Justin Nuder
 
A owner forfeits the rights of privacy and absolute control!

Fred said:
I dont smoke, but I think a forced smoking ban on private property is wrong.
Only the government can own public property. I've never seen a, no shirt, no shoes, no service, sign at city hall. The owner should have the right to decide whats allowed in his store.
Justin Nuder

Once he makes that property open to the public!! This seems to be a important issue that somehow remains alien to many of the posters to this topic! When you open your doors to the PUBLIC you are subject to regulation ! PERIOD!!!!! :cool:
 
MrLucky said:
Once he makes that property open to the public!! This seems to be a important issue that somehow remains alien to many of the posters to this topic! When you open your doors to the PUBLIC you are subject to regulation ! PERIOD!!!!! :cool:

My head hurts trying to explain this concept. This is how it has worked since long before the smoking ban. Watch out. They'll call your post digusting! ;)
 
So now that you understand the difference...

Fred said:
I dont smoke, but I think a forced smoking ban on private property is wrong.
Only the government can own public property. I've never seen a, no shirt, no shoes, no service, sign at city hall. The owner should have the right to decide whats allowed in his store.
Justin Nuder
There is no smoking ban on PRIVATE PROPERTY you can continue to burn out your lungs to your hearts content in the privacy of your home or even a private club! just not where the public is concerned ! because you see we have rights also! :eek:
 
MrLucky said:
There is no smoking ban on PRIVATE PROPERTY you can continue to burn out your lungs to your hearts content in the privacy of your home or even a private club! just not where the public is concerned ! because you see we have rights also! :eek:
When did Murphy's Bar-n-Grill become piblic property?
 
LMAO I'm not sure about the piblic part

Fred said:
When did Murphy's Bar-n-Grill become piblic property?

But when Murphy opened his doors to the public he is at that point subject to the rules and laws governing his location !:D
 
just a for instance...

Murphy's Bar and Grill must have a business license issued by the government of his locale ! Murphy must pass inspections by the PUBLIC safety department that oversees his locale! Murphy must be accessible to disabled persons persons in accordance with the Americans Disabilities Act ! etcetera,:D etcetera !
 
But Murphy's is'nt open to the pUblic. You must be 21 years of age, you must wear shirt and shoes, and you must abide by Murphy"s laws. I think the law tramples on Murphy's civil rights.
Justin Nuder
 
Is Murphys a private membership Club ?

Fred said:
But Murphy's is'nt open to the pUblic. You must be 21 years of age, you must wear shirt and shoes, and you must abide by Murphy"s laws. I think the law tramples on Murphy's civil rights.
Justin Nuder

If not! :cool:
it is open to the public! :confused:

I am going to assume you are pulling my leg since no one is really that dense! :eek:
 
Back
Top