you can't smoke in a poolroom???

[spyglass]

I'm curious what pool hall in Austin is close to bankruptcy after the smoking ban that is pretty much not enforced? I have not been to a pool hall yet in Austin where they did not look the other way when you lit up a cigarrette.
There are some pool halls that aren't doing well, but they weren't doing well BEFORE the smoking ban, and I'm sure its easy for them to claim its the smoking ban thats killing their business.

I do not know the name of the pool hall. I would have to respond privately if I knew, this being a public forum. I got that from a letter that Marc Levin, the lawyer who is fighting the smoking ban, wrote to the Houston City Council. You can download it from this page, it's very enlightening as far as the legal issues go. http://www.offthekuff.com/mt/archives/008153.html

I was referring to that period before the lastest legal ruling. Things have loosened up somewhat since Judge Sam Sparks ruling. The City is appealing the ruling, so we will see what happens.

I do know an "iconic" Austin bar that was down 30% last year, putting them at breakeven. Every bartender had to get a part time job to survive. The only thing that saved the bar is the fact that they own the land the bar sits on. I got that info from the owner.

The studies that show smoking bans have no economic impact are misleading. Intentionaly so, I think. What really happens is that business shifts to the bars that have big smoking decks, or to resturants. If you have a well established reputation you can raise drink and cover charges, as some well known bars in Austin have done.

 

[9 ball]

We have had the smoking ban in place since march here in scotland and it hasn't effected my local pool room in fact business is the same as it had been before the ban was implemented.

 

[spyglass]

That's exactly how they got around the ban in Mesa when it was the first city here to enact a smoking ban. However, that loophole has been closed with proposition 201.

The anti-smokers are wise to that trick. Model anti-smoking ordinances close that loophole by specifying any "work place." If a private club employs a bartender, then the law would apply to them.

The idea is to force people to quit smoking by incrementaly eliminating places to smoke. Smoking will be banned next on outdoor patios and public sidewalks. That almost passed in Houston.

Since the USA has this embarassing period of history called Prohibition, the anti-smokers are taking a more back door approach, sort of a back door Prohibition. Might be a laudable goal to get everyone to quit smoking, but by trampling private property rights and the use of guns to enforce what is just a bad habit, they setting a precedent that we will all regret someday.

 

[Jimmy M.]

The anti-smokers are wise to that trick. Model anti-smoking ordinances close that loophole by specifying any "work place." If a private club employs a bartender, then the law would apply to them.

The idea is to force people to quit smoking by incrementaly eliminating places to smoke. Smoking will be banned next on outdoor patios and public sidewalks. That almost passed in Houston.

Since the USA has this embarassing period of history called Prohibition, the anti-smokers are taking a more back door approach, sort of a back door Prohibition. Might be a laudable goal to get everyone to quit smoking, but by trampling private property rights and the use of guns to enforce what is just a bad habit, they setting a precedent that we will all regret someday.

I'm sure that the government is tired of collecting all of that pesky tobacco tax money. I can see why they want everyone to quit smoking.

 

[spyglass]

I'm sure that the government is tired of collecting all of that pesky tobacco tax money. I can see why they want everyone to quit smoking.

Governments are nuts, my friend.

There are special interest groups who push these smoking bans generally with the cooperation of the government. In Houston, the anti-smokers got the city restaurant association to back a smoking ban in the bars. Probably the restaurants figured a smoking ban would drive people out of the bars and into their restaurants. I expect them to try the same thing when they go for a statewide smoking ban.

 

[cueandcushion]

The studies that show smoking bans have no economic impact are misleading. Intentionaly so, I think. What really happens is that business shifts to the bars that have big smoking decks, or to resturants. If you have a well established reputation you can raise drink and cover charges, as some well known bars in Austin have done.

The economic studies I have seen are geared towards an entire community not just a specific business or industry. I agree with the argument that business will SHIFT from one area to another within the economy. That happened here in St Louis 15 years ago when the gambling boats opened. The entire face of our customer based changed overnight. I realized that most of our customers didnt like pool. They liked gambling. So then more and more kids starting coming in since the "creepy old guys" (that was the general description younger patrons had of our previous clientel) werent hanging around in the pool rooms anymore. I added a jukebox and started Student rates pricing. That was a difficult adjustment for us. But after a time of economic hardship business came back and we survived. I assume that if a smoking ban comes to Missouri, then we will make some major changes, have a very difficult period of adjustment and hopefully still survive.

 

[spyglass]

The economic studies I have seen are geared towards an entire community not just a specific business or industry. I agree with the argument that business will SHIFT from one area to another within the economy. That happened here in St Louis 15 years ago when the gambling boats opened. The entire face of our customer based changed overnight. I realized that most of our customers didnt like pool. They liked gambling. So then more and more kids starting coming in since the "creepy old guys" (that was the general description younger patrons had of our previous clientel) werent hanging around in the pool rooms anymore. I added a jukebox and started Student rates pricing. That was a difficult adjustment for us. But after a time of economic hardship business came back and we survived. I assume that if a smoking ban comes to Missouri, then we will make some major changes, have a very difficult period of adjustment and hopefully still survive.

Have you ever considered banning smoking in your establishment voluntarily? I would find your comments on this topic very interesting. Clearly there is a market for a non-smoking pool hall.

 

[cueandcushion]

Nope...

Have you ever considered banning smoking in your establishment voluntarily? I would find your comments on this topic very interesting. Clearly there is a market for a non-smoking pool hall.

Considering that pool only accounts for 9% of our income I would not want to voluntarily go after that market unless it was absolutely neccessary. Pool already accounts for about 90% of our headaches due to our customers behavior. To have to change over our business plan and specifically go after that market would be quite expensive. So if we were successful and the smoking ban later went into effect, then our business model could just be copied by the other places unwilling to put forth the research and the money required to find your market niche. In other words, I dont want to have to do all the work and put up all the money just to have my competition sit back and copy us later on. Another billiard parlor in St Louis just closed a couple weeks ago. St Louis pool is on a serious decline as it is. I would rather focus my attention and finances on other areas of our business that are more profitable like cue and dart sales. We have even considered reducing the size of our room to make square footage available for retail sales. I personally would probably be more open to the idea of converting to a private club depending on the legal ramifications, benefits, liabilities, etc.

 

[UWPoolGod1]

*baaaarrrrrffffff*

Get over it. Right or wrong, its there. Deal with it. If someone comes in to give you a fine for smoking, pay it, and when they come back pay it again.

I hate drunk posting. Never do it.

Todd <--- doesn't care if he gets flamed. Non-smoker on an internet forum.

 

[MrLucky]

Yipeeeeee!

So.......Then what is to stop a Bar Room from charging a $.01 lifetime membership...Create a members ledger and only let "members" in????

You got it! Not a thing except then the smokers will be complaining theres not enough players here ! and he surely would close ! unless of course its in Raleigh N.C. !!!!

 

[MrLucky]

It seems reading these post...

That the majority of the folks here are either for the ban or smokers that are considerate enough and or flexible enough to live with it! there is a clear minority of posters that aren't willing to live for an hour or two without a cigarette! and are now trying to use the argument that its unfair to the owners ! I wish i knew how to start a poll here it would be non smokers! smokers ok with it! Smokers not OK! and Owners against and last but not least owners for it!

 

[chefjeff]

OK here we go one more time It is a owners right ONLY when his business is a private membership club ONLY!!!! once he is open to the PUBLIC!!! he forfeits those rights to privacy and doing for the most part as he desires!!!! why is this so hard to understand?

Because your distinction is wrong. See my first post in this thread.

To all those in favor of this type of totalitarianism....You are happy because now you have a place to play pool that doesn't have noxious smoke in it, right? Me, too, btw. I hate smoke when I play. I have dry eyes, crappy skin, and I like my lungs to be clear. OK, that's the up side of this law, less smoke in a pool room (though that is debatable, too...see post above this one for an example of real-life results).

Now for the downside...Who loses here? Well, one could say the smokers do, for all the reasons they've listed here on this thread. And the liberty lovers lose, as they recognize that another notch has been carved by the statists in the handle of their guns and history shows this to be a losing, deadly process. And think of the pool hall owners, having lost another bit of control of their businesses: Why do these wonderful people risk so much to open a pool hall? For more control of their lives, that's the gist of it. They want to do a business for themselves rather than working a job. They want to be entrepreneurs. They want control of something bigger than themselves.

Now, enter the violent thugs, taking away the owners' control. OK, now, who wants to open a pool hall? Why would anyone take such a risk when they have less and less control over how it is run? Do you see that the odds of more pool halls have just been lowered? The odds that someone would mortgage their house, talk their family into the idea, and then be forced to let others run the business for them, isn't the type of thing entrepreneurs look for when they start a business. They and their money will go elsewhere and we'll have FEWER choices.

You think this law helps us, but in the long run, like all top-down, forced-backed schemes, it only creates fewer opportunities for pool players, smokers or not. This is a sad thing for us.

Jeff Livingston

 

[chefjeff]

One more thing about the owners' decisions for their customers:

I played in a hall in San Francisco a few years ago. It was in the Rincon (sp) Center, downtown. The owner was bragging about his new $200,000 smoke eating system. He said it was the best in the world. And I agreed. I couldn't smell any smoke, even though many were smoking there. A few months after that, California passed their anti-smoking law. Guess what? His MAJOR investment, which was the right thing to do for his customers and the competitive thing to do for his business, was flushed down the toilet. He lost his edge and thus his customers. The business soon followed and is now gone. Because he chose to do the right thing, he was punished by the many.

How may businesses will take these types of actions again, knowing that their investments could be shot to hell in one day of majority rule? None.

This, too, hurts us. There's more to it than second-hand smoke, folks...much more. Pool's future is a stake.

Jeff Livingston

 

[chefjeff]

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.

You answered your own question when you called property rights defense a "silly little argument."

I feel sick.

Jeff Livingston

 

[GTeye]

it is the OWNER'S right to fill HIS property with whatever kind of customers and smoke he wants

This is so far from reality it's unbelievable.

Let's look at the actual reality of the situation and not the half baked ramblings of pissed off smokers...

It is a business owners responsibility to provide a safe work environment for it's employees.

It is a business owners responsibility to provide a safe environment for it's customers.

It is a business owners responsibility to have a business license and abide by ALL the local laws applying to their type of business.

No rights are being infringed upon because you are still able to walk outside and smoke, you just cannot do so in a place of business where it is effecting others in a confined space forcing them to endanger their health through your actions.

You act like running a business comes with no personal responsibility of civic responsibility and that's just plain wrong not only on a legal level but on a humanity level.

To sit there and argue property rights and confuse it with business bi-laws is just ridiculous. The two are not the same and do not apply to each other at all. Run a business out of your home, close the doors at night and smoke all you want, your not breaking the law.. therefore your property rights are not being "violated" as you say. Open your doors for business and yes, you must stop smoking, why? because that's a local ordinance that you must follow in order to run your business. One does not have ANYTHING to do with the other. Arguing that logic is just looking for a way to put a spin on your argument that sounds good but it doesn't make it right or wrong.

Public safety IS the responsibility of every single business owner out there.

Is there a difference because fire exits are mandatory and smoking is banned? Is the difference that fire kills you right away and that lung cancer takes years and years?

It would seem to me that in one case your being given a way to flee a fire for yoru safety and the other the smoke is being removed from the room because you cannot flee it.

You got a buffet, you don't see everyone sitting around with their pets feeding them food from a plate from the buffet. You don't see people being allowed to sneeze all over your food.

Why? Because these have been deemed public safety hazards.

Employees must wash hands. Employees must wear hair nets.

Why? Because thees have been deemed public safety hazards.

And yet your going to stand there and defend smoking when millions die every year to lung cancer? It's just plain idiotic.

Court after court upholds the smoking bans and will continue to because there is nothing unconstitutional about it.

Businesses are businsses not people and in running businesses you have responsibilities.

Property and personal rights are not being violated because you can smoke in your own home, shed, garage, etc any time you want.

You can put any sort of twist you want on it but in the end, your just plain wrong and will continue to be wrong and that's fine, our constituition does actually defend your right to be wrong.

As I said previously, throw your tantrim, get off your soapbox and get the hell outside with that cigarette.

 

[Jimmy M.]

You answered your own question when you called property rights defense a "silly little argument."

I feel sick.

Jeff Livingston

Well that's because you are sick, my friend; sick in the head. At least you aren't digusted this time. You had two days to respond to my post and that's the best you could do? Evade whatever I said by making some ridiculous comment that isn't even true? Propery Rights isn't a "silly little argument". YOUR argument that property rights has anything to do with this discussion is what's silly. How many times do you need to be told that, in the case of a bar or pool room, once you open your doors to the public, you are bound by the laws that apply to that type of business? Do you REALLY not understand this? Are you really unaware that this is how it works?

 

[catscradle]

You answered your own question when you called property rights defense a "silly little argument."

I feel sick.

Jeff Livingston

There is no such thing as "property rights". The concept of private property is only that, a concept. It evolved because it seems that it is an efficient way to run society, but the concept is entirely arbitrary subject to defininition by the society. Since it is a concept, that concept can be defined as widely or as narrowly as society dictates. Laws are how society defines the concepts we live by. As long as smoking bans are within the law, which I believe they are, then "rights" do not come in to the equation. The term "rights" is nothing but a euphenism (sp?) for these concepts. By using the terms "rights" some people believe it lends a absolute nature to the concept, but in fact it is still just arbitrary. As such they are subject to change in definition as society ,that is, government, chooses to define them.
Smoking bans are not a "rights" issue, some argument may be made that they are not a good idea (an argument I would disagree with), but "rights" don't come in to play.

 

[spyglass]

It is a business owners responsibility to provide a safe environment for it's customers.

I

The business owners ARE still providing a safe environment for it's customers.

The second hand smoke issue is based on false information. The studies purporting to say SHS is harmful are politicized. The studies that found no issues with SHS were suppressed. It's hysteria. Just like marajuana is not as harmful as it was depicted in the film Reefer Madness.

Granted, many may find it annoying, but it is an irritant at best.

 

[spyglass]

There is no such thing as "property rights". The concept of private property is only that, a concept. It evolved because it seems that it is an efficient way to run society, but the concept is entirely arbitrary subject to defininition by the society. Since it is a concept, that concept can be defined as widely or as narrowly as society dictates. Laws are how society defines the concepts we live by. As long as smoking bans are within the law, which I believe they are, then "rights" do not come in to the equation. The term "rights" is nothing but a euphenism (sp?) for these concepts. By using the terms "rights" some people believe it lends a absolute nature to the concept, but in fact it is still just arbitrary. As such they are subject to change in definition as society ,that is, government, chooses to define them.
Smoking bans are not a "rights" issue, some argument may be made that they are not a good idea (an argument I would disagree with), but "rights" don't come in to play.

What should the limitations be then, if any? Can a government dictate uniforms for employees of a private business. Should a government decide what music shall be played on the jukebox?

 

[spyglass]

Considering that pool only accounts for 9% of our income I would not want to voluntarily go after that market unless it was absolutely neccessary. Pool already accounts for about 90% of our headaches due to our customers behavior. To have to change over our business plan and specifically go after that market would be quite expensive. So if we were successful and the smoking ban later went into effect, then our business model could just be copied by the other places unwilling to put forth the research and the money required to find your market niche. In other words, I dont want to have to do all the work and put up all the money just to have my competition sit back and copy us later on. Another billiard parlor in St Louis just closed a couple weeks ago. St Louis pool is on a serious decline as it is. I would rather focus my attention and finances on other areas of our business that are more profitable like cue and dart sales. We have even considered reducing the size of our room to make square footage available for retail sales. I personally would probably be more open to the idea of converting to a private club depending on the legal ramifications, benefits, liabilities, etc.

I appreciate that you do not want to give away too much info to your competition.

But why not consider some kind of compromise for your customers? No smoking before 10pm for example. (The health conscious should be at home in bed by that time anyway.) Or no-smoking nights. Why wait for the government to force an issue that can be solved by the business owner?