PDA

View Full Version : A more sensible approach to smoking v. non-smoking



Wally_in_Cincy
12-13-2003, 10:27 AM
Wouldn't it make more sense for the gov't to set ventilation standards for bars, restaurants, and pool rooms? You simply calculate the cubic feet of the place and require a certain percentage of the total to be cleaned in a set amount of time.

Additionally I'm sure there are reasonably inexpensive meters that can measure ppm of airborne particulates, just to check the quality of the room's filtration.

Better than putting people out of business.

PQQLK9
12-13-2003, 10:35 AM
No...and don't tread on my thread. /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

pooltchr
12-13-2003, 10:37 AM
I'm still not in favor of additional government regulation, but I must admit your idea has a lot of merit. It certainly beats the knee-jerk reaction of enacting an all out ban on indoor smoking.

Steve---not so stubborn that I wouldn't consider a compromise such as this.

Ralph S.
12-13-2003, 10:47 AM
I like that idea alot Wally. Having done quite a bit of factory work over the years where the air quality is constantly measured for health reasons, only makes sense and already shows it can be done. I have worked and been in many plants where the air quality is ten times better than that of the corner bar or pool hall, yet there are many more serious air polutants in the plants. Go figure? /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif

PQQLK9
12-13-2003, 11:02 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Ralph S.:</font><hr> I have worked and been in many plants where the air quality is ten times better than that of the corner bar or pool hall, yet there are many more serious air polutants in the plants. Go figure? /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif <hr /></blockquote>
At least in a Plant the polutants are the means to an end. In a Pool Room it's only a by-product of smokers who put their satisfaction ahead of everyone else's heath and welfare.

ted harris
12-13-2003, 11:13 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Wally_in_Cincy:</font><hr> Wouldn't it make more sense for the gov't to set ventilation standards for bars, restaurants, and pool rooms? You simply calculate the cubic feet of the place and require a certain percentage of the total to be cleaned in a set amount of time.

Additionally I'm sure there are reasonably inexpensive meters that can measure ppm of airborne particulates, just to check the quality of the room's filtration.

Better than putting people out of business. <hr /></blockquote>
No compromise. Unless you want the wind blowing straight up at 40 mph. Your solution means that the non-smoker has to breathe some smoke and be at the mercy of filtration technology. Unless the meter reads 0 ppm, or whatever the average outdoor ppm is in the US, forget it. Another issue lies in that the employee would still be subjected to the smoke.

Ralph S.
12-13-2003, 11:19 AM
Hi there Nick. You are right about the means to an end in a factory setting. The point I am just trying to clarify is that the technology is out there to help alleviate the problems from people "drawing lines in the sand", like they are doing in this thread. Some of the in-fighting that goes on in threads like this one, can and does get out of hand.
This is JMHO. Nothing more, nothing less.

ted harris
12-13-2003, 12:00 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Ralph S.:</font><hr> Hi there Nick. You are right about the means to an end in a factory setting. The point I am just trying to clarify is that the technology is out there to help alleviate the problems from people "drawing lines in the sand", like they are doing in this thread. Some of the in-fighting that goes on in threads like this one, can and does get out of hand.
This is JMHO. Nothing more, nothing less. <hr /></blockquote>
The smoking vs. non-smoking issue is a lot like a marriage gone bad. When they first got married, it was true love. Each side complimented the other. There were many benefits of being married. After a while, he became disenchanted, and told her of his feelings more and more over a long period, and as time went on the agony of being married got worse, but he just didn't know anything different. Once he discovered that there could be a difference, he set about trying the only way he knew to make a difference. Only after 30 years of begging and waiting for the other to make some effort to make a change for the better, did he realise it was useless to try and stay together. He wasn't going to just sit idly by and be unhappy any more. Knowing he spent the last 30 years in agony was hard to fade as well. But now, it was time to move on. Better for both sides to seperate, divorce, and move on with their lives. You know, go your seperate ways. Better for both. The moral of the story is that once you reach a certain point, there ain't gonna be no going back!

Smokers have had their chance to make things better, and didn't! Now it's our time to make things better, and the difference is, we will!

sack316
12-13-2003, 01:21 PM
I think thats very reasonable to use the technology we have to filter it as best we can. I am a smoker, yet I still can see both sides. Just an observation here though, I read alot of these posts with many of you remembering old good times at an old pool room (before they became bars/clubs with pool tables in them). Most of the stories do mention the smell of the smoke, or the old men puffing on their pipes or cigars as part of the picture in their memory, and it seems to be remembered all in a positive light, but then it all changes when the topic of smoking comes into a thread it changes. Just a funny observation I made. Personally as I said I am a smoker and I say it is a bar, smoking occurs in bars. Rationalize it all you want but its part of the bar scene. Do more research on both sides, but just on anti smoking sides and if you still think second hand smoke is worse then start smoking so the less harmful first hand protects you (kidding!).

Wally_in_Cincy
12-13-2003, 01:33 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote sack316:</font><hr>..I read alot of these posts with many of you remembering old good times at an old pool room (before they became bars/clubs with pool tables in them). Most of the stories do mention the smell of the smoke, or the old men puffing on their pipes or cigars as part of the picture in their memory, and it seems to be remembered all in a positive light, but then it all changes when the topic of smoking comes into a thread it changes. Just a funny observation I made...<hr /></blockquote>

That's a good observation. Funny isn't it /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif

Regarding filtration technology, I was in a Moose hall recently for a get-together. I noticed there was no smoke in the air even though there were ashtrays everywhere. I looked around and saw at least 10 or 15 people smoking but you couldn't tell at all. I asked one of the guys that worked there about it and he said they had a kick-ass filter system. I guess it all comes down to money though. Very few proprietors want to spend thousands on that. So now they get the total ban imposed on them. In that regard I guess I agree with Ted.

ted harris
12-13-2003, 01:55 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Wally_in_Cincy:</font><hr>In that regard I guess I agree with Ted. <hr /></blockquote>
Now now, that didn't hurt too bad, did it...

Wally_in_Cincy
12-13-2003, 02:08 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote ted harris:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Wally_in_Cincy:</font><hr>In that regard I guess I agree with Ted. <hr /></blockquote>
Now now, that didn't hurt too bad, did it... <hr /></blockquote>

LOL

It was actually rather painful /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

sliprock
12-13-2003, 02:12 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Wally_in_Cincy:</font><hr> Wouldn't it make more sense for the gov't to set ventilation standards for bars, restaurants, and pool rooms? <hr /></blockquote>

I don't feel like more regulation would solve anything. If the gov't and others feel that smoking is such an evil thing, then why not just ban the sale of tobacco products. While we're at it, we can ban alcohol, cell phones,Meucci cues, and every other thing that offends us now or that could possibly offend anyone in the future. This argument could go on forever.I just think it's sad that the government collects billions in tobacco taxes and the people that use the stuff are shunned in public places. It's almost like taxation without representaion. If the government wants to invoke smoking bans, then they should be willing to give up the revenue created by smokers and their taxes. In fact, I'd bet that if smokers stopped buying tobacco, and the tax income stopped, The local governments would lift their bans in hopes of re-establishing that tax income.Just my take on the subject.

Wally_in_Cincy
12-13-2003, 02:25 PM
The gov't is addicted to that revenue as bad as smokers are addicted to the cigs.

I read once that each acre of tobacco yields $70,000 in taxes. And the farmer gets what .... $3000 or so. I can't recall how many pounds to an acre.

Another little known fact is this: smokers actually save the government money. Because they pay all those taxes then they die young and don't collect as much Social Security as other folks.

So the tobacco lawsuits for "health care for smokers" stand as the biggest scam ever IMO

ted harris
12-13-2003, 03:02 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote sliprock:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Wally_in_Cincy:</font><hr> Wouldn't it make more sense for the gov't to set ventilation standards for bars, restaurants, and pool rooms? <hr /></blockquote>

I don't feel like more regulation would solve anything. If the gov't and others feel that smoking is such an evil thing, then why not just ban the sale of tobacco products. While we're at it, we can ban alcohol, cell phones,Meucci cues, and every other thing that offends us now or that could possibly offend anyone in the future. This argument could go on forever.I just think it's sad that the government collects billions in tobacco taxes and the people that use the stuff are shunned in public places. It's almost like taxation without representaion. If the government wants to invoke smoking bans, then they should be willing to give up the revenue created by smokers and their taxes. In fact, I'd bet that if smokers stopped buying tobacco, and the tax income stopped, The local governments would lift their bans in hopes of re-establishing that tax income.Just my take on the subject.
<hr /></blockquote>
Here we go again...
I don't get drunk when you drink.
I don't have to talk to you when you talk on your cell phone.
And when you play with your Meucci cue, I don't have to play with it at the same time.
We are not talking about what offends one another here. We are talking ones unwillingness to participate in anothers activities. We are talking about one person's right to invade anothers personal space. It's about whether or not one has the right to kill another. The answer is unequivically no. Unless you are Jack Kevorkian, and are killing some poor soul that is dying because he smoked Pall Mall filterless ciggies.
If you commit a crime because you are drunk, or run over 8 people at the bus stop because you were too busy talking on your cell phone, or beat a guy to death with your Meucci pool cue, then you are going to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
If you blow smoke into air that is taken into someone's elses lungs, where is his protection? How selfish is that?
Well, soon enough, it'll be outside. And in 50 years(?) it will probably be eliminated entirely.

wolfdancer
12-13-2003, 03:20 PM
Ted,after a lifetime of what I thought were symptoms of allergies..eyes watering, nasal drip,etc..they imposed a smoking ban in this state..result for me..my symptoms disappeared, I get fewer, head colds..almost none.
Recently travelled to another state where smoking is permitted, and a few minutes after I entered the local establishment(s)..my "allergies" returned.
Wish there was a way for folks to enjoy their tobacco products, without affecting the health of non-smokers, but..
Hey, you're missed out here..best cue repair guy I've known...and I hear you also make a great cue (non-paid political endorsement)

wolfdancer
12-13-2003, 03:33 PM
Wally, I don't think smokers, and us non-smokers can ever resolve this issue. It's sort of like the differences between M.A.D.D. Mothers against drunk drivers, and my own group D.D.A.M.M. drinking drivers against mad Mothers...don't think we can find a common ground.
I have invented a device though for smokers..a self contained ventilation system, that not only allows them to enjoy smoking, but also gives them the added benefit of their own second-hand smoke.
And remember, my group kills less per year then your group..they just make a big stink when we do it. And speaking of stink....

sack316
12-13-2003, 03:40 PM
ah debate is fun. Seriously though, everyone who is going to comment on this needs to research all sides of different studies and how the studies were done. Anyone who has studies statistics knows one rule for sure: Correlation between two things does not prove that one causes the other.For example Virtually all heroin addicts drank milk regularly as children.
Therefore, drinking milk leads to heroin addiction.
That is obviously rediculous. Anyway, I kinda likes this site here (http://www.davehitt.com/facts/index.html) and if you don't want to read through all of it, for the purposes of what we've been talking about see Busineses harmed by smoking bans (http://www.davehitt.com/facts/badforbiz.html)
now of course I don't know for a fact who's studies are right/wrong or whatever, but I do look at both sides because I can admit that fact. I'm just hoping that everyone here that THINKS they do know everything on the topic because of an EPA study or whatever would read other sides (namely studies on the validity of that EPA study from 1992). Hopeully some of you crusaders have at least read that and are not basing your opinions on media advertising, I mean, only us smokers give into hard advertising, right?
And please don't flame me, I'm just planting a seed... let's see if it grows.

Barbara
12-13-2003, 03:52 PM
Ted,

You hit the nail right on the head!

Barbara

ted harris
12-13-2003, 04:21 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote sack316:</font><hr> ah debate is fun. Seriously though, everyone who is going to comment on this needs to research all sides of different studies and how the studies were done. I'm just hoping that everyone here that THINKS they do know everything on the topic because of an EPA study or whatever would read other sides (namely studies on the validity of that EPA study from 1992). Hopeully some of you crusaders have at least read that and are not basing your opinions on media advertising, I mean, only us smokers give into hard advertising, right?
And please don't flame me, I'm just planting a seed... let's see if it grows. <hr /></blockquote>
I have been waiting for someone to move this to the next level. I hope you have done your research too. Looks like you been looking around, but you didn't really look deep enough.

Here is the link to World Health Organization Reports;
http://www.who.int/inf-pr-1999/en/pr99-35.html

Here is plenty of evidence that came along way after the earlier EPA report, by many different organisations, including the WHO and others from several countries &amp; continents;
California EPA Report Health Effects of Exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke (1997):
http://www.oehha.org/air/environmental_tobacco/index.html
http://www5.who.int/tobacco/page.cfm?tld=67#healtheffects
http://www.health.gov.au/nhmrc/publications/synopses/ph23syn.htm
http://www.official-documents.co.uk/document/doh/tobacco/contents.htm
http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/roc/tenth/profiles/s176toba.pdf
http://www.euro.who.int/document/aiq/8_1ets.pdf
http://www.nih.gov/news/pr/may2000/niehs-15.htm

Here is 464 pages of evidence regarding the infamous National Cancer
Institute report;
http://cancercontrol.cancer.gov/tcrb/monographs/10/m10_complete.pdf

Here is a link to a press release by the WHO stating that Phillip Morris &amp; other tobacco companies monitored &amp; actively interfered with the conduct of an international ETS epidemiological study by the WHO; http://www.uicc.org/publ/pr/home/00040701.shtml

and another by the WHO that states that almost HALF the worlds children are endangered by tobacco smoke;
http://www.rferl.org/nca/features/1999/06/F.RU.990629125134.html

Here is a link to a Washington Post article about the 1998 ruling
upholding Judge Osteen's EPA ruling;
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/tobacco/stories/secondhand072098.htm

Take note of this quote from the article;
Of the reports that were inconclusive or found no health effects, nearly three-quarters were written by scientists funded by cigarette companies, the JAMA article said. In fact, it said, the evidence "suggests that the tobacco industry may be attempting to influence scientific opinion by flooding the scientific literature with large numbers of review articles supporting its position."

If you would like to stay up to date with the WHO, here is the link for it;
http://www.who.int/tobacco/en/

Here is the current status of ETS is at the WHO;
http://www.who.int/tobacco/health_impact/secondhand_smoke/en/

Take note of this quote from within this WHO page;
While the tobacco industry continues to claim that the evidence that
passive smoking causes disease particularly lung cancer is controversial, every independent authoritative scientific body that has examined the evidence has concluded that passive smoking causes many diseases ( Table 1 ). Moreover, the evidence that passive smoking causes disease is not new. The first studies linking passive
smoking with breathing problems in children and lung cancer in adults 20 years or more ago and the studies linking passive smoking and heart disease are over 10 years old.
The tobacco industry attacks the evidence that passive smoking is dangerous because it knows that smokers are reluctant to poison others. Smoke free workplaces, public places, and homes help smokers cut down or stop, which reduces tobacco company sales and profits.

During my research, I have discovered that the
ETS issue is far worse than even I could have imagined.

Oh, and let's don't forget the eleven million plus documents at Tobacco Documents Online (http://www.tobaccodocuments.org) that were entered into evidence in the states class action suit against the tobacco companies. These documents were all from the manufacturers themselves.

I would also like to see if this seed grows...

wolfdancer
12-13-2003, 04:26 PM
So, second-hand smoke is non-toxic, and non-lethal...hell, it might even be good for you (I didn't finish the article)...all i know for sure is that it causes me some respiratory problems

ted harris
12-13-2003, 07:33 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote sack316:</font><hr> I'm just hoping that everyone here that THINKS they do know everything on the topic because of an EPA study or whatever would read other sides (namely studies on the validity of that EPA study from 1992). Hopeully some of you crusaders have at least read that and are not basing your opinions on media advertising, I mean, only us smokers give into hard advertising, right?
And please don't flame me, I'm just planting a seed... let's see if it grows. <hr /></blockquote>

Here's some growth for you...

I found this info at this wacko's website you provided (http://www.davehitt.com/facts/who.html) particularly funny...

Fact: On March 8, 1998, the British newspaper The Telegraph reported "The world's leading health organization has withheld from publication a study which shows that not only might there be no link between passive smoking and lung cancer but that it could have even a protective effect."

Fact: In paragraph four they admitted the facts: "The study found that there was an estimated 16% increased risk of lung cancer among nonsmoking spouses of smokers. For workplace exposure the estimated increase in risk was 17%. However, due to small sample size, neither increased risk was statistically significant." (Emphasis added.)

Fact: The press release doesn't mention the one statistically significant result from the study, that children raised by smokers were 22% less likely to get lung cancer.

Fact: The only statistically significant number was a decrease in the risk of lung cancer among the children of smokers.

Fact: The study found a Relative Risk (RR) for spousal exposure of 1.16, with a Confidence Interval (CI) of .93 - 1.44. In layman's terms, that means

Exposure to the ETS from a spouse increases the risk of getting lung cancer by 16%.
Where you'd normally find 100 cases of lung cancer, you'd find 116.
The 1.16 number is not statistically significant.

Fact: The real RR can be any number within the CI. The CI includes 1.0, meaning that the real number could be no increase at all. It also includes numbers below 1.0, which would indicate a protective effect. This means that the number 1.16 is not statistically significant.

Does this mean that the 16 spouses who developed lung cancer are insignificant?
Seriously, this stuff is comical!
I have been to davehitt.com and junkscience.com many times before. These people are wacko!

I found this quote from the websites owner/operator about his own life double funny...
"I have smoked cigarettes off and on for most of my adult life. I'd smoke a few years, quit for a few years, smoke for a few more, quit for a few more, etc. I didn't keep returning to the habit because of addiction, (all traces of physical need for nicotine are gone in a week or less) but because I really, really enjoy smoking."

In my earlier response to you, I posted links to findings that repudiate the information cited on the davehitt.com &amp; junkscience.com website.
Have you done any research since?

ted harris
12-13-2003, 07:49 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote wolfdancer:</font><hr> Ted,after a lifetime of what I thought were symptoms of allergies..eyes watering, nasal drip,etc..they imposed a smoking ban in this state..result for me..my symptoms disappeared, I get fewer, head colds..almost none.
Recently travelled to another state where smoking is permitted, and a few minutes after I entered the local establishment(s)..my "allergies" returned.
Wish there was a way for folks to enjoy their tobacco products, without affecting the health of non-smokers, but..
Hey, you're missed out here..best cue repair guy I've known...and I hear you also make a great cue (non-paid political endorsement) <hr /></blockquote>
Glad to hear your allergies are doing better. I'm guessing you are in California. I sure do wish I was there, so I could play some pool. It's still a smoking environment here where I live, so I haven't played 20 hours in a year. Brutal.
Thanks for the compliments, and I miss all of you out there too.
I don't know you by your CCB name. Who are you?

NH_Steve
12-13-2003, 10:40 PM
Of course if poolrooms and other establishments that champion their precious right to smoke had taken seriously the need to protect nonsmokers by having great ventillation systems all along, and if the tobacco industry put effort into developing butts that go out instead of butts that stubbornly stay lit to the very end despite the fact they were abandoned after the first couple of drags, well then a ban might not be necessary, would it? But basically the tobacco industry and poolrooms and bars have done virtually nothing on their own over all these years of brewing controversy. As a nonsmoker, I welcome the bans -- they certainly encourage me to get out and spend more time (and money /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif ) in poolrooms that have actual breathable air.

JimS
12-14-2003, 11:12 AM
Tap, Tap, Tap...Steve.

Or...if smokers (like me /ccboard/images/graemlins/frown.gif ) would have had more of a social conscience so that when we learned that smoking was really bad for innocent bystanders we would have thought "if it's that bad for others then I'd better stop doing that in public" and then acted on that thought....what a diffenence that would have made. Instead the addiction guided my actions and I continued to lite up with impunity. Government action was inevitable given the damage being done to innocent folks.

sack316
12-14-2003, 07:52 PM
oh yes sir I have read on both sides. Actually I had already been to a few sites you provided before, and I was not doubting your knowledge or research on the matter in particular, it was meant more to those that state their opinion as fact that haven't read on both sides. As i said before I honestly can't say who is right or wrong, I just want people to know their stuff before jumping to one side or the other, be it your position or mine.

JimS
12-14-2003, 09:16 PM
And your position is........

Sid_Vicious
12-14-2003, 09:49 PM
Makes very simple sense to me Wally...sid

pooltchr
12-15-2003, 06:58 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote ted harris:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Wally_in_Cincy:</font><hr> Better than putting people out of business. <hr /></blockquote>
No compromise. <hr /></blockquote>

There's just no talking to some people...

TomBrooklyn
12-15-2003, 09:48 AM
Resist the oppressive imperial dictators!

Throw them out of office!

ted harris
12-17-2003, 10:49 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote TomBrooklyn:</font><hr> Resist the oppressive imperial dictators!

Throw them out of office! <hr /></blockquote>
Sounds like something the this guy (http://www.welovetheiraqiinformationminister.com/) would say! LOL./ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Big_Jon
12-17-2003, 11:14 AM
Ted Harris,

Are you that blind?!?!?!?! (ie: no compromise)... ok, suppose the entire country gets a indoor smoke ban, and lets say at least 60% of the poolrooms in the country close down and at least 50% of bars/taverns/clubs that have tables close down, what do you think is going to happen to YOUR business, if a pool room closes, that means that not a lot of people were playing pool, well there goes your repair business, and your custom cue business... then will you be happy???

Thanks

Jon /ccboard/images/graemlins/shocked.gif

eg8r
12-17-2003, 12:10 PM
[ QUOTE ]
If you blow smoke into air that is taken into someone's elses lungs, where is his protection? How selfish is that?
<hr /></blockquote> Or drive your car, lawnmower, or anything else that emits harmful gases into the air. Your arrogance towards this subject almost makes it easy to stand up for a smoker, eventhough I am a non-smoker.

eg8r

eg8r
12-17-2003, 12:26 PM
What happens if a small pool hall owner was forced into buying that great air-filtration system, and he went broke trying to pay it off? Now he has to find another way to support his family, let alone whatever employees he did have also lost their jobs and need to go elsewhere to look for employment to help support their families.

eg8r &lt;~~playing the devil's advocate

eg8r
12-17-2003, 12:29 PM
[ QUOTE ]
I have worked and been in many plants where the air quality is ten times better than that of the corner bar or pool hall, yet there are many more serious air polutants in the plants. Go figure? <hr /></blockquote> I love the idea, however it is way to costly for the smaller income pool halls, bars, and restaurants. Not only for the system, but for maintenance, and inspections.

eg8r

Wally_in_Cincy
12-17-2003, 12:52 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> What happens if a small pool hall owner was forced into buying that great air-filtration system,.... <hr /></blockquote>

I'll quote Hillary when someone suggested businesses might fail due to her mandatory health care system.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Hitlery:</font><hr>I can't be responsible for every under-capitalized business in the country <hr /></blockquote>

/ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

Wally~~just kidding

Rich R.
12-17-2003, 12:52 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Big_Jon:</font><hr>suppose the entire country gets a indoor smoke ban, and lets say at least 60% of the poolrooms in the country close down and at least 50% of bars/taverns/clubs that have tables close down,<hr /></blockquote>
Do you really believe all these business will close?

I don't think so!!!!!!!

I live in an area that pasted laws, years ago, about smoking in many public buildings, including stores, malls and many restaurants. I don't know of one business that closed because of it.
I work in a building that went smoke free. I didn't see a bunch of people quitting their jobs.

In any area, where smoking is banned from poolrooms, there may be a short term loss of business. After that, smokers will adjust and go back to playing pool, without their cigarettes.
A small number may give up pool, but chances are they will not be the avid players.
Also, a number of non-smokers, who stayed away before, will begin to frequent the non-smoking poolrooms.

Everything will balance out, in the end, and all will be fine. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Smokers are not as strong a bunch, as you seem to think they are. If they were, you wouldn't be seeing these smoking bans passed. Politicians vote on bills to make the majority of voters happy. Obviously, the majority of voters are non-smokers.

eg8r
12-17-2003, 01:52 PM
LOL. Sounds about right.

eg8r

ted harris
12-17-2003, 03:13 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Big_Jon:</font><hr> Ted Harris,

Are you that blind?!?!?!?! (ie: no compromise)... ok, suppose the entire country gets a indoor smoke ban, and lets say at least 60% of the poolrooms in the country close down and at least 50% of bars/taverns/clubs that have tables close down, what do you think is going to happen to YOUR business, if a pool room closes, that means that not a lot of people were playing pool, well there goes your repair business, and your custom cue business... then will you be happy???

Thanks

Jon /ccboard/images/graemlins/shocked.gif <hr /></blockquote>
While we are at it, let's just suppose that Osama Bin Laden manages to get nuclear weapons into 60% of cities that contain pool rooms and detonates them? At that point, I won't much care what happens to my business, will I?
Let's not make pretend here. Smokers have been pretending that smoking isn't harmful to others and that their rights preceed everyone elses for long enough. Let's deal with reality here. Smoking is harmful to others, and their rights don't preceed non-smokers.
There is no chance that 60% of anything will go out of business because of a smoking ban in indoor public places.
I would like to again state emphatically that businesses have had ample warning that this is coming, and most should be able to adapt. As evolution goes, there are always going to be the weak that don't survive. The survivors will be all the stronger for the evolution that took place.

JimS
12-17-2003, 09:43 PM
Ted,

You can tell when a country is going to hell when the government and it's citizens are more concerned with business than with people.

eg8r
12-18-2003, 09:05 AM
[ QUOTE ]
You can tell when a country is going to hell when the government and it's citizens are more concerned with business than with people. <hr /></blockquote> You can tell when someone does not know what they are talking about when they make a quote like the one above. If there is no business then there are no jobs. However the big issue to me is not about business at all, rather the size of government. It keeps growing and pretty soon, Americans will think the government should be there to help out with all their problems. This just is not the governments role.

I don't believe in all the doom and gloom stories about everyone going out of business because obviously sooner or later the pool players are going to have an itch to play pool and they will head back to the pool hall. I am sure some will suffer, but there will be nothing better about the situation. Now the group crying foul will be the smokers. An all-out ban does nothing but switch the crying crowd from non-smokers to smokers. Nothing has been fixed yet government has grown in strength a little more.

eg8r

JimS
12-18-2003, 09:19 PM
Good grief eg8r...who is going to help the guy with poor health if not the government? Do we just let him/her die? The weak just perish...natural selection.

Snookered
12-18-2003, 10:59 PM
We're all dying anyway, does it really matter? Enjoy life whenever and whereever you can!

Jim

ted harris
12-18-2003, 11:11 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Snookered:</font><hr> We're all dying anyway, does it really matter? Enjoy life whenever and whereever you can!
<hr /></blockquote>
Yeah! Enjoy life he says! On that note I think I will run out now and get a pack of smokes so I can really start to enjoy life! /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

pooltchr
12-19-2003, 06:57 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote ted harris:</font><hr> On that note I think I will run out now and get a pack of smokes so I can really start to enjoy life! /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif <hr /></blockquote>

May I recommend Camel non-filters. I will send you a coupon to save .50 off a pack! /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif
(Just pickin' at ya, Ted!)

JimS
12-19-2003, 07:08 AM
My brother in law was just diagnosed with copd and has to use oxygen. This after 17 years of being a non-smoker!

I havn't had a cigarette in 7 1/2 months, but of course want one, and my first thought was....hell if it ain't going to do me any good to quit smoking, if I'm going to get lung disease anyway, I might as well go get a pack.

Once a junkee...

Not going to do it. Just noticing the addiction is still there waiting for ANY flimsy excuse to jump up again. /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

Rich R.
12-19-2003, 07:23 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote JimS:</font><hr> My brother in law was just diagnosed with copd and has to use oxygen. This after 17 years of being a non-smoker!

I havn't had a cigarette in 7 1/2 months, but of course want one, and my first thought was....hell if it ain't going to do me any good to quit smoking, if I'm going to get lung disease anyway, I might as well go get a pack.

Once a junkee...

Not going to do it. Just noticing the addiction is still there waiting for ANY flimsy excuse to jump up again. /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif <hr /></blockquote>
Jim, you never know when "quitting" will save your butt. (pun intended)
At one time, I was a very heavy smoker, but quit.
Later in my life, I had a health problem, not lung related. Several doctors told me, if I had continued to smoke, I would most likely be dead.

Don't associate smoking with lung problems only. It affects a lot more things in your body.

ted harris
12-19-2003, 10:24 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote JimS:</font><hr>I havn't had a cigarette in 7 1/2 months, but of course want one, and my first thought was....hell if it ain't going to do me any good to quit smoking, if I'm going to get lung disease anyway, I might as well go get a pack.

Once a junkee...

Not going to do it. Just noticing the addiction is still there waiting for ANY flimsy excuse to jump up again. /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif <hr /></blockquote>
Keep up the good work, brother! /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif