PDA

View Full Version : Pool Players Smoking Rights Trampled By Government



TomBrooklyn
05-18-2002, 06:40 AM
Pool Players and all mens rights have again been trampled by Government. This time by the State of Delaware, which has banned smoking in all privately owned business that are open to the public. See http://www.billiardsdigest.com/ccboard/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=ccbboard&Number=13619&page =0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=14&fpart=1#Post13982

Many people think they have, or should have a right to a smoke-free environment in a private establishment that is open to the public. This is a sorely misguided and mistaken belief. They have no God given or natural right to impose their will on other free men.

It is a mockery of justice and freedom that some self-serving, imprudent politicians have chosen the relatively harmless path of passing legislation that is popular, but undermines the rights and freedoms of hardworking, honest men. The fact that second hand smoke may be harmful to one's health or considered unpleasant by some is insignificant; as no one is forced to enter establishments where smoking takes place, and everyone is free to boycott smoking-allowed venues and patronize only non-smoking establishments if they chose. That this may be inconvenient does not sufficiently provide moral justification to trample on freedom of choice.

Any business that owns or leases four walls and a floor should have the freedom, the right, the God given, self-evident liberty to determine if they want to allow smoking in the place they own; just as any one who wishes to work there or patronize said establishment should, and does have a similar right and freedom to chose if they want to work in or enter the place.

The concept that a business must prohibit smoking to suit the preferences of those that who do not wish to be exposed to it and wish to force their preference on other free men is an abrogation, not an enhancement of freedom, and another big step in the wrong direction for America or any of her States.

Jay M
05-18-2002, 06:53 AM
I'm still waiting for the first discrimination lawsuit to go through based on some employers refusing to hire smokers.

Jazzercise just lost a lawsuit saying that they discriminated against allowing a woman to be a master teacher due to her weight (5'4" 270 or so pounds, I forget the exact number). They were forced to give her the status by the courts because she demonstrated that she could perform all of the complex steps necessary to teach jazzercise.

It's not that far away, heck, I may even apply for one of those jobs that say non-smokers only, and for which I am qualified, just to see what happens. That would be a fun battle.

Don't get me wrong, I am a considerate smoker. I always ask the other people around me before I light up. I always move if the smoke from my cigarette is blowing in the direction of a non-smoker.

Health issues aside, I HATE the fact that some non-smokers feel that they are somehow "better" than me simply because they don't smoke. Yes, it's a bad habit and I'll kick it when I'm ready. Right now I'm not ready and I resent anyone that wants to tell me I don't have the right to smoke. There is a nice little phrase in the introduction to the bill of rights that says something about the right to "the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness". Who do these politicians think they are in telling me what makes me happy? As long as I am conscientious (sp) in ensuring that my smoke isn't bothering the people around me, it is a matter of personal choice and there isn't anyone anywhere that has the moral ground to refuse me that right.

Jay M

rackmup
05-18-2002, 07:20 AM
I found these numbers on the web. As you can see, they are a few years old but what they clearly show is the percentage of smokers vs. non-smokers is quite lopsided in the favor of those who don't "light up." This is why the smoker will eventually lose all of the battles. When the non-smoking VOTING public outnumbers the opposition (the smokers), who do you think elected officials are going to hop into bed with?

I'm a non-smoker, I lost two family members to lung cancer, I told my wife..."quit smoking or we will not be married." That said, smokers have their rights too...it just appears they are dwindling fast.
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr>Nov. 8, 1996

Number of adult smokers

The percentage of smoking adults in each state in 1995:

State Prevalence (%)
Kentucky 27.8
Indiana 27.2
Tennessee 26.5
Nevada 26.3
Ohio 26.0
North Carolina 25.8
Michigan 25.7
West Virginia 25.7
Delaware 25.5
Arkansas 25.2
Louisiana 25.2
Alaska 25.0
Maine 25.0
Rhode Island 24.7
Alabama 24.5
Missouri 24.3
Pennsylvania 24.2
Mississippi 24.0
South Carolina 23.7
Texas 23.7
Iowa 23.2
Florida 23.1
Illinois 23.1
Arizona 22.9
North Dakota 22.7
Vermont 22.1
Kansas 22.0
Virginia 22.0
Wyoming 22.0
Nebraska 21.9
Colorado 21.8
Oregon 21.8
South Dakota 21.8
Wisconsin 21.8
Massachusetts 21.7
Oklahoma 21.7
New York 21.5
New Hampshire 21.4
Maryland 21.2
New Mexico 21.2
Montana 21.1
Connecticut 20.8
Georgia 20.5
Minnesota 20.5
Washington 20.2
Idaho 19.8
New Jersey 19.2
Hawaii 17.8
California 15.5
Utah 13.2

Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

<hr></blockquote>

I will admit...I don't like it when I am eating and an inconsiderate smoker allows the smoke to blow my way. I don't like the smell of cigareette smoke. I worry for the health of those close to me that do smoke. But you are right; it is a conscious decision that YOU make as a smoker. Should you choose to ignore the health risks and the stigma that is now associated with smoking, it is your given right to do so. As for non-smokers having the right to decide to not patronize an establishment that allows smoking, I have a small beef: Where would I play pool? 99% of all places that house pool tables allow smoking. Is it fair to me that you can go into the pool hall because you do smoke and I can't because I don't want to be exposed to the health risks? It is a very touchy situation for both sides.

I partonize "smoking allowed" establishments. I always have and I always will. As long as there are pool tables in a room, regardless of what is allowed in that room, I will enter that room, cues in hand.

I will stand beside you and defend your rights to do the things that you are legally allowed to do. I will also agree that I am concerned where it will all end. What rights, afforded to me, will continue to be decided by the elected minority (the politicians) for the voting majority (the rest of us hard working Americans)?

Regards,

Ken (hates commenting on this political stuff)

Ken
05-18-2002, 07:23 AM
Jay, You are one in a thousand. Your smoking habits do not speak for the majority of smokers who are downright inconsiderate, period. So don't think you are going to get any points for your behavior on behalf of other smokers. If everyone did as you then there would be no problem.

As for workers having the choice not to work in a smoking environment that is where the state comes in with the laws. Many people do not have the ability easily to find a job in a non-smoking environment. The job of waitressing is one where the majority of jobs are in places that permit smoking. There are not enough jobs for all the non-smokers in that field which is very popular and pays quite well.

To demonstrate the absurdity of smoking, I once went into the veterans hospital to have a dislocating shoulder repaired. The smoke was so bad there that in the morning when the nurse came into my room she angrily accused me of smoking in my room. I challenged her to find any cigarettes. Of course, she had all the answers and I had flushed them and smoked tham all. What had actually happened was that the entire building was filled with smoke the previous evening. Then after my door was closed the rest of the building was ventilated but my room still reeked of smoke from the previous evening. Smokers won't smoke in an enclosed area. They have to let the smoke out because even they cannot stand it.
KenCT

MikeM
05-18-2002, 07:49 AM
Tom and Jay,

Why do you think you have a right to smoke around other people? Why do you think that public smoking bans are infringing on your "right" to smoke? Do you really think that the right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" allows you to do whatever you want, wherever you want?

Please don't misconstrue this post to mean that I hate smokers. I have many friends and relatives who smoke. I'm just trying to understand where you are coming from.

As far as people thinking they are better than you, Jay, are you repeating what people said or are you just guessing. I have tried to make this point in earlier posts, I don't think less of anyone because they smoke. I do however think it is very inconsiderate to smoke around other people. And, BTW, it's not the smoke, it's the fumes. Cigarette fumes are the deadly part. They're invisible and they don't just go where you blow your smoke. Fumes from one cigarette will COMPLETELY saturate the air of a standard size high school gym in two minutes. So you may think you are being considerate, by blowing your smoke the other way, but you are not. The fumes are everywhere. So, everyone in a bar or pool hall IS being negatively affected when someone is smoking there. Non-smoking areas are a joke. If anyone is smoking, you will smell it and breathe it.

Discrimination suits have been filed and won, when an employer has not hired someone because they smoke. Employers can say that you can't smoke while at work though. This is the case almost everywhere these days. The real threat of employee law suits is employees suing because they were exposed to smoke in the workplace. Stewardesses, for example have won huge judgements against airlines.

I am a fan of banning smoking in public and I applaud any legislature that has the guts to stand up to the tobacco lobby.

MM

Ken
05-18-2002, 07:59 AM
I made the mistake once of sitting in the smoking section of an airliner. I thought "how bad can it be? I can tolerate smokers". Well, I found out and it was incredible.
KenCT

MikeM
05-18-2002, 08:08 AM
Yes, I'm glad those days are over. I was stuck in the back of the plane a few times with smokers. I get motion sickness anyway and combined with smoke, those were some very difficult flights.

MM

Ken
05-18-2002, 08:55 AM
What I never understood is that when the light came on all those sheep pulled their smoking materials out (if they were not already out) and lit up. All they really needed to do was to wait a minute and they would be getting all the smoke they ever wanted for free.
KenCT

TomBrooklyn
05-18-2002, 09:13 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: MikeM:</font><hr> Tom, Why do you think you have a right to smoke around other people? Why do you think that public smoking bans are infringing on your "right" to smoke? Do you really think that the right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" allows you to do whatever you want, wherever you want?<hr></blockquote> I don't think I, or anyone, should have a right to smoke in publicly owned places where it affects other people; if it is the will of the public majority that smoking should be banned in those places.

However, what Delaware passed is not a public smoking ban. It is a private business smoking ban. One must distinguish between what is public property and what is privately owned property and business open to the public for the pleasure of the those who seek and chose to enter. Public property where majority rule should have effect are all Government buildings, Courthouses, Post Offices, Public Schools, Parks, Sidewalks and Streets, and public transportation provided by Government.

Any building owned by a private citizen or corporation is not public property, nor is any airline, boat, bus or other means of conveyance not paid for or operated with tax dollars. It may be open to the public but no one is holding a gun to anyone's head to make them enter or utilize such place. In fact, if enough persons chose not to patronize such places they may be forced out of business because they cannot make any money. In that case, such businesses might prefer to prohibit or limit smoking, but it would, and should be their choice.

If anyone under the American free enterprise system that has heretofore created the greatest economy the world has ever known, feels they can prosper by starting a business that prohibits smoking, they are free to do so. There is no law, nor should there be one, stopping them.

Similarly, no law should be passed telling private citizens what they must do within the confines of their own property when they are harming no one but themselves and those who chose to go in there. If you don't like smoke in pool halls, bars, restaurants, clothing stores, airplanes, or whatever private business you can think of; go to the ones that prohibit it. If you can't find one close by, then travel further or open your own. If you prefer, buy your own pool table, drink at home, buy your cloths via mail order, travel in your own car, boat or airplane, or do anything you want. No one is stopping you. You have the freedom to chose. If you are inconvenienced, you can determine and follow your best option. However, the role of Government should not be to dictate to private business how they must cater to anyone's convenience or personal preference, no matter how popular it is.

MikeM
05-18-2002, 09:39 AM
Well Tom I think there is a problem with your definition of public. It is very narrow. Here are the definitions:


pub·lic
adj.
1. Of, concerning, or affecting the community or the people: the public good.
2. Maintained for or used by the people or community: a public park.
3. Capitalized in shares of stock that can be traded on the open market: a public company.
4. Participated in or attended by the people or community: “Opinions are formed in a process of open discussion and public debate” (Hannah Arendt).
5. Connected with or acting on behalf of the people, community, or government: public office.
6. Enrolled in or attending a public school: transit passes for public students.
7. Open to the knowledge or judgment of all: a public scandal.


n.
1. The community or the people as a whole.
2. A group of people sharing a common interest: the reading public.
3. Admirers or followers, especially of a famous person.

Public does not equate to government owned. By definition, private businesses are all in the "public". All private businesses are subject to laws and regulation. A private business has to answer to the public interest. Delaware's ban is for smoking in public places, plain and simple.

MM

rackmup
05-18-2002, 09:50 AM
(This topic could very easily reach the number one position in the "Top Ten CCB Posts" in record fashion.)

Regards,

Ken (I am staying waaaaaay out of this one!)

MikeM
05-18-2002, 09:55 AM
LOL... I try VERY hard to stay out of the smoking ones, but have succumbed lately. It's raining here today and I'm bored. I'm stuck watching my two year old and can't go downstairs to shoot pool, cause he climbs up on the table and grabs ball as they go by. I can't take him to the pool hall because of all the smo....oops. You get the picture.

MM


BTW check me out, I'm a member now! Wait, did I just call myself a member? Is that a good thing or not? :&gt;)

05-18-2002, 11:30 AM
Very funny Mike...LOL. Okay, here's my two cents. I'm an ex smoker. I quit when a friend of mine was diagnosed with lung cancer. I was the one who drove forty miles round trip a day to take him to his treatments. I was the one who bought his medicine. One other guy helped out financially, out of the hundreds that called themselves his friend. It took him six months to die. And it wasn't pretty. That was four years ago, and although others watched this horrible drama, they continue to this day to light up, including my own boyfriend ( don't anyone start! LOL). People smoke because they are addicted, not just physically, but phsycologically, and passing legislation isn't going to stop them. Quitting for me, even given the circumstances, was incredibly difficult. I couldn't even enter a pool hall for months. Too easy to bum a smoke. People start smoking because they can't make the thirty to fourty plus year leap to dying because of it. I know I didn't. But facts are facts. 75% of you who smoke are going to die of a smoke related disease. Not real good odds in my book. What's unfortunate is that many more who never smoked (like my grandmother) but who hang around smokers all their lives will die too. I don't know, IS smoking a right? Or is it an assault? Having been on both sides of the issue, I still don't know the answer.

rackmup
05-18-2002, 01:45 PM
MikeM,

Congrats on the "Member" status. Your "Welcome" packet is on it's way! It's loaded with great stuff:

<ul type="square"> Your membership card. It entitles you to absolutely no discounts or privleges anywhere you go. Remember..."Don't leave home with it."
Your Membership T-Shirt. A plain white, size medium "Hanes Beefy-T" with a magic marker for designing your very own special shirt!
A bumper sticker from the "Professional Bumper Pool Players Assn. of North America."
[/list]

Enjoy and again, CONGRATULATIONS!

Regards,

Ken

rackmup
05-18-2002, 01:53 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr>...I don't know, IS smoking a right? Or is it an assault?<hr></blockquote>

Lorri,

It is BOTH, and as with any assault, the "assaulted" has the right to "fight back." This is why these laws are being passed.

It surely didn't help the smoking public's situation when all of the major tobacco companies admitted to lying to the public about the hazards of the habit and defrauding countless numbers out of their health.

Regards,

Ken (will still defend your right to smoke, just don't let it waft over my 20 oz porterhouse and baked potato,dripping with real butter and covered in real bacon bits. If I'm gonna die from something unhealthy...I choose hardened arteries and high cholosterol)

MikeM
05-18-2002, 04:57 PM
Oh Boy! I can't wait. Although I haven't worn a medium T-shirt since I was 12!

MM

MikeM
05-18-2002, 05:14 PM
Lorri,

I know it must have been painful to watch your friend die. We all have our stories of watching people die from the effects of smoking. I realize it is an addiction and I don't believe that legislation is written to try to make people quit. I think it is more to make sure it doesn't hurt other people. If it does lead people to quit, so much the better.

MM

05-18-2002, 05:55 PM
I live in Northern California. MOST establishments with pool tables DON'T allow smoking. And where I play tournament, almost all the players are smokers. We can't enjoy watching our peers when we're not up if we are smoking (which is much of the time). I agree that it is free choice whether to smoke or not, I just think that it would be nice to have free choice for the establishment owners. If there was a choice as to either a smoking or non-smoking establishment, then everyone would win - there would be pool halls and bars for each. Here in Northern California, many places are closing for lack of business due to the law that prevents a good deal of their patrons from smoking. Now people don't frequent them, they stay home or get together at friend's houses just so they CAN smoke and play pool (but it's hard to meet new people to play with that way). If the patrons had a choice to enter either one type or the other, then the propietor's business would be due to supply and demand (the backbone of our Capitalistic system) rather than no choice. I don't understand why the "health issue" has the right to take away "smoking bars, etc.". There are still many strip joints and if people don't want to enter them they don't have to (that will probably be the next "health issue" to assert itself above individual freedom of choice). P.S. this is all on a friendly note, I just don't understand why proprietors don't have a choice.

shojingod
05-18-2002, 05:55 PM
As much as we like to talk about pool this is a important issue that does affect it very much.

The question is: " Do you think smoking ban in pool halls will help pool? "

I personnally think it will help enormously. It will allow the game to be enjoyed by more people in the population like children and asthmatics as well as others with breathing problems. That cigarette smoke is like a barrier that blocked many from enjoying or wanting to enjoy our sport. It will also help improve public image and exposure.

05-19-2002, 08:21 AM
Shojin,
I'm pretty sure dellineli answered that question right above you. I think we all, smokers and non smokers alike, agree that smoking is not a healthy pursuit, however, the idea of PH's with smoking or non smoking designations is a good one. The government should not have the right to enforce this law, but they should be able to finance those who choose to embrace the concept. After all, they can spend 10k on a hammer, so why not? Ten hammers opens a fairly nice non-smoking pool hall in my neck of the woods (the second most expensive cost of living in the nation)

Wally_in_Cincy
05-19-2002, 01:07 PM
This is another blatant attempt by the gov't to trample on private property rights. If you are a non-smoker JUST DON'T GO WHERE PEOPLE ARE SMOKING!

Having said that I believe the ban on smoking on planes, buses, and in public buildings (gov't buildings, libraries, etc.)is perfectly reasonable. These are places where folks sometimes have no choice but to go. But pool halls, bars, and bowling alleys should be able to set their own policy.

As far as the majority of people now being non-smokers and the whole democracy thing, consider this. If the U.S. consisted of 55% men should that "majority" be allowed to legalize rape? Should the "majority" of white people be able to pass a law enslaving anyone with dark skin? Just because you're in the majority does not necessarily mean that you are right.

Ken
05-19-2002, 01:40 PM
I think you will find that back when 100% of the voters were white men both rape and slavery were outlawed. You will also find that the practice of smoking in public places was widespread. It is only since the ratification of the 15th and 19th amendments giving others the right to vote that there have been restrictions put on the "privilege" of smoking where you please. You will also find that there has never been a constitutional amendment giving ANYONE the "right" to smoke.
KenCT

shojingod
05-19-2002, 02:17 PM
Therefore your for segregation.

shojingod
05-19-2002, 02:44 PM
Hey check this out.

Do you want to look like this. I don't want to and I demand not to be like that.

<a target="_blank" href=http://www.sptimes.com/News/61599/Floridian/He_wanted_you_to_know.shtml>http://www.sptimes.com/News/61599/Floridian/He_wanted_you_to_know.shtml</a>

05-19-2002, 03:07 PM
I don't know you tom so please don't take this personally, that being said, you talk about goverment being out of line for having rules for private business', so I suppose that because a restaraunt is a private business it should not be subject to clean standards for the handling of food, I also suppose that this same business should not be held to any standards for cleanliness i.e restroom, serving areas, kitchen, etc. also, this same business should not be held accountable for maximum occupancy, fire hazard standards, building safety etc? no sir, the reason the goverment can and will get involved in a private business' operation is for the safety of the public!! and that is the very reason they issued a ban on the smoking! it's a proven health hazard, period, end of story!
I would also like to raise the same issue to you about me going somewhere else because I don't smoke, huh, I like pool halls and I like the atmosphere of pool halls, there is nowhere else to go, if I like playing pool in a pool hall, who are you to tell me that I ought to go somewhere else? I'm just suppose to quit playing pool or going to resteraunt's, just because their private business'? listen I don't have anything personal against people who smoke, but I like to breathe clean air, it kind of keeps me alive, you know. your smoking habit affects everyone within 100' of you and that's the problem with your habit, it's not just confined to your person! how would you like me to follow you around alnight and pass offensive smelling gas next to you, I'll guarantee you would hate it! and I would be a jerk for doing it, this is obviously a very big issue, but, how can you not accept the fact that secondhand smoke is dangerous? it's been proven over and over again, hey it's your habit, and you do have the right to have that habit, but it's not my habit and I shouldn't have to quit doing things I love to do, or going to places I love to go because you want to smoke. you can still smoke in designated areas or outside and still do the things you like, I'm suppose to just quit doing things I like altogether? times are changing my friend, and just because business' are privately owned does not preclude them from certain standards of operation that are in place for the safety of the public. steve

shojingod
05-19-2002, 05:21 PM
RIGHT ON THE MONEY!

05-19-2002, 07:45 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: TomBrooklyn:</font><hr> Pool Players and all mens rights have again been trampled by Government. This time by the State of Delaware, which has banned smoking in all privately owned business that are open to the public. See <a target="_blank" href=http://www.billiardsdigest.com/ccboard/showflat.php?Cat=&amp;Board=ccbboard&amp;Number=13619&amp;page =0&amp;view=collapsed&amp;sb=5&amp;o=14&amp;fpart=1#Post13982>http://www.billiardsdigest.com/ccboard/showflat.php?Cat=&amp;Board=ccbboard&amp;Number=13619&amp;page =0&amp;view=collapsed&amp;sb=5&amp;o=14&amp;fpart=1#Post13982</a>

Many people think they have, or should have a right to a smoke-free environment in a private establishment that is open to the public. This is a sorely misguided and mistaken belief. They have no God given or natural right to impose their will on other free men.

It is a mockery of justice and freedom that some self-serving, imprudent politicians have chosen the relatively harmless path of passing legislation that is popular, but undermines the rights and freedoms of hardworking, honest men. The fact that second hand smoke may be harmful to one's health or considered unpleasant by some is insignificant; as no one is forced to enter establishments where smoking takes place, and everyone is free to boycott smoking-allowed venues and patronize only non-smoking establishments if they chose. That this may be inconvenient does not sufficiently provide moral justification to trample on freedom of choice.

Any business that owns or leases four walls and a floor should have the freedom, the right, the God given, self-evident liberty to determine if they want to allow smoking in the place they own; just as any one who wishes to work there or patronize said establishment should, and does have a similar right and freedom to chose if they want to work in or enter the place.

The concept that a business must prohibit smoking to suit the preferences of those that who do not wish to be exposed to it and wish to force their preference on other free men is an abrogation, not an enhancement of freedom, and another big step in the wrong direction for America or any of her States.
<hr></blockquote>

smoking is bad for the body and so is bad for others. the hell with freedom if freedom means killing our souls! the hell with you smokers for making YOUR life, OTHERS life and MY life short live! think of your chidren and not your self alone!

05-19-2002, 07:47 PM
I hope TomBrooklyn will rot to death from smoking.

stickman
05-19-2002, 07:56 PM
Obviously, you have strong feelings about smoking, but let's not get carried away. While you may not agree with Tom's opinion, there's no need to make remarks like this.

05-19-2002, 08:12 PM
like what? I thought I was being non-confrontational, and diplomatic with what I said?

Ken
05-19-2002, 08:19 PM
I think he's referring to one of the other anonymice.

05-19-2002, 08:36 PM
you are really out to lunch with that view, private property rights? what, your house? yeh your house is private property, because you live there and you can do what you want in the privacy of your home, since when is a bowling alley, pool hall, or bar private property? they may own the property and/or building, but if they serve the public to make a profit, they are subject to local and state statutes governing running that business! i.e health inspections, building fire safety, occupational license, etc. these exist for the public's safety while patronizing that business! would you want to eat something that wasn't made right or that wasn't kept in a properly working cooler? smoking is deadly and a health hazzard, this is a proven fact! so get off the private property platform, because it collapses underneath your feet, and maybe if a local building inspector signed off on the safety of that platform, you might not be on your back looking up because of shotty workmanship!!!!!!!!!! steve

stickman
05-19-2002, 08:40 PM
I agree. /ccboard/images/icons/smile.gif My post was in reference to the anonomous poster directly above my reply.

Rod
05-19-2002, 09:01 PM
No harm done, but you anon's should adopt a name. Instead of the rest of the board trying to figure who's who by an IP address. Your going to get a lot more comments you may not care for, your choice.

cheesemouse
05-19-2002, 09:09 PM
Hey, anybody got a smoke for a vet......just kidding I quit three years ago. I now understand what 'secondary smoke' is. Your rights end where my noise begins. /ccboard/images/icons/smile.gif

rackmup
05-19-2002, 10:52 PM
Anonymous,

Just curious...do you have ANY friends that smoke? Any relatives that smoke? How about pool-playing partners? If so, do you have the same "death wish" for them? Again, I am just curious. It seems like such a harsh wish for someone to want, in view of the fact you do not know Tom.

Regards,

Ken ("rotting to death" HAS to be a terrible way to go)

Vicki
05-20-2002, 11:57 AM
This is about the most dumb-a** thing I have ever read! How stupid do you have to be to write something like this... that basically says, I have a right to cause and your children to suffer all kinds of smoking related illness and possibly to die. YOU should be banned, TomBrooklyn. I don't think there is a more selfish point of view than the one that you and your croonies have taken. You should really think twice before you open your mouth... no amount of heretofore's and twisted language will ever convince any reasonable person that you have a "right" to smoke. Just shoot yourself in the head... It's faster and certainly less painful than lung cancer. Good luck.

MaineEAck
05-20-2002, 01:16 PM
I have not read any of the other threads but Let me tell you one thing... you said They have no God given or natural right to impose their will on other free men. but when you smoke with me around, your not only killing you, but your killing me. And that is NOT A RIGHT OF ANYONE you "impose that will on other free PEOPLE"

05-20-2002, 07:34 PM
You think that's bad? My local billiards emporium wouldn't let me wear my gun in the other day. Now, when these commie, bed-wetting, thumb-sucking, cry-babies start trampling on my GOD GIVEN 2ND AMENDMENT RIGHTS to shoot a game of pool with my trusty AK-47 strapped to my shoulder that's when America is really headed down the road to slavery. If GOD didn't want me to have a gun, he would never have given me a trigger finger!

05-20-2002, 07:40 PM
Make you a deal. You leave a burn mark on one of my rails, it'll cost you $50, plus cost of repair. Drop a hot ash on my Simonis cloth, $100, plus cost of repair. Still want to light up?

05-20-2002, 09:38 PM
Lorri is giggling her butt off at the AK47 thing. What a mental image!!

sliprock
05-21-2002, 01:33 AM
Tom, I agree with you 100%. State and Federal government shouldn't be able to impose policies on private businesses. I should be able to offer any services to my patrons as long as I'm not doing anything illegal. The anti-smoking movement in this country is very strong and any "feel good" laws that these legislators pass only boosts their standings with the anti-smoking voters. What these anti-smoking zealots don't realize is that they DON'T have the right to demand private business' to provide a smoke free environment for them to use. If someone is offended by a smoker, then they are free to go anywhere they choose and spend their money elsewhere. I don't have a problem with a smoke free business as long as the choice was made by the owner. I also don't have a problem with going into a corner bar that is full of stinky cigar smoke. If I get offended, I can leave. What I do have a problem with is loud music and drunks, so after I finish this post I'm gonna write my congressman and demand that all music and alcohol be banned from private business. On second thought, I think I'll just stay away from those places that serve alcohol and have loud music. Local, State and federal government's need to start using their heads more and their hearts less when passing laws..Steve Hasty

05-21-2002, 03:42 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: sliprock:</font><hr> Tom, I agree with you 100%. State and Federal government shouldn't be able to impose policies on private businesses..Steve Hasty <hr></blockquote>

well, in a boston tea party kinda way, they can't. i mean, those guys are in washington and after the local pols pass the compliance laws the local cops go back to business as usual. saw a big city room where the cops were asked to enforce the local anti smoking laws so they did. big fines and everything. big fuss.

then the room just took away all the ashtrays. everyone still smokes all they can, as always, but the room isn't "facilitating" it. it's not an iron clad defense but the cops are back doing their regular stuff and, other than cigarette burns on everything, the rooms doin fine. better than ever i hear.

ultimately, retail law is accomplished by the owner and the local cops working it out and no, i'm not suggesting that you have to pay them off. that's not the case at all.

dan

rackmup
05-21-2002, 05:01 AM
Dammit! I said I was gonna stay out of this one but the repeated cries of "If you're gonna smoke and kill yourself that's fine but don't kill me too" is driving me nuts...like long nails dragged the length of a chalkboard.

Yes. Smoking causes lung cancer.

Yes. Second hand smoke is unhealthy for SOME of the non-smokers.

My Grandfather smoked cigarettes, cigars and a pipe, ate fried foods and kept a little nip of Jack Daniels hidden in the garage. He lived to 87.

I'm also tired of the attitude of "I'll stop smoking when they pry the cigarette from between my boney, nicotine-stained fingers."

Let's face the facts and quit candy-coating it with statistics:

Smoking is addictive. It is hard to quit. If all smokers could witness ONE autopsy and view the cross section of a smoker's lung (as my academy class did when I became a cop), they would probably quit immediately (several did on that day.)

If non-smokers and their alliances expended their efforts on other projects with the same fervor, a lot could be accomplished in other arenas.

It boils down to selfishness in both camps. One side wants to do as they please while the other wants everyone to do as they do.

SMOKER: "No one is gonna tell me what I can and can't do...it's my life and I'll smoke if I want to. If you don't like it...LEAVE."

NON-SMOKER: "Why should I have to cut my life short because someone else chooses to do the same to theirs?"

The real question is this:

"Can a Moori hard tip be rolled in Zig-Zags and smoked without ill effects to the irish linen wrap on my jump/break cue and if yes, is Scott Lee in town so I can get a lesson and beat Fran Crimi?"

Regards,

Ken (a non-smoker who believes in the principals that this country was founded on)

MikeM
05-21-2002, 06:13 AM
Ken,

Second hand smoke is unhealthy for ALL non-smokers. Just because your grandfather lived to 87 doesn't mean his smoking didn't damage a lot of others that he smoked around. And lung cancer is only one result of smoking. The list of problems that second hand smoke cause is extensive.

Non-smokers do not want other people "to do as they do". They want to be able to breathe. Whether in a pool hall, a bar, a restaurant, walking down the street, whatever. Smokers should not smoke around other people who don't smoke. Laws or no laws, smoking in public is rude (and dangerous) to the others who have to breathe the fumes.

And one last thing..........


"If you're gonna smoke and kill yourself that's fine but don't kill me too"

Sorry couldn't resist.


MM

MikeM
05-21-2002, 06:43 AM
When was the last time anyone died from alcohol fumes or loud music?

MM

jjinfla
05-21-2002, 08:08 AM
Hi Jay, Back in the late 60's I worked as a computer tech and of course there was no smoking in the computer room. One day I mentioned to the boss that it was pretty nice of them to have an air-conditioned, smoke free room for their employees. He said "I don't care about them, I am protecting my equipment. Smoke puts a film on everything." I quit about 25 - 30 years ago, not because I was worried about getting cancer, that always happens to the other guy anyway, I just got fed up with all the breathing problems I was having from allergies, and smoking just made them worse. And of course I started to realize that smoking does not make me a matcho man, one adored by the opposite sex as the commercials tried to convince me. All it was for me was an addiction. Jake

05-24-2002, 07:36 PM
You voted for the current government. Remember? If you have a problem with current government policies then find and vote for a government that doesn't give a rat's a$$ about peoples' health. Then you can smoke, wheeze and cough all you want in front of me if I choose to be in the same room as you. It's called democracy.

TomBrooklyn
06-04-2002, 04:07 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: Vicki:</font><hr>How stupid do you have to be to write something that says, I have a right to cause you and your children to suffer all kinds of smoking related illness... YOU should be banned, TomBrooklyn... Just shoot yourself in the head... <hr></blockquote>Anyone who correctly comprehends what I wrote should see that I specifically held out that I don't feel anyone has a right to smoke in public places. I only defined public places as places funded by taxpayer dollars; and merely held out that business owners who are not subsidized by public tax dollars should be allowed to decide for themselves whether or not they wish to allow smoking within the confines of the walls of their place of business.

However, I agree with Vicki that it was pretty stupid to bring up a political issue on this pool forum, which includes those who support increased Government control and would call for banning and make death wishes upon those they disagree with.

I lack that type of anomosity against anyone on this forum, and therefore apologize for my stupidity and would prefer to go back to just discussing pool.

06-04-2002, 04:28 AM
They have no God given or natural right to impose their will on other free men...

...Which is exactly why I object to people smoking - I don't want their decision to kill themselves imposed on me. Here in the UK I don't know of non-smoking Snooker/Pool halls. If you want to play, you have to risk inconsiderate people forcing you to breathe their foul smoke.

I don't care if people want to harm themselves, but the fact that anyone would think it OK to inflict the same thing on anyone else I find quite baffling.

06-04-2002, 08:12 PM
what an absolute bunch of crap..... noone has the right to injure anyone else period and that is exactly what you are doing when you smoke next too or in the vicinity of another person... your only defence for doing such a thing is to say that if they dont like it they can leave.... in case you havne noticed tom playing pool has turned into a family sport and there is nothing worse than having my only option to participate in this family outing be to go to some smoke filled pool hall where our eyes get sore our lungs get infected and OUR rights violated. You must be one of those people that smoke with your kids in the car too.. what chance are they given to simply walk away?? very pathetic post in my opinion

06-04-2002, 08:20 PM
wrong! just as restaraunts have to make sure they have a clean and hygenic area where they prepare food so should everyone have to provide an environment with clean and sanitary air so as not to make others ill. Although I agree with everyones right to smoke I do not agree that they should be able to do it where ever and whenever they please... they are hurting me just as surely as if they have stabbed me with a knife but they are doing it with very little cuts every time. I think the slight inconveniece of a smoker having to step outside for a quick puff is very reasonable and a heck of alot better than the alternative that is being FORCED upon others

06-04-2002, 08:32 PM
Quote: Wally

As far as the majority of people now being non-smokers and the whole democracy thing, consider this. If the U.S. consisted of 55% men should that "majority" be allowed to legalize rape? Should the "majority" of white people be able to pass a law enslaving anyone with dark skin? Just because you're in the majority does not necessarily mean that you are right.



ummmm are you implying that if there is a 55% male population that 100% of those men think that rape would be ok?? or that 55% white population...100% of them are raciasts??? you trying to live out some kind of fantasy here wally? of the lets say 75% of the population that does not smoke.....100% of them does not smoke wally and yes thier voices should be heard.

06-04-2002, 08:39 PM
you are dead wrong about that tom... when you run a business that caters to the public then absolutely you must abide by whatever saftey standards the govt sets forth. If it is agreed that smoking is harmful to public health then anywhere that caters to the public must be held accountable. if it were a striclty private club then i would have to agree with you but most places arent

06-04-2002, 09:07 PM
Downtown,
While I think you have a valid point, I really think that you are way off base attacking Wally here. He did not in any way imply what you are saying, and in fact quite the opposite. Wally used examples that are 'Hot Buttons' for the vast majority of people, and it seems a shame that you responded to those issues without comprehending the point he was making.

06-05-2002, 02:57 AM
assuming both smokers and non-smokers should have equal rights, and that neither can get along with the other, and that there must be a resolution,,,,,the question is which benefits the public good (health).

your(smokers) rights infringe on our health. OUR rights infringe only on when and where you smoke. if an establishment opens to the public, then it is to the public that it must be held accountable. thus a proprietor loses his right to "set his own rules".

06-05-2002, 03:11 AM
&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote: TomBrooklyn:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr&gt;

,,,Any building owned by a private citizen or corporation is not public property, nor is any airline,,,,, It may be open to the public but no one is holding a gun to anyone's head to make them enter or utilize such place.
&lt;hr&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;

geez, that is really really bad thinking. any kind of "logic" you wanted to use at the start of this thread just got negated by this silly remark. so if i want to see a movie, or fly from LA to NYC, i either have to put up with your smoke or find an alternative?

actually, this is all a pointless arguement. the greater good is being served, and you're(smokers) are being pushed out. move to europe.

Wally_in_Cincy
06-05-2002, 06:54 AM
Thanks Lorri. I think you are the only responder that understood my point. In other words you comprehended the situation I was trying to explain /ccboard/images/icons/cool.gif

06-06-2002, 08:03 AM
It must be very difficult for you to get a whole lot of support for your cause. After all, the majority of people don't smoke and welcome any legislation that protects their health and then there are the minority (smokers) who expect everyone (non-smokers as well) to rally for their cause. It's not going to happen. Instead of letting an addicted brain rationalize a stupid and dangerous habit why do you expend your energy on finding the courage to quit. You know you want to. You have to know by now that smokers are a dieing breed both literally and figuratively. Good luck.

Mike &lt;~~ Former longtime smoker who knows what it's like to be addicted and the worthwhile fight to kick the habit.

06-06-2002, 08:27 AM
well why dont you both go and have a smoke and comprehend it together in a non public place

06-06-2002, 08:29 AM
I know exactly what hes saying... and hes wrong