PDA

View Full Version : Smoke This!



PQQLK9
04-14-2005, 04:09 AM
Smoke This!
Austin voters have a chance to confirm that everybody has a right to breathe free
BY MICHAEL KING

I'm typing this column in a smoke-free workplace. If Chronicle staffers want to smoke, and some do, they take a break, walk out the back door, and puff away at will a little more uncomfortable in August or January, but it's their habit, their choice. When they smoke, the rest of us don't have to. There's an occasional fuss, I guess, when the weather is fine enough to open the windows, but otherwise the arrangement seems adequate. Despite all the election-generated noise, quite a bit of it reproduced in our pages this week, it's taken for granted around here that everybody has a right to breathe clean air not that smokers have a right to pollute at will their immediate airspace and that of their neighbors.

But at fiftysomething I'm one of the geezers around here, and old enough to remember when the opposite was true, and taking a job in virtually any workplace meant that you were required to inhale tobacco smoke as a matter of course even if only one of your co-workers was a habitual smoker. Despite all the hysteria about "prohibition," it's still pretty common. Thanks to both legal and cultural progress over the last 20 years, about one-third of U.S. communities enjoy some form of smoke-free public policy, leaving plenty of work to the next generation of air-breathers.

It's in that context that I consider the proposed smoking ordinance appearing on Austin's May 7 ballot. Just as Chronicle employees enjoy a natural (and legally protected) right to a smoke-free workplace, so do workers in every other place of business yes, even in those bowling alleys, billiard parlors, and sacred "live music venues" where smokers persist in believing they have a divinely granted right to fill the air, and everybody else's lungs and persons, with literally toxic fumes. And despite all the owners' protestations of helplessness, the barely veiled threat to "jobs," should the ordinance pass, is different only in degree from Rockdale's Alcoa aluminum plant threatening its workers' livelihoods should the company be forced to obey the law and stop polluting the Central Texas air. Deal with it.
One Man's Freedom

I'm not so naive to insist that every single music club (or neighborhood bar) will certainly survive the transition, nor so callous to be indifferent to the consequences. But I also find it remarkable that so many smokers say they support "live music" but haven't a thought to spare for live musicians, who are expected to sign up for a lifetime of environmental tobacco smoke i.e., heavy smoking because they want to play the guitar for a living. More than one Chronicle reporter has learned again this week that some of those musicians are also afraid to speak out in favor of the smoking ban for fear of retaliation from club owners.

And why on earth should a love for new music be inexorably and institutionally chained to a nicotine jones, so that, as the club owners would have it, Austinites literally can't have one without the other? If a ban does nothing else, it might serve to help separate a generation of young people from a tobacco-industry-manufactured symbiosis between creative youth culture and the pseudo-rebellion of smoking, as transparently phony as a Coors beer ad. Much has been rightly charged about the puritanism of some smoking opponents, but for every self-righteous nonsmoker, there is a smoker who believes he is "free" to light up anytime, anywhere, and to use the entire surface of the earth as his personal ashtray. The rest of us are supposed to shrug and chalk it up to "personal freedom." Yet if there is a libertarian principle in all this, it is the classic one that my freedom to extend my fist or my smoke stops at this side of the other man's nose.
What's at Stake?

No doubt the rhetoric on both sides of the debate has already gotten overheated, and it would certainly be helpful if the various spokespeople stopped attributing sinister motives to their opponents. There's an argument to be made that ban supporters should have spent more time and effort on public education before going to the voters, if only to avoid more polarization than necessary over an emotional issue (and help their cause in the bargain). By the same token, it is astonishing to hear ban opponents, in 2005, attempting with a straight face to pretend that the dangers of secondhand smoke have not been scientifically demonstrated a battle that Big Tobacco lost, by a knockout (not to mention its own secret research), more than a generation ago. To cite only the most dramatic numbers, according to the American Lung Association, "Secondhand smoke causes approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths and 35,000 heart disease deaths in adult nonsmokers in the United States each year." Those folks don't "choose" to ignore the risks of smoking they are victims of a laissez-faire social policy every bit as deadly as the state of Texas' refusal to do anything serious about controlling industrial air pollution in Houston.

That is what's at stake in the debate over the smoking ban, and it's a reality that won't be wished away by talk of "lifestyle choices" or, even more absurdly, "property rights." When Austin voters go to the polls on May 7, they can choose to extend to one more group of workers including professional musicians the simple right to clean air that the rest of us take for granted in our places of employment, and at the same time to liberate some important, public, cultural space.

It's not the end of the world, and it doesn't seem too much to ask. end story

web page (http://www.austinchronicle.com/issues/dispatch/2005-04-15/pols_point.html)

pooltchr
04-14-2005, 04:49 AM
Thanks Nick,
This is a well thought out article that solidly presents the writer's point of view.
He addresses the rights of smokers and non-smokers, but not the rights of a business owner. This is where I find problems with these bans.
If a bar/poolroom/dance club owner has invested his money into a business, if he is to be successful, he needs to create an environment that brings in customers. When the government starts to tell him what that environment MUST be, I start to have a problem.
If the customers demand a smoke-free environment and the owner doesn't provide it, his customers are going to go somewhere else. It's his choice. Meet the desires of your customers, or go out of business.
I'm not saying smoking is a good thing. Even as a smoker, I know good and well it's bad. I just think the decision should be left to the one who has invested his own money into a business.
Steve

Keith Talent
04-14-2005, 06:01 AM
Nick, nice to see some good news. The writer puts it well ... it's not about prohibition, or lifestyle choices, or even economics, just what ought to be a basic human right, Steve -- in a civilized society -- that nobody should be forced to breathe toxic fumes. And face it, the people who have somehow ended up making their livelihoods in the bar/restaurant or entertainment businesses, really HAVE no choice. They've gotta work, and it's not right to just tell them to change careers. Much more fair to just tell the polluters, like you'd tell the brawlers, TAKE IT OUTSIDE!

And after the shock wears off, no harm has been shown to have been done to the bar biz ... that's what studies here in New York have said.

MrLucky
04-14-2005, 06:14 AM
Well Steve, I have to disagree with you on that one! /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif in cities where this has been placed in effect that was the argument of bar and club owners as expected ! But you know what it did not turn out that way their business did not go under and in fact in some it was better! I can tell you as a fact there are some pool spots I will not go to because of their issues with poor ventilation and many smokers ! some of whom will exhale their recirculated body and smoke vapors right into your face and space! /ccboard/images/graemlins/frown.gif if these places (and there are several here in Atlanta) were more considerate of those that choose not to smoke I would be spending my money with them! /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

pooltchr
04-14-2005, 07:59 AM
Guys,
My arguement is not that there should or should not be smoke free businesses. My arguement is that it should not be the government's decision, but rather the business owner. Mr Lucky spends his money in smoke free places...if enough felt the same way, the owner of the business would either make the change or continue to lose money. That is how it should be. Let the customers dictate with their dollars to the owners what they want, not the government.
sj

Saint
04-14-2005, 09:52 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote pooltchr:</font><hr> Guys,
My arguement is not that there should or should not be smoke free businesses. My arguement is that it should not be the government's decision, but rather the business owner. Mr Lucky spends his money in smoke free places...if enough felt the same way, the owner of the business would either make the change or continue to lose money. That is how it should be. Let the customers dictate with their dollars to the owners what they want, not the government.
sj <hr /></blockquote>

I totally agree, and IMO, this is really the only relavant stance on this topic. I own the bar, it's my decision to allow smoking or not allow smoking. It's your decision to come to my bar and spend money, or not to come to my bar and spend money. Period.

Make a stand with your wallet, not your lawmakers.

I guarantee you that if non-smoking establishments were more profitable than smoking, 90% of bars would be non-smoking.

Make a stand instead of asking someone to do it for you. My bar, my rules as long as they are legal. Smoking is legal for anyone over the age of 17.

Saint
04-14-2005, 09:56 AM
P.S. - personally I don't care one way or another whether there is smoking or non-smoking. I smoke when I play pool, but I don't go to restaurants that allow indoor smoking.

I don't like to smell smoke when I eat, so if you have smoking in your restaurant, you don't get my money. Simple as that.

I also live in Denver and play pool in Boulder some, so I usually have to go outside to smoke. It doesn't bother me. I just think it's a little extreme for lawmakers to tell the bar owner he can't allow smoking.

DvB
04-14-2005, 10:07 AM
This is a very interesting debate. Ninety-nine percent of the time, I come down libertarian on this stuff. Let the business-owner decide what's best for his/her business (within reason, of course). I live in NYC, and I'm an ardent non-smoker. When the ban first took effect, as glad as I was that I would no longer be going home with that nasty stink on my clothes and in my hair, I resented it. I sort of felt like it was unfairly punishing bars and restaurants, which were simply providing an environment that (seemingly) most of their clientele wanted.

Now, a couple of years later, my how my tune has changed. First of all, I play a hell of a lot more pool now that my poolroom doesn't smell like an airport smoking lounge. Second, my (highly informal) surveys tell me that there are a lot of other non-smokers spending a lot more time in bars and restaurants -- and particularly poolrooms (you currently can't get a table in mine during evening hours without a decent wait).

So are bar/restaurant/poolroom owners suffering for this ban? Worst case, I'd say it's a wash. Most of the reports I've read say there's been an uptick in business and in applications for liquor licenses. Seems like the biggest losers are the residents with windows near bar entrances, who have to listen to the congregations of smokers out front!

bustah360
04-14-2005, 10:35 AM
I can understand the whole, "I don't smoke, so why should I smell your cigarettes" attitude. I'm a smoker and I have no problems with restricting where my smoke flies to have respect towards others. The problem I do see is telling what the owner must and must not do. Its his life, blood, sweat, and tears that went into his business for whatever goal, no one has the right to tell him how to run it. If you don't like it? Take your business elsewhere. Its that simple.

If you walk into a fast food joint and didn't like the fact that they only fried cholesterol filled foods then you stop going there. Guess what happened? McDonald's and their competitors starting selling salad combinations and different platters of health food! But customers didn't run to the government and forced them to. People spoke with their wallets, and that's what got the business to update their menu.

On another note I'd like to say that I live in NYC therefore I know what it feels like to have absolutely no where to go where I can smoke peacefully. At one time there were restrictions in place where you could smoke in only designated areas within the establishment, but now that's gone. It gets real brutal during the winter here cuz you pretty much freeze your ass trying to smoke a marlboro.
Someone made a point on business not being affected in new york. That is completely and utterly not true, I for one know a good 6 bars that have had to close their doors because of this ban. You know something? They were the little bars that work extra hard to make a living. The only bars to survive were typically bigger franchise bars like "espn zone" or owners that were lucky enough to have a very good location to be able to makes ends meet.

Now for the smokers to take up on the same choice of "if you don't like it, go somewhere else". Trust me we would. One problem is that it'd be another state without a smoke-ban or nothing, due to the entire city participating with this restriction. Now...to have play a couple of sets of 9ball in another STATE, just to smoke a marlboro while I shoot, SUCKS!!

MrLucky
04-14-2005, 10:42 AM
Well honestly as a past business owner I understand your general complaint about government intrusion having said that however when it comes to health issues and one as thoroughly analyzed and proven as inhalation of cigarette first or second hand smoke I must disagree!!!!! /ccboard/images/graemlins/frown.gif

What your argument overlooks is the rights of non smokers and smokers who have had the intelligence and guts to quit smoking ! What about their rights to breathe fresh airr not laden with death causing chemicals ? Every place and every one does not have the ability to pick and choose the public places and establishments they need to enter in order to do business or for entertainment! Smoking like some other personal habits and desires are purely that <font color="red"> personal habits and desires! </font color> and should not be forced on those that do not care to partake! In a city like Atlanta yes there are choices (few but there are some ) but why should someone who only ask not to be exposed to anothers health risk have to avoid certain places because of them? If we were talking about pot smokers I am sure you would agree why not cigarette smokers? /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif

Wally_in_Cincy
04-14-2005, 10:50 AM
you just couldn't resist could you? /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Saint
04-14-2005, 10:52 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote MrLucky:</font><hr> Well honestly as a past business owner I understand your general complaint about government intrusion having said that however when it comes to health issues and one as thoroughly analyzed and proven as inhalation of cigarette first or second hand smoke I must disagree!!!!! /ccboard/images/graemlins/frown.gif

<font color="blue"> Show me some proof that secondhand smoke kills humans. There's none. </font color>

What your argument overlooks is the rights of non smokers and smokers who have had the intelligence and guts to quit smoking ! What about their rights to breathe fresh airr not laden with death causing chemicals ? Every place and every one does not have the ability to pick and choose the public places and establishments they need to enter in order to do business or for entertainment!

<font color="blue"> What are you talking about? No one has the 'right' to come into my bar and stay. I can throw anyone I choose out, because it is mine. You can go down the street to the next bar that is non-smoking. We aren't talking about a government building (which should be non-smoking) We are talking about a place of entertainment. What do you mean people don't have the ability to choose? </font color>

Smoking like some other personal habits and desires are purely that <font color="red"> personal habits and desires! </font color> <font color="blue">(you mean like pool?)</font color> and should not be forced on those that do not care to partake! In a city like Atlanta yes there are choices (few but there are some ) but why should someone who only ask not to be exposed to anothers health risk have to avoid certain places because of them?

<font color="blue"> Because it is the owner's right to choose. </font color>

If we were talking about pot smokers I am sure you would agree why not cigarette smokers? /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif

<font color="blue"> If you can't differentiate between a legal habit and an illegal habit, this isn't a good debate for you. </font color> <hr /></blockquote>

MrLucky
04-14-2005, 11:04 AM
<font color="red"> LMAO! sir you are so emotionally entwined with smoking you misread most of the points I made lets try this again..... </font color> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Saint:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote MrLucky:</font><hr> Well honestly as a past business owner I understand your general complaint about government intrusion having said that however when it comes to health issues and one as thoroughly analyzed and proven as inhalation of cigarette first or second hand smoke I must disagree!!!!! /ccboard/images/graemlins/frown.gif

<font color="blue"> Show me some proof that secondhand smoke kills humans. There's none. </font color>

<font color="red"> There are all kind of studies and for proof go to the CDC website or the Health Departments! are you trying to insinuate that smokers only get cancer from direct inhalation therefore only kill themselves ??? LOL! </font color>

What your argument overlooks is the rights of non smokers and smokers who have had the intelligence and guts to quit smoking ! What about their rights to breathe fresh air not laden with death causing chemicals ? Every place and every one does not have the ability to pick and choose the public places and establishments they need to enter in order to do business or for entertainment!

<font color="blue"> What are you talking about? No one has the 'right' ...<font color="red">The RIGHTS I am speaking of are the publics to go into any public place of their choosing !!!! is this not a right where you reside?? ... </font color> to come into my bar and stay. I can throw anyone I choose out, because it is mine. You can go down the street to the next bar that is non-smoking. We aren't talking about a government building (which should be non-smoking) We are talking about a place of entertainment. What do you mean people don't have the ability to choose? </font color>

Smoking like some other personal habits and desires are purely that <font color="red"> personal habits and desires! </font color> <font color="blue">(you mean like pool?)</font color> ..<font color="red">No I mean habits I do not consider Pool a habit! it is a form of entertainment Sir!.... </font color> and should not be forced on those that do not care to partake! In a city like Atlanta yes there are choices (few but there are some ) but why should someone who only ask not to be exposed to anothers health risk have to avoid certain places because of them?

<font color="blue"> Because it is the owner's right to choose. </font color> <font color="red">... more a carry over from when all places where smokers friendly prior to the discovery that smoking killed folks ! ;-).... </font color> ..

If we were talking about pot smokers I am sure you would agree why not cigarette smokers? /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif

<font color="blue"> If you can't differentiate between a legal habit and an illegal habit, this isn't a good debate for you. </font color><font color="red"> LMAO! that was a metaphor sir ! look it up! ;-) I hope you meant this as a joke you are killing me with your humor! </font color> <hr /></blockquote> <hr /></blockquote> /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Saint
04-14-2005, 11:31 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote MrLucky:</font><hr> <font color="red"> LMAO! sir you are so emotionally entwined with smoking you misread most of the points I made lets try this again..... </font color>

<font color="blue"> Actually I don't care about smoking, my stand is that it is the owner's right to choose. </font color>



<font color="red"> There are all kind of studies and for proof go to the CDC website or the Health Departments! are you trying to insinuate that smokers only get cancer from direct inhalation therefore only kill themselves ??? LOL! </font color>

<font color="blue"> Those studies were done on non-smokers who lived with smokers for years, not people who spend a night in a bar </font color>


<font color="red">The RIGHTS I am speaking of are the publics to go into any public place of their choosing !!!! is this not a right where you reside?? ... </font color>

<font color="blue"> No, it's not the right for anyone under 21 to come into my bar, or anyone under 18 to come into a strip club. Bars are places that consenting adults go into. You certainly have the power to decide to go into a smoking establishment or to spend your money and, therefore support, non-smoking establishments. That's what I'm saying. Why does Uncle Sam need to be involved?</font color>

<font color="red">No I mean habits I do not consider Pool a habit! it is a form of entertainment Sir!.... </font color> <font color="blue"> I meant it was a desire, but I concede the point /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif </font color>

<font color="red">... more a carry over from when all places where smokers friendly prior to the discovery that smoking killed folks ! ;-).... </font color>
<font color="blue"> That could be a valid point, however I still say it is the bar owner's decision. I support him deciding his bar is going ot be non-smoking as much as I support him allowing smokers. Again, why do we need Uncle Sam? That is my question.</font color>




<font color="red"> LMAO! that was a metaphor sir ! look it up! ;-) I hope you meant this as a joke you are killing me with your humor! </font color> <hr /></blockquote>
<font color="blue"> Actually, it was a comparison, and an invalid one at that. </font color>
<hr /></blockquote> /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif <hr /></blockquote>

eg8r
04-14-2005, 11:44 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Well honestly as a past business owner I understand your general complaint about government intrusion having said that however when it comes to health issues and one as thoroughly analyzed and proven as inhalation of cigarette first or second hand smoke I must disagree!!!!! <hr /></blockquote> Why would you, as a business owner, welcome the government to come in and take more control from you? Especially, when the activity is not illegal. The government is already too large, and you are encouraging it to grow more. What happens once the US is completely smoke free? What other freedoms will you be ready to give away?

eg8r &lt;~~~non-smoker

eg8r
04-14-2005, 11:59 AM
[ QUOTE ]
So are bar/restaurant/poolroom owners suffering for this ban? Worst case, I'd say it's a wash. <hr /></blockquote> I think the bar/restaurant/poolroom owners who suffer the most are the ones living on the edge of the "no smoking" ban. If the customers have no where else to go, then it is a wash. If the customers have an option (driving a couple miles to another city/county), then the story might change.

eg8r

MrLucky
04-14-2005, 12:01 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> &lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
Well honestly as a past business owner I understand your general complaint about government intrusion having said that however when it comes to health issues and one as thoroughly analyzed and proven as inhalation of cigarette first or second hand smoke I must disagree!!!!! <hr /></blockquote> Why would you, as a business owner, welcome the government to come in and take more control from you? Especially, when the activity is not illegal. The government is already too large, and you are encouraging it to grow more. What happens once the US is completely smoke free? What other freedoms will you be ready to give away?

eg8r &lt;~~~non-smoker <hr /></blockquote> <font color="green">The issue is that smoking is becoming illegal in most public places in many cities ! isn't that wat we are discussing ? or as one poster stated ... </font color> <font color="red">"Debating" </font color> <font color="green"> Who makes it illegal ? the government the last I heard! </font color> /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif

eg8r
04-14-2005, 12:07 PM
[ QUOTE ]
The issue is that smoking is becoming illegal in most public places in many cities ! isn't that wat we are discussing ? <hr /></blockquote> No this is not the issue, but merely the by product. The issue is whether or not you are accepting of the government taking away another of your freedoms as a business owner. Quite honestly, the real issue as far as I am concerned is just how far you are willing to let it go.

eg8r

bustah360
04-14-2005, 12:17 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> &lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
The issue is that smoking is becoming illegal in most public places in many cities ! isn't that wat we are discussing ? <hr /></blockquote> No this is not the issue, but merely the by product. The issue is whether or not you are accepting of the government taking away another of your freedoms as a business owner. Quite honestly, the real issue as far as I am concerned is just how far you are willing to let it go.

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>
Tell me about it! For a country with so many conservative politicians on the hill these days, why are there so many liberal changes...Pretty soon we won't be able to walk down the street and smoke. I hear they have that restriction in place already in certain parts of the country.

MrLucky
04-14-2005, 12:19 PM
<font color="purple">This discussion has gone to the issue of what is a smokers rights ! Let me put it this way ! since hopefully we or most of us agree that smoking has been found to be the leading cause of lung and throat cancer ! Then in my opinion it is hard for anyone to think that being in a smoke filled environment is healthy for anyone ! hence the reason that due to people concerned about health and non smokers (included in this group EX SMOKERS that have decided their health is more important to them than their addiction!) The government has...
1) fined and penalized cigarette manufacturers for falsely leading people through kids and teens ads etc. to start smoking their products for purely financial reasons while knowing and hiding the fact that it was dangerous and a cause of people <font color="red">dying! </font color>

2)That the cigarette industry without its huge millions spent on lobbying would most likely have been shut down if it were any other lesser financed and influential industry !

For example asbestos.... ! If my bar had asbestos in it would I be considered right to continue to risk my customers health and say the government had no right to restrict my business if I was not ethical enough to do it on my own? Would I be right in saying the government had no ccause butting into the rights of my customers to come into my business and freely of their own choosing sniff the asbestos in the air of my establiushment because they are free thinking and asbestos addicts? </font color> /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif <font color="red">Of Course NOT! </font color> /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

MrLucky
04-14-2005, 12:27 PM
<font color="purple">Ya know, I fully realize that just like the cancer victims that will stuff a cigarette in the breathing hole in their throat there are those that will not honestly access this issue for those do what you want with your life and your health just do not make me have to do it with you ! for those that do not understand this very fundamental issue I am sorry but if it were up for vote I will vote for smoke free environments IMHO! if you or your patrons are so addicted to nicotine and its known health issues do not inspire you to want to be free of its grip and expense then more power too you but on the other hand if this addiction is so strong you can not indulge it in your private enclosed area or outside then I suggest some professional help is in order while you can still get it under your own power! </font color> /ccboard/images/graemlins/cool.gif


<font color="red"> I will readily agree that government in some case has gone into issues that are not and should not be in their realm but I strongly disagree that this case of health is one of them! </font color> /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Popcorn
04-14-2005, 01:01 PM
This will all come to a head when employees begin suing employers for the damage to their health from an unsafe work environment. It has already happened with the airlines stewardesses and been settled. It is just a matter of time before even the small employers will be held responsible.

MrLucky
04-14-2005, 01:06 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Popcorn:</font><hr> This will all come to a head when employees begin suing employers for the damage to their health from an unsafe work environment. It has already happened with the airlines stewardesses and been settled. It is just a matter of time before even the small employers will be held responsible. <hr /></blockquote> <font color="red"> Hopefully intelligent and concerned minds will prevail and folks will look at the best interest of those they love and their fellow mans health and welfare in front of strictly their fears of losing dollars first without the threat od suit which just gives them the choice between which dollar loss is the biggest in order to do the right thing. </font color> /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif

pooltchr
04-14-2005, 01:06 PM
The government isn't going to shut down the tobacco companies. The government makes a huge amount of money off the sale of tobacco in the form of taxes. They certainly don't want to lose that revenue stream. Seems a bit of a "want your cake and eat it too" kind of thing when the government gets involved. "Keep buying cigarettes so we collect the tax money, just don't smoke 'em!"
Steve

Popcorn
04-14-2005, 01:17 PM
I see in the future lawyers who will specialize in it. You will see ads on TV saying, "If you are a waitress, bartender or entertainer and a non smoker who has ever worked in a restaurant bar or any environment where smoking was prevalent, call 1 800 555-5555 we may be able to recover damages for you."

Bob_Jewett
04-14-2005, 02:10 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Popcorn:</font><hr> ... "If you are a waitress, bartender or entertainer and a non smoker who has ever worked in a restaurant bar or any environment where smoking was prevalent..." <hr /></blockquote>
Part of the justification of the state-wide ban on smoking in California is that you cannot require as a condition of employment that the employee be subjected to carcinogens. I'm surprised that this approach hasn't been tried in more states.

My understanding is that if you own a bar in California, and only family members work there, you can permit smoking.

Steve Lipsky
04-14-2005, 02:24 PM
Lucky,

I can tell you two things from a personal perspective:

1) Amsterdam East, one of the greatest pool rooms on the east coast (if not the nation) was seriously hurt by that ban. I don't know if it was the final nail in the coffin, but the place was a gold mine right up until that ban was put into effect. Almost overnight, they lost a ton of business. They only lasted about 18 months after that before finally closing their doors.

2) Banning smoking in poolrooms and all public places is like the greatest thing ever. The air is clean, and I end up having way fewer cigarettes each night I go to the poolroom than I did before the ban. It took me about a month or so to get used to it, but after that, the cleaner environment is definitely appreciated.

I just wish it didn't kill my favorite poolroom...

- Steve /ccboard/images/graemlins/frown.gif

tateuts
04-14-2005, 03:35 PM
It's pretty obvious this will spread to nearly all the states, so I think businesses should anticipate it and prepare.

After living in CA and Los Angeles with our bans for so long, the areas I visit where smoking is allowed in offices, restaurants, bars, casinos, and other public places seem really backwards.

In the public eye, smoking has gone from a glamourous, sexy thing to a lowlife, risky habit.

I pity smokers. I was one, a very heavy one, and I understand the addiction. Frankly, I am amazed that any heavy smoker can quit at all, because it was so hard for me. I never did it the right way. I didn't quit. I just didn't smoke. I obstained from smoking - there's a big difference.

I can just say that today, I feel better every second of every minute of every day than I did when I smoked, no matter how many cigarettes I had. When you're addicted, smoking just makes you feel normal for a few minutes. Once that's gone, it's a miserable existence until the next smoke.

It sends chills through me to see mothers hiding in the stairwell at the office, afraid their neighbors, co-workers, and small children will see them smoking. To think of ever being addicted to anything again.

Then there is always the concern that what you've done to yourself can't be undone and it will catch up one day.

Chris

Popcorn
04-14-2005, 03:57 PM
I have never smoked so I can't speak about what it would take to quit. Although I would like to think I am strong minded and self disciplined enough to quit if I did smoke and chose to do so, but I will never know. My Mother smoked and died at the grand age of 67 while suffering almost 7 years of what could only be described a torture. I have known some very smart and successful people who you would think could do anything they put their mind to who couldn't quit. Look at Johnny Carson, he struck me as an iron willed person but that was one thing that got the best of him.

Point being, if the place was so nice and a gold mine, yet people stopped going there because they could not go a few hours without a cigarette, what does that say about the habit. It is literally controlling their lives to the point of even keeping them from doing something they love to do such as play at their favorite pool room. It goes to even more so emphasize that banning it and trying to keep others from becoming hooked is the right thing to do. I would like to meet the smoker who while defending their own right to smoke, would say they can't wait till their own kids are old enough to smoke so they can introduce them to this wonderful habit. I am sure they would say no, yet they will blow their smoke in my kids face without a second thought and call it a right.

PQQLK9
04-14-2005, 04:19 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Wally_in_Cincy:</font><hr> you just couldn't resist could you? /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif <hr /></blockquote>

Where is Ted Harris when I need him. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Link to Smoking Thread (http://www.billiardsdigest.com/ccboard/favlinker.php?Cat=&amp;Entry=838&amp;F_Board=ccb&amp;Thread=11 3340&amp;partnumber=&amp;postmarker=)

bsmutz
04-14-2005, 05:00 PM
I agree with the posters that think the government is overstepping its responsibility. Taking away our right to make our own decisions regarding how we want to handle something that may be perceived as dangerous (or even proven to be dangerous) is a threat to our freedom. It costs us in ways we don't often think about. To me, the government threatens our lives as much as it tries to protect them. I'm pretty sure that the leading cause of death in this country is still traffic accidents. It seems like a lot of people are dying over in Iraq also. A statistically large number of people are dying from gunshot wounds here as well. I'm pretty sure that motorcycle helmets have saved some lives, but I know a lot of people get killed on their motorcycles while wearing a helmet, or get messed up enough that they wish they were dead. We all inhale a bunch of carcinogenic substances while sitting around a campfire, spray painting something, or outgas from our dashboard on a hot summer day. Does it kill us right away? No. Does it shorten our life expectancy? Yes. There are a million ways to die and there is no way to legislate them all out of existence. Whenever we engage in any type of activity, we have to weigh the consequences and possibilities. I like having that choice and having to make those decisions for myself. If I'm going to run to the store to get candy bar on my motorcycle, I want to decide if I want to wear my helmet. I want to decide if eating the candy bar is worth the risk of developing diabetes. If I ride my bicycle, I don't have to wear a helmet if I don't want to. I am alive today because I wore my helmet on the day I would have died if I had not while riding my bicycle. I could have died one day when I was fishing, forgot to flip the bail on my reel, and the weight was just enough to pull me off the edge of the cliff I was standing on. If there hadn't been a wave that just happened to come in at the right moment... Bottom line is that the government just can't protect us from everything. While we will all agree that there has to be rules and guidelines for us to follow to prevent utter chaos, I think it's better to allow people to make their own personal decisions about how they want to live their lives.

MrLucky
04-14-2005, 07:01 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Steve Lipsky:</font><hr> Lucky,

I can tell you two things from a personal perspective:

1) Amsterdam East, one of the greatest pool rooms on the east coast (if not the nation) was seriously hurt by that ban. I don't know if it was the final nail in the coffin, but the place was a gold mine right up until that ban was put into effect. Almost overnight, they lost a ton of business. They only lasted about 18 months after that before finally closing their doors.

2) Banning smoking in poolrooms and all public places is like the greatest thing ever. The air is clean, and I end up having way fewer cigarettes each night I go to the poolroom than I did before the ban. It took me about a month or so to get used to it, but after that, the cleaner environment is definitely appreciated.

I just wish it didn't kill my favorite poolroom...

- Steve /ccboard/images/graemlins/frown.gif <hr /></blockquote> <font color="red">Steve I have heard so many reasons for the demise of that room that I am running out of storage area for them! But let me ask you a question, if it was the New York State wide ban on smoking are you saying that all of their clientele went to New Jersey and Conneticut to play in hazes of second hand smoke??? Actually I heard the fall of Amsterdam was related to rents being raised beyond the clubs ability to afford it ! to Owners mismagement! Having once owned night clubs in NYC albeit years ago I know the cost of doing business there is very high and makes a pool room that tries to be upscale and a nice place to go a very tough proposition! </font color> /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif

ted harris
04-14-2005, 07:17 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote PQQLK9:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Wally_in_Cincy:</font><hr> you just couldn't resist could you? /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif <hr /></blockquote>

Where is Ted Harris when I need him. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Link to Smoking Thread (http://www.billiardsdigest.com/ccboard/favlinker.php?Cat=&amp;Entry=838&amp;F_Board=ccb&amp;Thread=11 3340&amp;partnumber=&amp;postmarker=) <hr /></blockquote>
You rang? /ccboard/images/graemlins/mad.gif

Steve Lipsky
04-14-2005, 07:33 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote MrLucky:</font><hr> But let me ask you a question, if it was the New York State wide ban on smoking are you saying that all of their clientele went to New Jersey and Conneticut to play in hazes of second hand smoke??? <hr /></blockquote>

As with most successful poolrooms, Lucky, they made the majority of their money from the ballbanging public. When the smoking ban took effect, many of these people that treated the place as a nice bar to hang out in simply never came back. They were not die-hard poolplayers, so when the place lost its appeal (via the ban) they probably never gave it another thought to not go so often, or even not at all.

There were other issues, to be sure, but the fact is the place was no longer making anywhere near the kind of money it once was. When these other issues came up, they pretty much had no choice but to close.

I grant you that all my evidence was anecdotal, but when this happened, I was playing there almost every night. It was night and day.

BTW, I am strongly in favor of the ban. I was just relating to you that I disagreed with your premise that businesses weren't hurt. This one was.

- Steve

MrLucky
04-14-2005, 07:36 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote bsmutz:</font><hr> I agree with the posters that think the government is overstepping its responsibility. Taking away our right to make our own decisions regarding how we want to handle something that may be perceived as dangerous (or even proven to be dangerous) is a threat to our freedom. It costs us in ways we don't often think about. To me, the government threatens our lives as much as it tries to protect them. I'm pretty sure that the leading cause of death in this country is still traffic accidents. It seems like a lot of people are dying over in Iraq also. A statistically large number of people are dying from gunshot wounds here as well. I'm pretty sure that motorcycle helmets have saved some lives, but I know a lot of people get killed on their motorcycles while wearing a helmet, or get messed up enough that they wish they were dead. We all inhale a bunch of carcinogenic substances while sitting around a campfire, spray painting something, or outgas from our dashboard on a hot summer day. Does it kill us right away? No. Does it shorten our life expectancy? Yes. There are a million ways to die and there is no way to legislate them all out of existence. Whenever we engage in any type of activity, we have to weigh the consequences and possibilities. I like having that choice and having to make those decisions for myself. If I'm going to run to the store to get candy bar on my motorcycle, I want to decide if I want to wear my helmet. I want to decide if eating the candy bar is worth the risk of developing diabetes. If I ride my bicycle, I don't have to wear a helmet if I don't want to. I am alive today because I wore my helmet on the day I would have died if I had not while riding my bicycle. I could have died one day when I was fishing, forgot to flip the bail on my reel, and the weight was just enough to pull me off the edge of the cliff I was standing on. If there hadn't been a wave that just happened to come in at the right moment... Bottom line is that the government just can't protect us from everything. While we will all agree that there has to be rules and guidelines for us to follow to prevent utter chaos, I think it's better to allow people to make their own personal decisions about how they want to live their lives. <hr /></blockquote> <font color="green">I agree with every word you said but what bearing is any of it on this issue? A motorcyclist who fails to wear a helmet is risking NO ONE BUT HIS SELF!!! in fact a person who choses to smoke IS HURTING NO ONE BY HIS SELF! but when that smoker is in a enclosed public place he or she is making every one in there take some part in their desire to smoke for better or worse! </font color> /ccboard/images/graemlins/mad.gif

SPetty
04-14-2005, 07:40 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Popcorn:</font><hr> I have never smoked so I can't speak about what it would take to quit. Although I would like to think I am strong minded and self disciplined enough to quit if I did smoke and chose to do so, but I will never know.<hr /></blockquote>I smoked. I quit over 13 years ago. I still want it. I will never do it again.<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Popcorn:</font><hr>Point being, if the place was so nice and a gold mine, yet people stopped going there because they could not go a few hours without a cigarette, what does that say about the habit. It is literally controlling their lives to the point of even keeping them from doing something they love to do such as play at their favorite pool room. It goes to even more so emphasize that banning it and trying to keep others from becoming hooked is the right thing to do. I would like to meet the smoker who while defending their own right to smoke, would say they can't wait till their own kids are old enough to smoke so they can introduce them to this wonderful habit. I am sure they would say no, yet they will blow their smoke in my kids face without a second thought and call it a right. <hr /></blockquote>Wow. I haven't heard it said like this before. Interesting take on it. How's that go? tap tap tippity tap? Bravo.

MrLucky
04-14-2005, 08:03 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote SPetty:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Popcorn:</font><hr> I have never smoked so I can't speak about what it would take to quit. Although I would like to think I am strong minded and self disciplined enough to quit if I did smoke and chose to do so, but I will never know.<hr /></blockquote>I smoked. I quit over 13 years ago. I still want it. I will never do it again.<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Popcorn:</font><hr>Point being, if the place was so nice and a gold mine, yet people stopped going there because they could not go a few hours without a cigarette, what does that say about the habit. It is literally controlling their lives to the point of even keeping them from doing something they love to do such as play at their favorite pool room. It goes to even more so emphasize that banning it and trying to keep others from becoming hooked is the right thing to do. I would like to meet the smoker who while defending their own right to smoke, would say they can't wait till their own kids are old enough to smoke so they can introduce them to this wonderful habit. I am sure they would say no, yet they will blow their smoke in my kids face without a second thought and call it a right. <hr /></blockquote>Wow. I haven't heard it said like this before. Interesting take on it. How's that go? tap tap tippity tap? Bravo. <hr /></blockquote> <font color="red"> How about BRAVO !!! WELL STATED! </font color> /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Rod
04-14-2005, 10:23 PM
Jeez Nick, keep it out of the pool forum.

Rod

Popcorn
04-14-2005, 11:56 PM
I am very glad you have quit but for those that have not:

Your sitting in at a lunch counter having a sandwich and a guy sits next to you. After a while he strikes up a conversation and he tells you he is a genie and he will grant you anything you want, all you have to do is ask. Money, good job, big house what ever, all yours for the taking. You ask "Wait a minute, what's the catch, why would you give all this to me". He says, "Well, there is a small catch." "Sometime in the future, and that time may never come, I will come back and you belong to me till the day you die." "You see, I like to torture humans, that's my thing and when I return I get to do what ever I want to you, cut out your organs suffocate you, blind you, destroy your brain, basically torture you till you die, it will be fun, what do you say, we got a deal"?
Would anyone in their right mind make this bargain? Am sure they wouldn't, no body would, but then again they may already have, except the good job and the money isn't part of it.
If people could in some magical way see what could be the last few years of their life and the price they may have to pay, nothing would stop them from quitting smoking. Maybe a visit to a hospice would be an eye opener. I watched my mother die a death that took years, the kind of death that should only be reserved for the worst criminals. Just put your hand over your mouth and cover your nose and try to pull air through your fingers. Your heart will race, you become weak, then you experience the panic that sets in when you can't breath. Now Imagine this, for the rest of your life. I won't post anything else on this subject, it doesn't belong here anyway, I guess I just wish people didn't do this to themselves.

eg8r
04-15-2005, 03:03 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Ya know, I fully realize that just like the cancer victims that will stuff a cigarette in the breathing hole in their throat there are those that will not honestly access this issue for those do what you want with your life and your health just do not make me have to do it with you ! <hr /></blockquote> No one makes you. It is your choice to go where there is smoke.

eg8r

eg8r
04-15-2005, 03:12 AM
I agree with every thing you posted, but what does this have to do with the topic? We all agree that smoking is a nasty dirty habit, with a horrible track record. However, the discussion really is about whether or not there should be government intervention on private business, in which they want to restrict a perfectly legal act.

eg8r

MrLucky
04-15-2005, 04:09 AM
You are obviously a smoker and a <font color="red">DIE </font color> hard one at that! I am done with this you just don't get it nor will you ever get it ! the point is <font color="red"> you are invading others rights when you pollute their air with your nasty and dangerous habit without their consent! DUH! </font color> /ccboard/images/graemlins/mad.gif Peace and good health to you! /ccboard/images/graemlins/crazy.gif

ragin1
04-15-2005, 06:34 AM
Ahh....The weekly i hate smoking thread.

Popcorn
04-15-2005, 07:01 AM
You are mixing up the restricting (not the taking) of your right to smoke with my right to breath. We both have rights that need addressing. My right to life is more important then your right to kill yourself and force me to have to suffer along with you. If it only killed you and it didn't effect me I would still care, but it would not require laws, but it doesn't. By the way, these are laws that the public in general are in favor of. There is no sinister plot by the government other then trying to protect innocent people from the less considerate among us, a sad commentary indeed that there even needs to be law to tell you it is not alright to harm me. You know if there were no laws against dumping garbage in our streets we would live in nothing but a huge garbage dump just from the people who could care less. Can you believe we even need laws to tell some people it is not all right to dump their trash in the streets, but in fact we do.

You are frankly no different then someone complaining because they can't dump toxic waste in the park where my kids play and then yelling about government meddling in their lives. Stop worrying about government control in this issue. You are already under the control of something far more insidious then a law saying you are not allowed to harm innocent people. By the way, is that such a bad law, that says you are not allowed to harm innocent people? I will not debate this with you and I wish you well and hope you can get help with your addiction but the government argument angle you all like to bring up is just a ridiculous phony scare tactic of "Big Brother is Watching" for a side that hasn't a leg to stand on in the right or wrong of this issue. My right to life trumps your right to smoke and it is that simple, and by the way, no one is telling you you can't smoke, just you must restrict the harm to yourself and not other innocent people.

One of the few charities I give any large amount to is The American Lung Association, in my mothers name. They do good work. They have their Freedom From Smoking on line now and it is free.
https://www.kintera.org/site/apps/kb/home/login.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&amp;b=38973&amp;membershipreq=83912&amp; targetURL=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Elungusa%2Eorg%2Fsite% 2Fpp%2Easp%3Fc%3DdvLUK9O0E%26b%3D22933

Good Luck

MrLucky
04-15-2005, 07:15 AM
/ccboard/images/graemlins/mad.gif <font color="purple">Man Popcorn, you are wasting your time ! He aint hearing anything that gets in the way of his perceived right to smoke wherever, whenever and regardless of his ability to hurt whoever else is in his way and immediate area, He cares less than a damn about anyone elses rights or about the government so called intrusion he keeps harping on to try and make his feeble non point! He is addicted to the max ! Its almost like trying to talk sense to a heroin addict! </font color> /ccboard/images/graemlins/mad.gif

Popcorn
04-15-2005, 07:45 AM
We are just assuming he is even a smoker, he may just like to argue and has chosen that side to be on. If he is a smoker though it is never a waste of time to try to encourage them to quit. You will never win the argument or debate but may just say the right thing that triggers somthing in them to make a decision. One reason they don't try to quit is out of fear. It is a fear of failure that keeps them from trying, I learned this from the A.L.A. when I did some volunteering. No one wants to feel like their life's choices aren't their own so they convince themselves, (lie to themselves) the smoking is their choice. Once they can make the decision to quit they are 90% there. Now it is just a matter of time and failure doesn't matter, only success. In reality there are no failures only setbacks, success is inevitable if you keep trying.

eg8r
04-15-2005, 08:30 AM
[ QUOTE ]
You are mixing up the restricting (not the taking) of your right to smoke with my right to breath. <hr /></blockquote> Neither is a right, and you are perfectly welcome to breate.

[ QUOTE ]
My right to life is more important then your right to kill yourself <hr /></blockquote> Once again, you are veering from the topic. However, you can have life while breathing in smoke, and you are no one in position to decide which "right" takes precedence.

I am not going to argue with you about individuals and smoking, THAT IS NOT THE PURPOSE OF THE DISCUSSION!!!!!! When you can understand that, maybe the discussion can move along.

eg8r &lt;~~~non-smoker

eg8r
04-15-2005, 08:36 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Man Popcorn, you are wasting your time ! He aint hearing anything that gets in the way of his perceived right to smoke wherever, whenever and regardless of his ability to hurt whoever else is in his way and immediate area, <hr /></blockquote> Who is wasting time. It is quite evident you have not opened your eyes and read what I have posted. I am not a smoker, never have been, and think it is disgusting. I just have enough brains to notice what is right and what is wrong. The government stepping in is WRONG!!!!!!!!! Does it help me out, yes, I can now go into some pool halls and not breath the smoke, however it is plain to see our freedoms are being eroded away.

The big problem with these types of arguments is that the marjority of you defending the government were too weak to take a stand prior to the intervention. If you REALLY REALLY cared, you would have left the pool halls long ago. Now that you have some backing from the government you are standing tall, and expressing your "right" when it is quite clear you have never read the Bill of Rights and don't really know what is a "right" and what is not.

Once again, for those who refuse to read what is printed to your screen, I am not a smoker, but I defend a business' freedoms to own and operate their business in a legal manner.

eg8r

eg8r
04-15-2005, 08:40 AM
[ QUOTE ]
You are obviously a smoker and a DIE hard one at that! <hr /></blockquote> I did not bother to read the rest of your post since it will follow this failed logic. You are obviously someone who does not know what they are talking about and stumbles to comprehend plain english. I have said in more than 1 post now, that I am not a smoker.

Well, the sucker I am, I continued reading and you have further proven you have very little understanding of your rights. Go read the Bill of Rights and let me know which one states you have the right to perfectly clean air absent of anything that might cause you harm. Until then, I will assume you don't know what your "rights" are, and there is no reason to continue the discussion.

eg8r

Popcorn
04-15-2005, 10:02 AM
The unfortunate thing about these sort of things is they do have to be regulated, individuals can't be depended on to do the right thing. If fire exits and codes or occupancy capacity limits were not in place no, place would be safe to go in. We have the safest food in the world, of course I am sure people in the food business would tell you they are over regulated but I would hate to depend on them to be sure we have a safe food supply. Unfortunately laws have to be put in place. Some won't agree with them some will. It is just a reality because business owners are often greedy and self serving. Doing the right thing for the sake of doing the right thing almost doesn't exist.

The smoking issue is just one of many I am sure a business owner may feel hurts their business as do closing hours, noise pollution, parking regulations, sign ordinances and so on. Left to their own devices they would do what ever they wanted without any thought of the overall consequences or public good. I once thought I wanted to live where no one told me what to do so I bought 25 acres and learned real quick what it is like living without rules. Neighbors who fight dogs, start fires get drunk and shoot guns in their back yards and basically total chaos. I also have two acres in an exclusive gated community and found out what it is like when there are to many rules. I canceled all plans to build there, although I will make a small fortune on the property so it wasn't that big a mistake. Point is there has to be somewhere in the middle where you have freedoms but not chaos. No matter what, some will be happy and some won't.

I am an activist and often appear before the city commission when I have something on my mind or I support or oppose, I don't just talk. I support the restricting of smoking and I am not alone. If someone's business is totally dependent on it they will just need to go into another business. Recently I was at a commission meeting supporting local restaurants keeping their out door seating. many can't survive without it because of the added volume of business it provides. Well It was taken and some will have to close up. The real problem was they got the right and naturally abused it with seating covering the sidewalks practically into the street and they lost it, because the overall public good usually wins out. Being in business is not a right, you need to meet certain rules and regulations and if you don't want to meet them or they are such that the business is not viable then don't go in that business. You may be happier living in the middle of nowhere without any rules, that is your choice.

eg8r
04-15-2005, 10:12 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Point is there has to be somewhere in the middle where you have freedoms but not chaos. No matter what, some will be happy and some won't.
<hr /></blockquote> I couldn't have said this any better. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[ QUOTE ]
You may be happier living in the middle of nowhere without any rules, that is your choice.
<hr /></blockquote> I really don't think so, and I don't remember anyone complaining the rules that were already in place. It is the new rules. If someone opposes a new rule, do you consider them a person who likes no rules? As far as living in the middle of nowhere, that would not work, I am a city boy. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif I have been to Spetty's and it gets dark out in the middle of nowhere. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Your example of the restaurants does not apply to this situation. Unless one was to say the business were taking advantage of the smoker friendly laws, in which that would be hard to prove. I have no problem removing priveleges from companies that are not following the laws/rules, but that does not apply to this discussion.

eg8r

Rich R.
04-15-2005, 10:50 AM
I'm just curious. /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif

Why is it, that you consider non-smoking rules a loss of rights for smokers?

For years, non-smokers had to make the choice to go into a smokey business establishment, and breathe smoke, or stay outside.

Now, they have just changed the rules, where a smoker has to make a choice to go into a non-smoking business establishment, or stay outside and smoke.

It seems to me, that we have two groups of people, smokers and non-smokers. The non-smokers used to have to make a choice. That choice has now be shifted to the smokers.

The smokers have not been told that they can't smoke at all, therefore, they have not lost any rights. They just have to make the choice to smoke outside or go inside and not smoke.

MrLucky
04-15-2005, 01:31 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Rich R.:</font><hr> I'm just curious. /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif

Why is it, that you consider non-smoking rules a loss of rights for smokers?

For years, non-smokers had to make the choice to go into a smokey business establishment, and breathe smoke, or stay outside.

Now, they have just changed the rules, where a smoker has to make a choice to go into a non-smoking business establishment, or stay outside and smoke.

It seems to me, that we have two groups of people, smokers and non-smokers. The non-smokers used to have to make a choice. That choice has now be shifted to the smokers.

The smokers have not been told that they can't smoke at all, therefore, they have not lost any rights. They just have to make the choice to smoke outside or go inside and not smoke. <hr /></blockquote>

<font color="red">Precisely !... I have tried to convey this to him in several ways but as stated before he is stuck on his own view and will not open to any point of view but his own! </font color> /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif

bustah360
04-15-2005, 01:40 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote MrLucky:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Rich R.:</font><hr> I'm just curious. /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif

Why is it, that you consider non-smoking rules a loss of rights for smokers?

For years, non-smokers had to make the choice to go into a smokey business establishment, and breathe smoke, or stay outside.

Now, they have just changed the rules, where a smoker has to make a choice to go into a non-smoking business establishment, or stay outside and smoke.

It seems to me, that we have two groups of people, smokers and non-smokers. The non-smokers used to have to make a choice. That choice has now be shifted to the smokers.

The smokers have not been told that they can't smoke at all, therefore, they have not lost any rights. They just have to make the choice to smoke outside or go inside and not smoke. <hr /></blockquote>

<font color="red">Precisely !... I have tried to convey this to him in several ways but as stated before he is stuck on his own view and will not open to any point of view but his own! </font color> /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif <hr /></blockquote>
well the problem is that the owners of businesses are forced to make their establishments smoke-free against their own will.

MrLucky
04-15-2005, 01:48 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote bustah360:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote MrLucky:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Rich R.:</font><hr> I'm just curious. /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif

Why is it, that you consider non-smoking rules a loss of rights for smokers?

For years, non-smokers had to make the choice to go into a smokey business establishment, and breathe smoke, or stay outside.

Now, they have just changed the rules, where a smoker has to make a choice to go into a non-smoking business establishment, or stay outside and smoke.

It seems to me, that we have two groups of people, smokers and non-smokers. The non-smokers used to have to make a choice. That choice has now be shifted to the smokers.

The smokers have not been told that they can't smoke at all, therefore, they have not lost any rights. They just have to make the choice to smoke outside or go inside and not smoke. <hr /></blockquote>

<font color="red">Precisely !... I have tried to convey this to him in several ways but as stated before he is stuck on his own view and will not open to any point of view but his own! </font color> /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif <hr /></blockquote>
well the problem is that the owners of businesses are forced to make their establishments smoke-free against their own will. <hr /></blockquote> <font color="red"> Aren't owners of businesses forced to have business licenses? aren't owners of businesses "forced" to have a clean inspected kitchen for their customers health purposes ? Arn't owners of businesses required to have access for handicapped patrons ? and on and on! what is the da.. difference ? this argument is getting lamer and lamer! </font color> /ccboard/images/graemlins/mad.gif

Popcorn
04-15-2005, 02:07 PM
quote
"well the problem is that the owners of businesses are forced to make their establishments smoke-free against their own will."

Against their will? They are also required to meet health department standards. They can't sell rotten out of date food or have a kitchen that has rats and roaches running around. They also have to have proper fire exits, bathrooms, signs, pay employee benefits, pay taxes, sales tax, licenses, and a number of things that can put a strain on doing business, that's just the way it is. They can't be putting the public at risk and stay in business and in cities and states that have deemed it proper, that now includes smoking. It is not a conspiracy to put people out of business but to protect the public. By the way, any of these business who think they are being treated unfairly are welcome to take it to court. You are a little naive as to the rights of business owners. You operate a business at the pleasure of the community in which you set up based on their local ordinances and local, state, and federal laws.

pooltchr
04-15-2005, 02:10 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote MrLucky:</font><hr> <hr /></blockquote> <font color="red"> Aren't owners of businesses forced to have business licenses? aren't owners of businesses "forced" to have a clean inspected kitchen for their customers health purposes ? Arn't owners of businesses required to have access for handicapped patrons ? and on and on! what is the da.. difference ? this argument is getting lamer and lamer! </font color> /ccboard/images/graemlins/mad.gif <hr /></blockquote>

Gee, Thanks for reminding us how much control the government really does have in our lives...and how much government regulation adds to the cost of doing business, and how much the consumers end up paying for. Not to mention, the tax dollars we spend so the government can set up another agency to enforce the new regulations.

The free enteprise system forces businesses to meet the needs and desires of their customers. If they don't, they go out of business. Why does big brother need to get involved? And more importantly, WHAT IS NEXT?????

Maybe they should ban people who smell funny. Only clean non-sweaty people should be allowed in restaurants, because the smell interferes with my enjoyment of a meal.

Let's ban alcohol sales from restaurants. People who drink cause too many problems for those of us who want to eat in an alcohol free environment.

O-K I'm being extreme here to make a point. Government intervention into more areas of our lives (business and personal) continues to erode our freedom. Who would have thought 5 years ago that your pool cue would be on the list of banned potential weapons on an airline?
The more power the government gets, the more they crave! Sounds kinda like an addiction, doesn't it?
Steve

Keith Talent
04-15-2005, 02:11 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> Your example of the restaurants does not apply to this situation. Unless one was to say the business were taking advantage of the smoker friendly laws, in which that would be hard to prove. eg8r <hr /></blockquote>

What do you mean, "doesn't apply"? Popcorn was pointing out that restaurants face numerous government regulations forcing them to do things that cost them money and that they would not likely do voluntarily.

Does it bug you that smoking is not specifically addressed in the Bill of Rights? Neither is zoning or regulation of the airwaves or the Web ... the document wasn't brought down on stone tablets by Charlton Heston, after all. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

A society has got a right to decide these things and standards change over the years. Hell, 100 years ago a woman would have gotten tossed in jail for exposing her knees on the street, maybe even her nekkid shins.

Nostroke
04-15-2005, 03:08 PM
Amsterdam was particularly smoking unfriendly to the Bangers as they were located in the basement at the bottom of a steep set of stairs. I'm sure more than one group just left rather than fight those stairs to take a smoke break and im sure others just found the street level bars easier to deal with.

I say Bangers as at least for part of the time, the regulars had a back hallway to sneak into.

One
04-15-2005, 03:22 PM
Problem: People smoking.

Easy solution: Death penalty for all smokers.
Advanced solution: Cities with different rules.


"People who smoke are more evil than mass murderers because they destroy for others without having a goal in it...while mass murderers kill for a reason." - One

"The only difference between smokers and mass murderers is that the smokers don't know they are killing other people" - One

wolfdancer
04-15-2005, 03:36 PM
well said, what smokers are implying is that it is some devine, or constitutional right of theirs to pollute the air, and cause health concerns for others, while they are ruining their own health in the process.
as far as gov't interferring in a legal act...that's easily fixed...make it illegal

wolfdancer
04-15-2005, 03:48 PM
eg8r, as another non-smoker, i can't understand your stand on this. If they don't pass laws to control this out-of-control health hazard....???? voluntary compliance??????
Some things need regulation...

wolfdancer
04-15-2005, 03:55 PM
"Go read the Bill of Rights and let me know which one states you have the right to perfectly clean air absent of anything that might cause you harm. Until then, I will assume you don't know what your "rights" are, and there is no reason to continue the discussion."

I think you are losing it.....like H.A.L. in "2001"
Ain't no "rights" in there to smoke either
Were you breast fed? I have this theory about non-breast fed babies, having a higher rate of senior dementia, as they age...lol

pooltchr
04-15-2005, 04:49 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote wolfdancer:</font><hr> as far as gov't interferring in a legal act...that's easily fixed...make it illegal <hr /></blockquote>

I already pointed out earlier that the government doesn't want to do that...there is too much tax money in tobacco.

wolfdancer
04-15-2005, 04:57 PM
I forgot about the big tax bucks.....

SPetty
04-15-2005, 05:03 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote wolfdancer:</font><hr> I forgot about the big tax bucks..... <hr /></blockquote>If they really wanted big tax bucks, they'd legalize pot...

MrLucky
04-15-2005, 06:49 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Keith Talent:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> Your example of the restaurants does not apply to this situation. Unless one was to say the business were taking advantage of the smoker friendly laws, in which that would be hard to prove. eg8r <hr /></blockquote>

What do you mean, "doesn't apply"? Popcorn was pointing out that restaurants face numerous government regulations forcing them to do things that cost them money and that they would not likely do voluntarily.

Does it bug you that smoking is not specifically addressed in the Bill of Rights? Neither is zoning or regulation of the airwaves or the Web ... the document wasn't brought down on stone tablets by Charlton Heston, after all. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

A society has got a right to decide these things and standards change over the years. Hell, 100 years ago a woman would have gotten tossed in jail for exposing her knees on the street, maybe even her nekkid shins. <hr /></blockquote> <font color="red">So steve you and some others here woulkd prefer no government at all ! as far as businesses are concerned is that right? So when you eat that hamburger that a cook made from warm raw meat that was sitting on the counter with flys laying their eggs in it and the cook rushed over to put together for ya right after going to the bathroom and not washing his hands Don't expect any flowers from me! </font color> /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif LMAO!

<font color="green"> Sound a bit extreme? well no more extreme than the ridiculous argument that government shouldn't PROTECT the taxpayers health from smokers! </font color> /ccboard/images/graemlins/cool.gif

pooltchr
04-16-2005, 04:04 AM
I think I would probably make the decision not to eat at that particular restaurant. That business owner is not providing for the needs and desires of this particular customer. If there is a market for nasty food out there, he might do well, but it's his choice how to run his business, and mine whether or not to purchase his product.

I'm not saying there shouldn't be some compromise on this particular issue...I think what scares me the most is the strong arm tactics the government uses to impose it's will.

In our community, there is strong, no make that VERY strong support to deconsolidate the school system. Yet our state government rejected the proposal. Oh, they did give supporters 15 minutes to state their case after they had already voted...but they refused to allow our district representatives to speak. (No elected officials could address the committee, just "average" citizens.)

We also voted overwhelmingly against building a new arena in uptown Charlotte 2 years ago. The new arena is scheduled to open next year! Not to mention that we are getting a $500 million new light rail system that less than 10% of the residents want. We never even got to vote on that one! Oh yeah, in order to build one of the transit stations for the train, the city condemned a lot of property along the line. That is the reason Mother's pool room, an institution for years in town, is no longer there.

Government has the ability to impose their will on us, and in many cases, we have no recourse. There are communities in this country that have laws against having pool tables in a public location. What would you think if Atlanta decided to ban pool tables because they create an atmosphere that is bad for the non pool players??

Yes, I agree there may be valid reasons to create no smoking areas...I just don't like the way it's being done.
Steve

Rich R.
04-16-2005, 04:51 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote pooltchr:</font><hr> I think I would probably make the decision not to eat at that particular restaurant. <hr /></blockquote>
<font color="blue"> You would have never known, if the nasty conditions mentioned were in that kitchen. Therefore, you would have eaten the burger and, later, you would wonder why you weren't feeling well. /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif </font color>

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote pooltchr:</font><hr>That business owner is not providing for the needs and desires of this particular customer. <hr /></blockquote>
<font color="blue"> Most business owners, given the choice, will provide for their own "needs and desires", long before they think about a customer. </font color>

MrLucky
04-16-2005, 05:20 AM
Damn you Rich! /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif you seem to keep beating me to the punch! LOL! /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

<font color="green"> Steve as I said in the beginning I am not a friend of BIG GOVERNMENT! but I also realize its need for existence like everything in life there is always a need for balance! but in the case of smoking the balance is there! and quite evident, health of the many versus habits and bad health concerns of the rapidly (one way or the other) few! Most smokers with any sense even if they continue to subject themselves to the dangers of their addiction, know in their heart and mind that it is harmfull ! So for anyone like Mr eg8 etc. to try and defend this killer addictiion and its unwanted thrust upon the sane and healthy is ridiculous at best! and I think from your reply you grudgingly agree with that part! </font color> /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Popcorn
04-16-2005, 06:47 AM
Some of the current comments have become so ridicules as to not command a response. You have a person now arguing for a restaurants right to sell poison food to the public. I guess they would like to see no regulation on auto makers either, the same people who gave us the exploding Pinto. I think this discussion has run it's course.

Cane
04-16-2005, 02:26 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Keith Talent:</font><hr>And after the shock wears off, no harm has been shown to have been done to the bar biz ... that's what studies here in New York have said.

<hr /></blockquote>
Regardless of what "studies" show, let me tell you, as someone who just closed the only pool room in a within 90 miles in this part of Oklahoma experienced. In order to comply with Oklahoma, and specifically, our county's smoking laws, we would have either had to completely banned smoking in our entire building (probably 70% of our customers are smokers) or we would have had to comply with the new building code in order to accomodate the non smokers and smokers. Our facility was a little under 10,000 square feet. We had a survey done and estimates done... The modifications required would have cost us just a little over $165,000... Screw it, we just closed the doors, sold off what equipment we could and took a HUGE fall on the rest of it... yeah, go ahead and tell me that I can claim my losses at tax time... Forgive me if I don't beam out a huge smile when I think of pool tables in storage, pool tables sold at half cost, a $20,000 walk-in combo that I had to sell for $4000, lights, decorations, etc, that are all worth 10% of what I paid for them... We were a pool room and bar in a town of 8,000 people, in a county of about 40,000. After expenses, labor, taxes, maintenance, insurance, etc, etc, etc, we felt good if we only put 2 or 3 thousand a month in the business to keep it afloat until things got better. Thanks to the smoking laws and the outrageous burden that SOME of them, not all of them, put on bars and pool rooms, we found it less financially painful to just close the doors. Of course, now everyone is bitching because they have to drive over to Arkansas to find a pool room, or as far as Tulsa. I won't tell you what almost to a man, my former non-smoking customers say about the law and the undue burden it puts on business, because their contemporaries who aren't in this area and effected by the closing of businesses, just refuse to listen or to understand what really happens to the small businessman when an improvement of this financial magnitude is forced upon them.

I'm not saying that non smokers should have to go into a pool room and breath the smoke if they don't want to... what I'm saying is they have the same right to stay out, just as someone who is offended by nudity has to stay out of a strip club. What I'd really like to see is the adamant, almost cultist smoking ban fanatics sink a quarter of a million dollars into a non-smoking pool room, then maybe I could come in, proclaim my right to smoke and have them build a special room for me and my friends at a non subsidized cost equal to more than half of their original investment.

Bankrupt in a business and tired of the whining! If people would concentrate their efforts, funding and research on issues like AIDS, Cancer, Heart Disease, Human Rights and such, damn the world might actually be a better place! OH, but wait... if we took care of those problems, then there'd be more people around to pollute the air with smoke, so let's just forget about the important issues and concentrate on whether our neighbors cigar smoke will blow across the yard and kill our Tiger Lillies.

I wish I'd stayed out of this one... I REALLY tried to!!! But when I read that the proponents of smoking bans actually thought there would be no impact on businesses, nightmares of my profit and loss statement went through my head and I had to chime in!

Bob

Regulator
04-16-2005, 03:29 PM
Hi Cane,

Sorry to hear you had to close.

You communicated:
* No competition for 90 miles.
* Cost you $2k to $3k per month out of your pocket to stay open.
* Most of your customers smoked.
* You allowed smoking in your building.

Did you think about trying to go 3 months "smoke-free" ??

I admit I know nothing about your part of the country, but maybe most of the 70% smokers would have kept coming, and with a bit of advertising, a bunch more non-smokers would have showed up.

Yes, Los Angeles is very different than OK, but the bar/restaurant business is better after going smoke-free. Admittedly, restaurant businesses in CA on the Arizona, Nevada or Oregon border may have gone bust.

I'm interested in hearing why you didn't try smoke-free? (Maybe you did and it was a failure.)

Regards,

Cane
04-16-2005, 04:44 PM
Regulator

We did try making the pool room area, which is a seperate room, non-smoking for two months. Believe it or not, we were actually kind of skirting local ordinances doing this... hope I make it clear how later in this post. Our revenues in the pool room fell DRASTICALLY to less than $1000 per month, and that includes, beverages, table time on 7 tables and food orders coming from the pool room. The pool room was on a seperate meter than the rest of the club, so we could track cost of operation in there, even for utilities. Let's just say that barely paid the electric bill for the pool room area. We could have lived with that, but just because it was a seperate room, would not get us past our local smoking ban laws beyond March of this year, when full compliance was to be required... complicated to explain, but I'll try. First, our building... The front of the building was more than 20% glass, so we had to maintain business as a Sports Grill or Billiard Cafe, by local ordinance. Don't ask me why, nobody could ever give me a good answer as to why. Now, local ordinance also says, we cannot have seperate areas for smokers and non smokers in a "bar", but even though we couldn't be a "bar" we fell under their strange definition of a bar because "Pool Halls" in Leflore County, whether they serve alcohol or not are defined under "bars" in the county code. (Do you see the classic Bible Belt trap closing here??? They don't WANT pool halls, because pool halls are evil!) So... our only option, to remain in compliance with the law was that we have most of the glass removed from the front of the building, build a seperate area within the building, with a seperate entrance and exit for the non smokers (in other words, they would have to have their own area, that would offer everything that was offered in the smoking area) with a fresh air make up unit to supply fresh air, whose intake was more than 150 feet in a straight line, from any entrance or exit used for the smoking area. OK, complicated enough so far? It only gets better. The smoking area, which, since we were neither strictly a cafe NOR a bar, we would have been required to have, would have to have a ventilation system, whose outlet was a minimum of 150 feet from both the entrance and exit to the non smoking area, and at least 150 feet from the intake for the fresh air make up unit for the non smoking area.

Believe it or not, that isn't even CLOSE to the end of it. We did consider the option of becoming a "bar only" and just taking out the glass and being exempt from the otherwise required non smoking area, but the cost of that, since all construction would have to meet NFPA requirements, was pretty close to the same cost of building the seperate smoking/non-smoking areas. Thus, playing pool in this county now has been condemned to BARS ONLY. Nobody is going to open a pool room here now, and honestly, our local government, took advantage of the nationwide push for non smoking rights, to push out what they consider to be business that "just don't belong" in our little Bible Belt community.

I didn't mean to sound harsh in my first post, but when I think about Billie and I losing most of what we've saved over both of our lifetimes.

We weren't the only victims in this small community. That I know of 6 other businesses have closed, because of either lack of funds to reach compliance, or lack of revenues due to the slowdown in business. Three of these businesses had pool tables, even if they were just a couple of bar boxes in each one, that will NOT be played on in this town again. So now we have a town of 8000 people and two pool tables in one bar.

Again, sorry for the harsh tone of my first post, but those who don't own a business that's affected by the new smoke free laws, or BreathEasy Laws, as their called in Oklahoma, and depend upon the results of studies, (mostly, btw, done by proponents of the smoking bans) just do NOT have an understanding of what invoking a law that dictates how someone can operate a business that they have their life's savings tied up in.

That being said, I have to say, that even as a smoker, I'm fully in favor of banning smoking in public facilities, but I define "public" differently. When I put $250,000 in a business, it's NOT a public facility. It's open to the public, but it's MY building and MY investment, and I think dictating how I can operate my business with MY money is an infringement on MY rights. After all, if someone didn't like the atmosphere, they didn't have to come there.

Later,
Bob

pooltchr
04-16-2005, 06:20 PM
Bob, THAT is exactly the point I have been trying to make. The issue isn't smoking or non-smoking...it's the government telling a business owner what he can or can not do with his own business. The restaurant/kitchen analogy isn't fair because you might not be aware of what is going on in the kitchen, but you can make a knowing decision whether or not to enter a place where smoking is allowed.

I hate to hear that you became a victim of the "pleasure police" as we call them down here. They have done the same thing with "adult" clubs by placing so many rules and restrictions on them that it is virtually impossible for someone to open one here. As the older ones go out of business, and I'm sure many will if the smoking ban is passed, they will not be replaced. Now the government has got what they want...get rid of the strip clubs, pool rooms and bars so we can have a nice clean boring city.

I'm ready to sell my house and move across the boarder to South Carolina...my commute would still be about the same, and I can get out from under the thumb of some of the idiots running this fair city.

Steve

Popcorn
04-16-2005, 08:45 PM
There are quite a few stories like yours due to various circumstances. I had something similar to me happen although I didn't lose any money other then potential future earnings. If I want to figure that then I lost a couple of million. I owned a place for quite a few years when the drinking age was 18. When they raised the age, bars, recreation places like mine, (Bar and pool room video games) really took a hit and many that were geared specifically to the young people, loud music and so on, went under almost immediately. At that same time I had a city license that permitted me to stay open 23 hours a day, I had to close from 6 am to 7 am. We never did by the way, we just stopped serving for an hour. I was not far from a dog track and would be as busy at 3 am as I would be at 9 pm.

The city was having trouble with some bars on the beach and they pulled their after hours licenses. When threatened with a law suit the city reinstated those licenses and the following October when it was time for renewal, phased out all the after hours licenses this included mine. These licenses had been around since the 1940's, we were in a state of shock, there was no warning. Now I can't stay open after 2 am, (I got around that but still could not sell alcohol, ) and you had to be now 21 to drink, my revenues were way down. In fact there were a few late night places that opened at like 10 pm, they were out of business in one day. I could still survive but I was spoiled and didn't like working for nothing, at least compared to what I was used to making. Then one day I look at the paper and there is a picture of my street with a proposed widening that would take all my on street parking. Now I had a lot in the back but to make it in to a legitimate parking lot would cost a fortune. That was it, I was ready to go and sold the place. As it turned out the street thing never came to pass and the place is still there. At the time though in a matter of 8 months I could not believe how this all seemed to conspire against me.

You learn as you get older that nothing is forever and you just move on. It's happening to me again right now. Where I live the property values are going off the board and builders are buying up the single family houses and building town houses that start at $500,000. I am going to forced to sell my house in the next few years. Who wants to be living with all these multistory building everywhere as well as all the congestion. Will I get a good price for my house, yes maybe a million or more, they can put like eight town houses on my property, but I would rather have it like it was before. If I should move, I would like it to be my choice not because I am being squeezed out. Stories like ours are more common then you would think, never the less still sickening when it is happening to you.. It seems unfair but that is just the way it is.

Now as I think back on it, a lot of bar owners back then were acting the same with the change in the drinking age as they are today about the smoking laws. Most thought they would go out of business they were so dependent on the younger crowd, and I am sure many did.

SPetty
04-17-2005, 04:45 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote bustah360:</font><hr> Take your business elsewhere. It's that simple.<hr /></blockquote>I'm not picking on you, bustah360, but I grow weary of smokers saying this. If I want to be in a place that has pool tables and pool players, I must be in a smoky, stinky place smelling smoky stinky smoke and making my hair and skin and clothes and cue and cue case come out reeking of smoky stinky smoke, not to mention my irritated throat and sinus and nasal passages and mandatory headaches. I know of no place in Dallas where I can go that has pool tables and pool players but no smoking allowed. It just isn't available. I believe there's a market in this major city to support such a place, but it doesn't exist. To suggest I go elsewhere is to suggest I give up pool.

Dallas instituted a no smoking ordinance that says don't smoke anywhere but bars, pool halls and bowling alleys, I think. Given that, guess what? Smokers who have little other place to go now go to pool halls. Guess what? That makes them smokier than they've ever been. Guess what? I don't enjoy going to the pool hall because of it. Guess what? If I want to play pool in a place with pool tables and pool players, I HAVE NO CHOICE!

bustah360
04-18-2005, 10:56 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote SPetty:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote bustah360:</font><hr> Take your business elsewhere. It's that simple.<hr /></blockquote>I'm not picking on you, bustah360, but I grow weary of smokers saying this. If I want to be in a place that has pool tables and pool players, I must be in a smoky, stinky place smelling smoky stinky smoke and making my hair and skin and clothes and cue and cue case come out reeking of smoky stinky smoke, not to mention my irritated throat and sinus and nasal passages and mandatory headaches. I know of no place in Dallas where I can go that has pool tables and pool players but no smoking allowed. It just isn't available. I believe there's a market in this major city to support such a place, but it doesn't exist. To suggest I go elsewhere is to suggest I give up pool.

Dallas instituted a no smoking ordinance that says don't smoke anywhere but bars, pool halls and bowling alleys, I think. Given that, guess what? Smokers who have little other place to go now go to pool halls. Guess what? That makes them smokier than they've ever been. Guess what? I don't enjoy going to the pool hall because of it. Guess what? If I want to play pool in a place with pool tables and pool players, I HAVE NO CHOICE! <hr /></blockquote>
Look man, I'm not saying that your situation doesn't suck, cuz it does. What I am saying is that you shouldn't have to be forced into a regulation that would do nothing but hurt your business. Its your business. Your lifelong investment, your time and money, period!
If an owner doesn't want to allow smoking that should be his choice. Once you own your own poolhall or bar and the gov't is forcing you to comply with something that will inevitably cause you to close down, then we all have a problem. This power may not just stop there. What happens if another rule was pushed for some other type of business giving them the same end? Where does it stop?

Popcorn
04-18-2005, 11:01 AM
Quote
"Once you own your own poolhall or bar and the gov't is forcing you to comply with something that will inevitably cause you to close down, then we all have a problem. "

I am afraid you need a reality check.

Cane
04-18-2005, 11:15 AM
After my other posts, I may seem to contradict myself here, but... here goes. If the pool rooms I frequent are forced to ban smoking, I'll still go there. I'll simply step outside to smoke. I don't consider it my "right" to smoke where it is not welcome no more than I consider it the right of non-smokers to force a private enterprise to ban smoking.

Spetty has been gracious enough to invite me to her place, Petty Point. I've been there twice. There is no smoking in her building, although she's gracious enough to have butt cans outside on the deck for those of us who are hard core addicts. I appreciate her courtesy, and it's HER RIGHT as the owner to not have smoking in her place. I respect and honor that right and will defend it to the end.

POPCORN: One Million Dollars for a house! Whew... let me give you an example of the economic differences between your area and mine. My GF and I just bought a house here in town. Nice Neighborhood, house is 2 story, about 2500 Square feet, 4 bedrooms, 3 baths, a detached 1BR, 1bath apartment in the rear. Older home, but has new plumbing, new electrical and new siding on the house. Outside is nicely landscaped (although it's not to our taste, so we'll redo the landscaping). $55,000 Damn, on my AF Retirement Check, I couldn't even pay the taxes and insurance on a million dollar home!!! I also own a farm with a very VERY nice 3 BR, 1700 sq foot house, interior all in red oak (floors, trim, cabinets, base around jacuzi, etc.) on 182 acres. I'm considering selling it, and will feel fortunate if I get $275,000 for it. Had a friend just move back here from San Diego and said that was a $5million place in California. Oh, well... Stuck in Oklahoma for a few more years, where housing is cheap, but gas is the same price as everywhere else! /ccboard/images/graemlins/frown.gif

Later,
Bob

SPetty
04-18-2005, 11:39 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Cane:</font><hr> SPetty has been gracious enough to invite me to her place, PettyPoint. There is no smoking in her building, although she's gracious enough to have butt cans outside on the deck for those of us who are hard core addicts. I appreciate her courtesy, and it's HER RIGHT as the owner to not have smoking in her place. <hr /></blockquote>But that's really a different situation than what's being described and discussed here. I don't think there's any smoker anywhere that would smoke in someone else's house if they were asked not to. PPPH is my house, not my business.

It's interesting that I've never actually said that there's no smoking inside. You guys are just sharp enough to understand that when I point out the butt cans outside! /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

I selfishly provide butt cans so I don't have to pick up butts after y'all leave... /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Cane
04-18-2005, 11:50 AM
Spetty... Still force of habit from my military days, I guess, but I rarely smoke inside at anyone's house, unless they do first. Even if I smoke outside, I generally put the thing out on the bottom of my shoe and put the butt in the change pocket on my Levis. Strange, huh... but I can't stand to see cig butts all over the ground. Maybe it's a flyfishing thing, too. When I fish a river or stream, one thing that gets to me more than anything is seeing trash floating on the stream or laying on the bank. When I get finished with a day's fishing, I spend a good 10 minutes cleaning the trash AND cigarette butts out of my flyfishing vest and putting them in a trash bag in my vehicle. I figure someone's property deserves at least the same respect that I give the public waterways. Man, if they ever ban smoking on the South Platte River, I'm screwed!!!

Later,
Bob

bustah360
04-18-2005, 11:58 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Popcorn:</font><hr> Quote
I am afraid you need a reality check. <hr /></blockquote>

buddy reality is something I see it everyday

Popcorn
04-18-2005, 12:21 PM
My father bought this property in the 1950's for $14,000. I have lived here off and on over the years and when my mom died my sister and I divided some things up and I wanted the old house. I actually gave her two duplexes for the house. They were at the time worth way more then this house but I wanted and didn't want it torn down. That's what makes me the sickest, I know it will be torn down if I sell it. My wife said she won't sell for any price but you have to face reality and we both hate living here anymore. I'm protected by the save our homes with the property taxes, I only pay about $2400.00 a year. My next door neighbor bought their house last year and I was nosy and looked on the Internet at the appraisers web site and saw they paid $18,000 in taxes this year. My insurance isn't that bad either, about another $2400.00 since most of the value is the property and not the buildings. Now you know why I don't really want to move.

I don't want to give you the impression I am the type who lives in a million dollar house, I just happen to own it. I like to look at the Buy owner web site and is it amazing what you can buy in other parts of the country. Even in Florida you can still get nice places for reasonable money but some areas are ridicules. I am seriously looking at a place called Keystone Heights in northern Florida. I could get a house on a couple of acres for what my guest cottage is worth here. You know that story about my one pool room, I have had two, makes me sick. At the time I would have thought I would own it forever. I was in the process of buying the building as well as the adjoining property at the time that the S%%% hit the fan. I was going to expand and had all kinds of plans that went down the drain.

Popcorn
04-18-2005, 12:33 PM
I meant no disrespect, it is just you can lobby or sue. You do what you can but you learn pretty quick in business you have a lot of people to appease. Even a nasty building inspector can make your life miserable but you can't climb on a roof with a rifle. Being in business isn't for everyone and has risks at every turn. A restaurant I used to like to go to is gone now and a family business that had been there for over 20 years was gone in one day. A kid riding his bike down the street fell through their front window and was killed when the glass fell on him. They were sued, it turned they had replaced the glass at one time without a permit and didn't use the right glass. That was that. You never know, in business, it seems like all business are temporary and you better have something to fall back on. By the way, that is the reason there are regulations on window glass that some people don't want to follow. Regulation are necessary.

BlindPlayer
04-18-2005, 12:40 PM
I'm still a little a little peeved over this issue. In 1968 was drafted just before graduation so joined the USAF. I wanted to be an "Air Traffic Controller" when I grew up. 6 years experience and two as a supervisor / trainer prepared me to work with FAA. Was there 5 years and couldn't injest any more smoke. They started letting the controllers smoke cigars the last 2 years and it became unbearable. I quit.

When I was 35 they banned smoking - applied to get back in and they won't re-hire after you are 32 years old.

Smoke in the workplace has cost me over 2.4 million dollars. The difference between what I would have made in salary, benefits and retirement compared to what I've been able to generate in the last 20 years.

Cough, cough - I guess I'm still a little peeved.

Cane
04-18-2005, 02:30 PM
Blindplayer, First, thanks for serving in '68, man. Being a DAV, I have a soft spot for those who served this country.

Now, we're talking about a completely different issue, at least in my opinion. I don't think banning smoking in the workplace is a bad idea. As a matter of fact, I was a Maintenance Engineer for a very well known fiberglas products manufacturer for 8 years and I was the co-author of our plant's "Smoke Free" policy, a policy which was, letter for letter, eventually adopted by our entire division. As an added incentive, we offered a $500 cash bonus to any employee would quit smoking and STAY quit for one year. We did build an outdoor shelther as a courtesy to the smokers, like me, who wanted their nicotine more than they wanted the 500 bucks (also done by every plant in our division), which as a 2-pack a day-er, I frequented, but we did NOT allow smoking within the building.

That, in my opinion, is completely different than laws banning smoking by patrons in pool rooms, bars or any other private enterprise that caters to the public. Although, I did what I could to cater to our non-smoking employees. Employees in our Sports Bar and Grill, the one we just closed down in December, were not allowed to smoke in the building or on the job. If you got caught smoking in my kitchen or behind my bar, or even sneaking off in a dark corner to grab a quick cig, I'd be happy to take you by the hand and escort you to the Employment Security Division down the street to help find your new job. Even though I'm a smoker, I didn't want ashes flying around in my kitchen or behind my bar. If I needed a cigarette, I went to my office, which since I was the only one that went in there, it was pretty much a toxic environment, whether it was a Marlboro, a Macanudo or a good pipe full of tobacco that I have mixed by Taylors. That was MY place, so what I did in there effected nobody.

The pool room was about 10,000 square feet, but we owned nearly 30,000 square feet of building. There were two areas that I set aside for break areas. One was smoking, since we had smoking staff, and one was non-smoking, to accomodate our employees that didn't want to be around it any more than they had to while working on the floor. BTW, we had only two employees that didn't smoke... I guess Redneck Region Pool Rooms just attract us degenerate smokers!!! /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Later,
Bob

BlindPlayer
04-18-2005, 03:47 PM
Cane;

I see your point. I know that if I enjoyed smoking (hard for me to imagine) I would want public places to go where I could enjoy indoor activities with others that smoke.

I've learned over the years that the reaction people have to 2nd hand smoke ranges greatly. From very tolerant to deathly ill.

My wife of 15 years (1971 - 1986) would have severe reactions to 2nd hand smoke. At times we had to go to 4 or 5 restaurants until we could find one where the smoke was non-existent or we could sit a good distance from the smoking section and even then it had to be mild.

We'd find a suitable environment then circumstances would change as patrons would come it. It was very frustrating. We did a lot of picnics as you can imagine!

PQQLK9
04-20-2005, 05:26 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote pooltchr:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote wolfdancer:</font><hr> as far as gov't interferring in a legal act...that's easily fixed...make it illegal <hr /></blockquote>

I already pointed out earlier that the government doesn't want to do that...there is too much tax money in tobacco. <hr /></blockquote>

And jobs ...

Senate Leaders Say Easley's Cigarette Tax Too High

POSTED: 7:26 am EDT April 20, 2005

RALEIGH, N.C. -- State Senate leaders are lowering Governor Easley's proposed 45-cent tax increase on a pack of cigarettes, saying they fear the plan could cost jobs.

Senators Kay Hagan of Guilford County and Linda Garrou of Forsyth County represent two regions where tobacco is a key ingredient in the economy.

The two also are the chief writers of the state budget because they hold two of the three appropriations committee chairs.

Garrou, whose county is home to R-J Reynolds Tobacco Company, says she's thinking in terms of a tax of ten to 15 cents per pack. Hagan says a quarter a pack is, in her words, "a very doable number." Reynolds employs about four-thousand people.

Guilford County is home to Lorillard Tobacco, which employs 25-hundred people.

North Carolina produces more tobacco than any other state, and its nickel-per-pack tax is lower than every state but one, Kentucky, whose tax is scheduled to rise from three cents to 30 cents in June.
web page (http://www.wsoctv.com/news/4396600/detail.html)

landshark1002000
04-20-2005, 06:58 PM
Anybody like to jog on city streets?

Here's a little tongue-in-cheek "instant replay" of Mr. Lucky's quote.

<font color="red"> </font color> "You are obviously an AUTOMOBILE DRIVER and a DIE hard one at that! The point is you are invading other peoples rights when you pollute (their) air with your nasty and dangerous habit of driving an oil and gas burning motor vehicle."

OR............ for those of you (and me) who are guilty of polluting because we use ELECTRICITY: oUR NASTY HABIT MAKES IT NECESSARY FOR THOUSANDS OF TONS OF CANCEROUS POLLUTANTS TO BE DISCHARGED WHERE INNOCENT CHILDREN ARE FORCED TO INHALE IT.

SO STOP USING ALL THOSE AIR CONDITIONERS, HEATERS, LIGHTS, TELEVISIONS, COMPUTERS, COPIERS, RADIOS, GARAGE DOOR OPENERS, TOASTER OVENS, BOTTLE WARMERS, STOVES, CLOCK, FAN,
COFFEE MAKER, MICROWAVE, REFRIGERATOR, NIGHTLIGHT, BLOWDRYER, DISHWASHER AND WASHING MACHINES.

THANK YOU.