PDA

View Full Version : Smoking ordinance passes



PQQLK9
05-08-2005, 04:28 AM
Smoking ordinance passes
Updated: 5/7/2005 10:20 PM
By: News 8 Austin Staff

The results are in, and Austin smokers will soon have to butt out in restaurants and bars.

A smoking ordinance passed with 52 percent of the vote.

The referendum bans smoking in all bars, restaurants, bowling alleys and billiard halls on Sept. 1.

It also prohibits smoking within 15 feet of any public building entrance.

A penalty of $2,000 would be charged against anyone breaking the law.

A group called Keep Austin Free organized people to vote against the smoking ban, while the group Onward Austin mounted the efffort to pass the ordinance. web page (http://www.news8austin.com/content/your_news/default.asp?ArID=136838)

SplinterHands
05-08-2005, 05:51 AM
That's great news. My city also has a citywide ban, but excludes suburbs. Hopefully, we'll have a statewide or national ban someday. I'm tired of the senseless arguments opposing smoking bans. /ccboard/images/graemlins/mad.gif

PQQLK9
05-08-2005, 06:02 AM
I hope it passes here in Charlotte because I have been playing more at home than going out. The smoke is killing me. /ccboard/images/graemlins/frown.gif

DickLeonard
05-08-2005, 10:23 AM
New York State has smoke free in all buildings it was led by the Workmans Comp Insurance Carriers. They were paying for the disability of second hand smokers which is greater than first hand smokers. Figure that one out.####

SPetty
05-08-2005, 11:35 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote DickLeonard:</font><hr> New York State has smoke free in all buildings it was led by the Workmans Comp Insurance Carriers. They were paying for the disability of second hand smokers which is greater than first hand smokers. Figure that one out.<hr /></blockquote>"They" say that the smokers are breathing filtered cigarette smoke, while the non-smokers are breathing non-filtered smoke.

I was surprised when I walked into Corner Billiards in NYC - Fran may remember, but I think my first words were "It doesn't stink!" I had forgotten about the NYC no smoking law, and thought I was being impressed by the proper use of smoke eaters. No smoking inside made a huge difference in how that place smelled compared to how the Dallas rooms smell. It didn't stink! /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

ted harris
05-08-2005, 09:08 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote PQQLK9:</font><hr> Smoking ordinance passes
Updated: 5/7/2005 10:20 PM
By: News 8 Austin Staff

The results are in, and Austin smokers will soon have to butt out in restaurants and bars.

A smoking ordinance passed with 52 percent of the vote.

The referendum bans smoking in all bars, restaurants, bowling alleys and billiard halls on Sept. 1.

It also prohibits smoking within 15 feet of any public building entrance.

A penalty of $2,000 would be charged against anyone breaking the law.<hr /></blockquote>
Hooray! Another victory in the war against the tobacco companies.

Bassmaster
05-09-2005, 12:25 AM
Hopefully smoking ordinances will reach NC soon?

Mavis
05-09-2005, 07:17 AM
I don't smoke. But, I own a business. These smoking bans will cause businesses to fail.

Is that fair considering a nonsmoker doesn't have to go to that business if they don't want to?

yegon
05-09-2005, 07:38 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Mavis:</font><hr> I don't smoke. But, I own a business. These smoking bans will cause businesses to fail.

Is that fair considering a nonsmoker doesn't have to go to that business if they don't want to? <hr /></blockquote>

well after a smoking ban the smoker doesn't have to go to that business if they don't want to. The only difference is: if a non smoker comes to a business for smokers his health is affected whereas a smoker comming into a no smoking business is not affected at all. So I guess from your point of view it is better to have the smoking ban - it is fair.

I hope something like this gets passed in our country too. We have 3 pool halls in our city and all of them are filled with smoke. I have no option to not go to these businesses because I do not have a pool table at home and I do not have anywhere else to practice. I can't imagine a parent sending his kids into one of these poolhalls to play. No wonder that there is not a single young player here, which is quite sad. I just heard that a state wide smoking ban in restaurants and bars was declined yesterday. I hate those politicians, they know that it's right but they do not have the balls to get it through because the elections are near.

1pRoscoe
05-09-2005, 08:10 AM
I live in Austin, and this is already causing major concern within the billiard industry....

only time will tell what happens, but I know a few places that it will be nice to walk in to and leave without stinking beyond belief....

Troy
05-09-2005, 08:34 AM
California was the first to pass a smoking ban and it has NOT hurt business in the long run.

Troy
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Mavis:</font><hr> I don't smoke. But, I own a business. These smoking bans will cause businesses to fail.

Is that fair considering a nonsmoker doesn't have to go to that business if they don't want to? <hr /></blockquote>

eg8r
05-09-2005, 09:32 AM
[ QUOTE ]
California was the first to pass a smoking ban and it has NOT hurt business in the long run.
<hr /></blockquote> It has not hurt business because everyone had to follow. There are some states, like Texas that do not have the state wide ban, thus creating the chances for businesses near the borders of these bans to lose customers. California is not a fair measuring stick.

eg8r

Rich R.
05-09-2005, 10:49 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Troy:</font><hr> California was the first to pass a smoking ban and it has NOT hurt business in the long run. <hr /></blockquote>
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr>It has not hurt business because everyone had to follow. There are some states, like Texas that do not have the state wide ban, thus creating the chances for businesses near the borders of these bans to lose customers. California is not a fair measuring stick.<hr /></blockquote>
This is all the more reason to make the ban nation wide. That way all business, and citizens, would be protected.

eg8r
05-09-2005, 11:40 AM
[ QUOTE ]
This is all the more reason to make the ban nation wide. That way all business, and citizens, would be protected. <hr /></blockquote> That sure pigeonholes the definition of "protected".

eg8r

Mavis
05-09-2005, 11:59 AM
You said the key word.......California. Which means it is state wide.

What about the local municipalities banning it? Say you live in a suburban area of a large metropolitan city. Your city bans it but the 4 or 5 closest areas do not.

Guess what. The customers who smoke will go to them.

Totally unfair and unnecessary.

Again, I don't smoke. But the no smoking lobby is way out of line.

BoroNut
05-09-2005, 01:48 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote yegon:</font><hr>We have 3 pool halls in our city and all of them are filled with smoke.<hr /></blockquote>

Well unless St. Bruno plays in all of them I suspect it's because they are filled with smokers. What's wrong with installing proper ventilation?

Boro Nut

BigRigTom
05-09-2005, 01:55 PM
It would be an interesting experiment to have 2 pool halls side by side.
One Smoking!
One Non-Smoking!
Make both open to all the public.
See which one got the most business.
See which one got the best competition.
See which one made the most money.
See which one stayed in business.
See how many players would frequent BOTH places....he he /ccboard/images/graemlins/cool.gif

Mavis
05-09-2005, 04:46 PM
There would be nothing interesting about it. The smoking pool room would destroy the nonsmoking room.

Many of the nonsmokers would hang out with the smokers.

Not even reasonable to consider the other option.

Where both crowds can hang out is the obvious choice.

thepoolnerd
05-09-2005, 05:01 PM
The same argument was made about people at the desk next to you at work smoking. Don't work there if you dont want to. I would have went to a non-smoking pool room if there was one before the ban. The only one that I know of was 90 miles away. The ban in columbus is a joke anyways. The employees of some bars still smoke in there. You can also cross the road to another township and light up.

Troy
05-09-2005, 07:51 PM
I guess I don't understand your point.
It's very difficult to go someplace without there being a "border" to cross.
Statewide, county wide, city wide... It's only a matter of distance.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Mavis:</font><hr> You said the key word.......California. Which means it is state wide.

What about the local municipalities banning it? Say you live in a suburban area of a large metropolitan city. Your city bans it but the 4 or 5 closest areas do not.

Guess what. The customers who smoke will go to them.

Totally unfair and unnecessary.

Again, I don't smoke. But the no smoking lobby is way out of line.

<hr /></blockquote>

yegon
05-09-2005, 10:55 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote BoroNut:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote yegon:</font><hr>We have 3 pool halls in our city and all of them are filled with smoke.<hr /></blockquote>

Well unless St. Bruno plays in all of them I suspect it's because they are filled with smokers. What's wrong with installing proper ventilation?

Boro Nut <hr /></blockquote>

I might be wrong but I do not think there is a ventilation that could get rid of all the smoke.

The ventilation could make it better though, but the reasoning is about the same as with the smoking bans. It is too expensive, it would make the business unprofitable, the smokers can go elsewhere blah blah blah...

Rich R.
05-10-2005, 02:35 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote yegon:</font><hr> I might be wrong but I do not think there is a ventilation that could get rid of all the smoke.

The ventilation could make it better though, but the reasoning is about the same as with the smoking bans. It is too expensive, it would make the business unprofitable, the smokers can go elsewhere blah blah blah... <hr /></blockquote>
If businesses spent the money and took appropriate actions, years ago, there would not be such a push for a smoking ban now. /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

eg8r
05-10-2005, 04:58 AM
[ QUOTE ]
I would have went to a non-smoking pool room if there was one before the ban. <hr /></blockquote> You would have been in the minority. In every pool room I have ever been to that had a smoking and non-smoking section, the smoking section was always packed. The non-smoking section never did as well.

eg8r

eg8r
05-10-2005, 05:00 AM
[ QUOTE ]
I guess I don't understand your point.
It's very difficult to go someplace without there being a "border" to cross.
Statewide, county wide, city wide... It's only a matter of distance. <hr /></blockquote> The point is pretty clear to most anyone not being argumentative. It is much easier to travel across the county rather across a state.

eg8r

Rich R.
05-10-2005, 06:02 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr>The point is pretty clear to most anyone not being argumentative. <hr /></blockquote>
Do you mind if I quote you, in the future? /ccboard/images/graemlins/blush.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

roscoe
05-10-2005, 07:07 AM
I have always been a proponent of the free market and always cautious of the 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help you' people. I believe in the sanctity of private property also.

A business (restaurant, bar, pool room, etc.) caters to the majority of it's customer base. It would be foolish not to.
The owner of a business should be able to make his own decisions on what type of behavior should be allowed in his establishment, not the government.. Therefore, if a restaurant wants to make their establishment a non-smoking place then that should be their prerogative.

Air handling equipment has come a long way and, if a business owner so chooses, he can install one.

I know here in NJ the pool rooms are hurting. I don't know the reason but I hear it's due to the poker craze thats keeping their 'base' absent. I also hear from room owners that if a ban goes into effect many rooms will be closing.

In an intellectually honest discussion you will find there is much controversy over the actual effects of second hand smoke. The EPA study was seriously flawed and the WHO study showed no significant effects. Anyone who cares to look at this from another point of view can read the articles at this site
http://www.davehitt.com/facts/index.html

Does a smoking ban hurt business? Read this http://www.davehitt.com/facts/badforbiz.html

People should be careful what they wish for. Allowing the government to enter into a private business and dictate their cusomers behavior is a slippery slope that will lead to other invasions. If the government was serious, really serious, about smoking it would ban tobacco instead of infringing on the rights of property owners.

Just my opinion,
Roscoe

eg8r
05-10-2005, 07:18 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Do you mind if I quote you, in the future? <hr /></blockquote> Understand you are in the same boat. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r

eg8r
05-10-2005, 07:24 AM
[ QUOTE ]
I have always been a proponent of the free market and always cautious of the 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help you' people. I believe in the sanctity of private property also. <hr /></blockquote> As you can probably tell, we have quite a few socialist members (and quite a few capitalists) here on the board. Judging by the members who usually post on these smoking issues, they are all looking for the government to take care of them, while reducing the need for self-responsibility.

eg8r &lt;~~~non-smoker who understands it is my choice to enter a smoking establishment

Popcorn
05-10-2005, 07:49 AM
quote
"If the government was serious, really serious, about smoking it would ban tobacco instead of infringing on the rights of property owners."

I doubt the government cares at all, they are responding the public pressure to get rid of smoking in public places, and yes a business is a public place not private property. It is what the people want, not the government from what I see. Put to a national vote smoking would be banned everywhere.

roscoe
05-10-2005, 08:46 AM
A privately owned business is private property. The business owner chooses to allow people on his property. As a business owner I can deny service to whomever I choose.

And public pressure should not be the criteria for not allowing smoking in a business. I suggest that business owners poll their customers for a more accurate opinion and act accordingly.

Roscoe

Leviathan
05-10-2005, 11:13 AM
Impressive arguments! It take quite a stretch to extend the concept of "sanctity" to the business of profiting from your neighbors' addiction to tobacco. Let me make a suggestion: don't stop here--go on to point out that a business person has a moral obligation to profit from his neighbors' misfortunes if he can do so. That'll put these anti-smoking socialists in their place! (Just don't tell them I suggested this; they think I'm on their side.)

AS

Nostalgia
05-10-2005, 11:14 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote roscoe:</font><hr>And public pressure should not be the criteria for not allowing smoking in a business. I suggest that business owners poll their customers for a more accurate opinion and act accordingly.<hr /></blockquote>

In most situations, I'd agree with you. Having been part of a family business, that makes good sense. However, on the subject of smoking, it doesn't work. Here's my arguments:

It's been agreed already that smokers will travel in order to get to a pool hall that allows smoking, correct? So, it does not make business sense for a pool hall owner to voluntarily ban smoking in his pool hall. Fine.

Smoking, by its very nature, affects everyone in the pool hall - no matter what kind of ventilation you have - even if you think for some reason that second-hand smoke is a myth. My brand new pool stick smells like an ashtray. When I come home at night I have to take my clothes off before I get into my bedroom so I don't stink up the whole room. It makes my eyes water and makes me cough.

So here's the crux of the situation. Non-smokers want to play pool. No pool hall owner in their right mind will voluntarily ban smoking. See the problem? Without governmental influence, non-smokers will never be able to play pool in an environment they're happy in. Is that fair? I think that it is not. I also do not think it's too much to ask a smoker to take it outside when he has to smoke.

Business owners will complain in the short run, but if everyone has to ban smoking, the business impact will be negligible. It's working in NYC, where, incidentally, my family business is. Once people get used to it, it's not a big deal.

-Joe

roscoe
05-10-2005, 11:22 AM
Go here http://www.davehitt.com/facts/badforbiz.html and read comments by business owners hurt or closed shop because of the ban. There is a large section on NY.

Air handling equipment does wonders.

Why not reverse your argument and say that non-smokers will travel to a non-smoking pool room. But I doubt if anyone has the courage (or funds) to open one.

Roscoe

Nostalgia
05-10-2005, 11:35 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote roscoe:</font><hr>Why not reverse your argument and say that non-smokers will travel to a non-smoking pool room. But I doubt if anyone has the courage (or funds) to open one.<hr /></blockquote>

My point exactly. I would travel to a non-smoking pool hall without question. However it doesn't make financial sense to open one. So instead, I have to have smoker's habits forced upon me, and I don't agree with it.

-Joe

roscoe
05-10-2005, 11:41 AM
Why don't you talk to the owner about putting in a cost effective air handling unit? If he knows there are enough customers he's losing to smoke he just might put one in. IF not then there are just not enough non-smoking customers to make a difference. Point is that it should be his decision. It should not be a health decision but, rather, a business decision.

Again, be careful what you wish for.....

Roscoe

Nostalgia
05-10-2005, 11:51 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote roscoe:</font><hr> Why don't you talk to the owner about putting in a cost effective air handling unit? If he knows there are enough customers he's losing to smoke he just might put one in. IF not then there are just not enough non-smoking customers to make a difference. Point is that it should be his decision. It should not be a health decision but, rather, a business decision.<hr /></blockquote>

You keep going back to the same points and reiterating my arguments. An air handler can only do so much, and if there's no law to enforce it business owners aren't going to spend the money on a NASA grade air handler. It's not so much a health decision but a basic rights decision. If I want to play pool, other people shouldn't be allowed to force their habits on me. If it takes a law for that to stop happening, I'm all for it.

-Joe

roscoe
05-10-2005, 12:06 PM
You see, with all respect, that is the problem with you anti-smoke people. All or nothing. There is no such thing as compromise. If a cost effective air handling device can clean up 60% of the smoke..that's not good enough...I WANT IT ALL FOR ME!!.....I don't care if you go out of business....I want you to be there for ME!

Wait....I got it Joe.....Why don't we just ban smoking when you are in the building? "now hear this...now hear this...Joe has entered the building....the smoking lamp is out....."

What if Joe (not you) has a habit that annoys others such as talking loud, banging sticks, constantly knocking balls off the table or some other obnoxious behavior. I think that I, me and my ego, should be allowed to play undisturbed. What if Joe (not you by the way, just an imaginary subject) has a girlfriend and she has enough perfume on to choke a pig and is playing next to me? I should not have to play and have my olfactories disturbed. Ok, I'm removing my tongue from my cheek now.

Many (not you) of these anti-smokers are just acting like selfish children and do not look at the problem objectively in an intellectually honest way.

By the way Joe (you), I'm playing poker in Oak Ridge (Jefferson Township) tonight....and driving up in my Cobra. http://www.priveye.com/cobra.htm It's a great day for riding.

Roscoe

Nostalgia
05-10-2005, 12:16 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote roscoe:</font><hr>You see, with all respect, that is the problem with you anti-smoke people. All or nothing. There is no such thing as compromise. If a cost effective air handling device can clean up 60% of the smoke..that's not good enough...I WANT IT ALL FOR ME!!.....I don't care if you go out of business....I want you to be there for ME!<hr /></blockquote>
So it's going to be "you anti-smoking people," is it? Alright.
Compromise, huh? 60% of the smoke being removed means I still smell like sh*t when I get home after playing pool. Here's a compromise for you: step outside when you "need" to smoke.
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote roscoe:</font><hr>&lt;pointless and childish sarcasm deleted&gt;What if Joe (not you) has a habit that annoys others such as talking loud, banging sticks, constantly knocking balls off the table or some other obnoxious behavior.<hr /></blockquote>
I hope someone calls me on it and asks me to stop. And out of courtesy for my fellow man, I will.
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote roscoe:</font><hr>&lt;more sarcasm deleted&gt;has enough perfume on to choke a pig and is playing next to me?&lt;sarcasm sarcasm&gt;<hr /></blockquote>
I agree, she should be taken out and hosed off. These people are almost as bad as smokers.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote roscoe:</font><hr>Many (not you) of these anti-smokers are just acting like selfish children and do not look at the problem objectively in an intellectually honest way. <hr /></blockquote>
I feel that I've given objective and honest arguments. You have chosen to ignore them or sarcasm them away. Yes, I just verbed sarcasm.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote roscoe:</font><hr>By the way Joe (you), I'm playing poker in Oak Ridge (Jefferson Township) tonight....and driving up in my Cobra.<hr /></blockquote>
Good luck, and I hope you enjoy yourself. I was just out in my dad's 61 'Vette Sunday. Nice day for a drive in a classic.

-Joe

roscoe
05-10-2005, 12:24 PM
Or Is It All Just Smoke &amp; Mirrors?


4/19/2003
John Boston “Mr. SCV”


“Mr. Howard Saxby, literary agent, was knitting a sock. He knitted a good deal, he would tell you if you asked him, to keep himself from smoking, adding that he also smoked a good deal to keep himself from knitting.”
— P.G. Wodehouse

The Surgeon General’s office today released a controversial 1,346-page report outlining the dangers of third-hand smoke.
“We have decades of well-documented evidence on the dangers of smoking,” announced Health Department spokesman Moe Gadeeshu at a Washington press conference. “The costs in health care, missed work and shorter life spans is horrendously high. Just recently, we discovered the dangers of just being in the same room with a smoker and labeled that as second-hand smoke. Now, it is a historic day in American health care. We have pinpointed yet another smoke-related disease: THS.”
According to the World Health Organization, which co-authored the study, Third-Hand Smoke, or, THS, is a malady that strikes 99 out of 100 people daily.
“Due to several decades of political correctness and an egocentric sensitivity bordering on the pathological,” Gadeeshu noted, “just the very mentioning of cigarettes, smoke, smoking or people who smoke can cause increased risk of depression, anxiety, heart attack and sexual dysfunction.”
“I was having lunch at one of those outdoor restaurants in Santa Monica,” said Sarah Tonin, who was recently diagnosed with THSS (Third Hand Smoke Syndrome). “It was a beautiful day. The sky was blue. You could feel the good vibes from the ocean. Then some darn idiot from the next table over started talking about dating this girl who smoked. Pretty soon, the currents were blowing his conversation toward my ears and it was really upsetting. I mean, I’m sitting there eating and I can actually picture this woman there, in my mind, smoking. I undertipped and left in a huff.”
Tonin claimed the exposure to third-hand smoke upset her so she was unable to return to the San Fernando Valley chlorine factory where she worked. She is under doctor’s care and is currently suing a range of defendants.
“My client was leading a rich, fulfilling life prior to suffering the agony of hearing about somebody smoking,” said famed and rather shrill trial attorney, Holly Peño. “There is a giant octopus of a conspiracy eager to do harm here.”
Peño believes this conspiracy begins with the tobacco companies and trickles all the way down to the city of Santa Monica for granting a license to the restaurant where Tonin overheard the emotionally troubling conversation.
“Besides the obvious corporate and governmental villains here,” Peño said, “we’ll be also going after the guy sitting next to her talking about smoking down to the pediatrician who brought the insensitive lout into the world.”
Peño said she has served papers to over 1,100 institutions, companies and individuals for lawsuits totaling over $12 trillion.
“With my third of the settlement, I’m buying Arizona and kicking out the men,” grinned a happy Peño.
Tonin isn’t the only victim of THS.
In hospitals, psychiatric wards and clinics across America, more and more people exhibiting symptoms of this new disease are being admitted.
“Last weekend, my waiting room was filled with people from West Hollywood, all with the same, curious expression,” said Dr. Lou Goubrious, respiratory specialist. “They were all holding their breaths and looking as if they were imagining smelling something bad. Smoke, I’m guessing. Most were worried that they were just one generation away from contamination. I mean, if second-hand smoke kills, why not third-hand? We’ve had a lot of over-insured needlessly fragile people drop by.”
Third Hand Smoke has given rise to several interesting questions. Are we somehow manufacturing more diseases or just becoming more adept in our hypochondria? Has the movement to become more sensitive caused Americans to morph into the vanguard of a new species: homo sapien sissyius?
That very question was asked at a health symposium in Santa Barbara. Unfortunately, before there was an answer, a militant anti-Third-Hand Smoke group calling themselves the WCE (Words Cause Emphysema) drowned out any answer by angrily blowing whistles.
Perhaps the people who believe in the dangers of Third Hand Smoke have something.
Recently, in a small clinic in Florida, the United States suffered its first case of FHSS, or, Fourth-Hand Smoke Syndrome. Someone was sitting next to someone who was thinking about someone else smoking.

John Boston’s Mr. Santa Clarita Valley column appears Wednesday through Saturday. To reach Boston, dial 259-1234, ext. 242.

wolfdancer
05-10-2005, 03:21 PM
"You see, with all respect, that is the problem with you anti-smoke people. All or nothing. There is no such thing as compromise. If a cost effective air handling device can clean up 60% of the smoke..that's not good enough."
You're absolutely right...we don't want 40% either, of the health hazard that you are creating by putting all those carcinagins into the air.
In California, it's true, some businesses went under....some picked up new customers, that could not put up with the original smoke filled atmosphere.
Since your agenda is diametrically opposed to that of a non-smoker....this debate is useless....everything to be said, has been already noted.
Fortunately, your rights to endanger the health of yourself, and those around you are now being infringed, and the rights of those others to breathe clean air are being protected.
After seeing so many friends and relatives die from smoking related causes.....I'd be quitting....but I never started.

Popcorn
05-10-2005, 03:36 PM
If you think a business is just the private business of the owner, try to operate without a license, proper bathrooms, meeting fire codes and other numerous requirements to be in business. You may own it but you answer to others once you open to the public. Thinking you are somehow allowed to do whatever you want to because you are the owner is fantasy. As far as people going out of business because they no longer can permit smoking, too damn bad, find another business to go into. If they were operating so close to the edge that a small drop in business sinks them, they should be considering getting out anyway. I have little sympathy anymore

Leviathan
05-10-2005, 03:56 PM
Well said. I agree.--AS

ted harris
05-10-2005, 04:10 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Mavis:</font><hr>Is that fair considering a nonsmoker doesn't have to go to that business if they don't want to? <hr /></blockquote>
Is it fair that a nonsmoker should have to make that decision when all a smoker has to do is quit smoking?
The days of the nonsmoker being put out are over. It's time for the smoker to be put out, or put it out, whichever comes first is fine with me. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Mavis
05-10-2005, 04:38 PM
For you who think you know but don't, the pool market is so small, miniscule, minute, micro, that to suggest two rooms can make it where one is currently, is so far wrong that you aren't worth talking to.

The pool business works off one of the smallest markets in the history of business. Dividing it into fragments will cause numerous rooms to close.

Let the market decide. No laws are necessary. If someone thinks the market is large enough for a nonsmoking pool room......go for it.......for 2 months max. Then close and cry to someone else.

Promoting pool and joining the smoking ban movement are mutually exclusive.

Cueless Joey
05-10-2005, 04:53 PM
I'm not an expert in the medical field but I'll chime in.
My auntie, her name was Hermenia, was a smoker for 3 decades or so. Around mid 90's she quit smoking after an aneurysm that almost killed her. Last year she contracted lung cancer and died a few months later.
About two years ago, our receptionist Charlene, retired. She was a chain smoker. She was diagnosed with lung cancer and she died a few months later. She did not even have a year in her retirement for her to enjoy.
A player in our hall was a chain smoker. Last year he was diagnosed with lung cancer. He is going through chemotherapy.
Years ago, they banned indoor smoking in California.
The better pool halls survive. They have smoking areas outside of the hall. It seems to be ok and nobody is complaining. The casinos here have glass enclosed rooms for smokers as well.
Why don't all smokers sue the tobacco companies. They made you all addicts to their products. They've even managed to change your logic.
My mother is a chain smoker. She has tried to quit several times. One time, she did not smoke for weeks. She's back at it b/c she is an addict. All the things she said the time she quit are no longer logical to her. Now smoking is logical to her.

ted harris
05-10-2005, 04:56 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote roscoe:</font><hr> In an intellectually honest discussion you will find there is much controversy over the actual effects of second hand smoke. The EPA study was seriously flawed and the WHO study showed no significant effects. Anyone who cares to look at this from another point of view can read the articles at this site
http://www.davehitt.com/facts/index.html<hr /></blockquote>
First off, anyone that takes davehitt.com seriously is incapable of anything intellectual. The links below provide all the evidence needed to prove that davehitt.com should not be taken seriously. Please take the time to read this before responding.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


<blockquote><font class="small">Quote roscoe:</font><hr>Does a smoking ban hurt business? Read this http://www.davehitt.com/facts/badforbiz.html<hr /></blockquote>
Or they could read this website which reports a whole different story...based on tax receipts, and silly little things like facts; go to Tobacco Scam (http://www.tobaccoscam.com) and click on "Fake Economics" on the menubar on the left, and then click on "Sales don't lie" on the menubar on the top. For those of you that are lazy, just click here on "Sales don't lie." (http://www.tobaccoscam.ucsf.edu/fake/fake_sdl.cfm)

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote roscoe:</font><hr>People should be careful what they wish for. Allowing the government to enter into a private business and dictate their cusomers behavior is a slippery slope that will lead to other invasions. If the government was serious, really serious, about smoking it would ban tobacco instead of infringing on the rights of property owners.

Just my opinion,
Roscoe <hr /></blockquote>
Your quite right, people should be really scared that corporations like Phillip Morris, Brown &amp; Williamson, Benson &amp; Hedges, etc. can create slave populations and the premeditated murder of tens of millions without fear of retribution all in the name of the almighty dollar. Be very scared.

ted harris
05-10-2005, 05:13 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote roscoe:</font><hr> Go here http://www.davehitt.com/facts/badforbiz.html and read comments by business owners hurt or closed shop because of the ban. There is a large section on NY..<hr /></blockquote>
Or you could go here;
"Sales don't lie/New York" (http://www.tobaccoscam.ucsf.edu/fake/fake_ctb_newyork.cfm) and see evidence like sales tax receipts, and silly things like that where the impact of the non-smoking laws have had no effect on businesses, or an increase.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote roscoe:</font><hr>Air handling equipment does wonders.<hr /></blockquote>
Not according to; "Ventilation Hoax," (http://www.tobaccoscam.ucsf.edu/vent/index.cfm) but why be bothered with stupid things like the truth?

ted harris
05-10-2005, 05:19 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote roscoe:</font><hr> You see, with all respect, that is the problem with you anti-smoke people. All or nothing. There is no such thing as compromise. If a cost effective air handling device can clean up 60% of the smoke..that's not good enough...I WANT IT ALL FOR ME!!.....I don't care if you go out of business....I want you to be there for ME!

Wait....I got it Joe.....Why don't we just ban smoking when you are in the building? "now hear this...now hear this...Joe has entered the building....the smoking lamp is out....."

What if Joe (not you) has a habit that annoys others such as talking loud, banging sticks, constantly knocking balls off the table or some other obnoxious behavior. I think that I, me and my ego, should be allowed to play undisturbed. What if Joe (not you by the way, just an imaginary subject) has a girlfriend and she has enough perfume on to choke a pig and is playing next to me? I should not have to play and have my olfactories disturbed. Ok, I'm removing my tongue from my cheek now.

Many (not you) of these anti-smokers are just acting like selfish children and do not look at the problem objectively in an intellectually honest way.Roscoe <hr /></blockquote>
Here we go, change the subject...this what happens 100% of the time in discussions with pro-smoking advocates. Shift the focus to what someone else is doing! Smoke and mirrors, pardon the pun!
Your presentation and arguments are laughable.

ted harris
05-10-2005, 05:24 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Mavis:</font><hr> For you who think you know but don't, the pool market is so small, miniscule, minute, micro, that to suggest two rooms can make it where one is currently, is so far wrong that you aren't worth talking to.<hr /></blockquote>
Calm down buddy...what's the matter? Getting a little rattled? /ccboard/images/graemlins/shocked.gif I'm not the one that suggested that. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif Better go back and read it again...

eg8r
05-10-2005, 05:42 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Your quite right, people should be really scared that corporations like Phillip Morris, Brown &amp; Williamson, Benson &amp; Hedges, etc. can create slave populations and the premeditated murder of tens of millions without fear of retribution all in the name of the almighty dollar. <hr /></blockquote> All this talk about premeditated murder, I thought you had changed the subject to liberals and pro-choice. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r

eg8r
05-10-2005, 05:54 PM
[ QUOTE ]
So here's the crux of the situation. Non-smokers want to play pool. No pool hall owner in their right mind will voluntarily ban smoking. See the problem? Without governmental influence, non-smokers will never be able to play pool in an environment they're happy in. Is that fair? <hr /></blockquote> What is this talk of fair? Life is not fair, it is time to get over it and make decisions for yourself. You do not need the lean on the government to make every decision for you. If the non-smokers wanted to play in an environment they are happy, then open their own room.

You guys are too willing to let the government decide everything for you. Why not make a judgement call for your own health and stay out of the poolrooms. It is obvious to all of us that the non-smokers in a pool room do not value their health nearly as much as they lie about. If you did then you would not have gone in the establishment a second time. What is happening is that a bunch of weak people are standing behind the government and begging the government to babysit for them and make sure they don't get hurt.

Time to grow up people. I know I am talking to a bunch of pool players, but it is time some one said it to you. Most of you are adults and should be able to make sound decisions on your own. What you people have said is that you rather kill yourself playing pool breathing in second hand smoke, then save a few extra dollars a week and buy your own table. For those having trouble finding the money to save, take a look at the money you spend at league night and the money you pay for table time. That ought to get you in the right direction. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r

eg8r
05-10-2005, 05:58 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Here we go, change the subject...this what happens 100% of the time in discussions with pro-smoking advocates. Shift the focus to what someone else is doing! Smoke and mirrors, pardon the pun! <hr /></blockquote> By all means, I don't like changing the subject, but no reason for you to get hypocritical. Your ENTIRE argument is about what other people are doing.

eg8r

eg8r
05-10-2005, 06:00 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Fortunately, your rights to endanger the health of yourself, and those around you are now being infringed, and the rights of those others to breathe clean air are being protected.
<hr /></blockquote> OMG, for once would you people look up your rights . Do you even know what your "rights" are? There is no bill that states you have the right to smoke. There is also no bill that states you have the right to clean air.

eg8r

wolfdancer
05-10-2005, 06:35 PM
ed8r, you're not being too bright when you take "rights" in that context, and assume it to mean constitutional rights.
And posting crap like this:
"OMG, for once would you people look up your rights . Do you even know what your "rights" are? There is no bill that states you have the right to smoke. There is also no bill that states you have the right to clean air."
Talk about wallowing in self-righteousness.

So if there is no right to smoke, and no right to clean air
then common sense should prevail....the toxic fumes from your smoke is a major health hazard!!!
Factories have had to be expensively retrofitted, or their manufacturing process adjusted to meet the clean air standards.....if we extend your logic....the people around that area should have moved, if they didn't like the air quality,and the factory allowed to keep billowing toxic wastes.
Speaking of rights, I'm not sure the "framers" had rhetoric like yours in mind, when they decided on free speech....they might have added an exclusionary clause

Nostalgia
05-10-2005, 07:40 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr>it is time to get over it and make decisions for yourself. You do not need the lean on the government to make every decision for you...You guys are too willing to let the government decide everything for you.<hr /></blockquote>

I'm not letting the government decide for me. I'm telling the government how I think it should be and asking them to enforce it. Big difference.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr>If the non-smokers wanted to play in an environment they are happy, then open their own room.<hr /></blockquote>
We've all agreed this won't work. Is it really that hard to go outside and smoke to be courteous to your fellow players?

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr>Time to grow up people. I know I am talking to a bunch of pool players, but it is time some one said it to you. Most of you are adults and should be able to make sound decisions on your own. What you people have said is that you rather kill yourself playing pool breathing in second hand smoke, then save a few extra dollars a week and buy your own table.<hr /></blockquote>
My favorite part. So because I don't smoke, and don't want to breathe your smoke, I need to be excluded from playing pool in a pool hall?

Whatever. The argument is meaningless and it doesn't matter who's right. I've given my opinions and reasonings behinds them. If you don't like them, life goes on. The long and short of it is if I get the chance, I'm going to vote against smoking in businesses, simple as that.

-Joe

Rackin_Zack
05-10-2005, 08:21 PM
I don't know, where I live there are two pool halls right next to one another and both are doing well. Of course they are both rather small so that comes into play as well.

Regulator
05-10-2005, 11:01 PM
""In an intellectually honest discussion you will find there is much controversy over the actual effects of second hand smoke. The EPA study was seriously flawed and the WHO study showed no significant effects. Anyone who cares to look at this from another point of view can read the articles at this site
http://www.davehitt.com/facts/index.html"" (http://www.davehitt.com/facts/index.html)

Disclaimer - I don't smoke.

Let's cut out the mumbo jumbo. Breathing cleaner air is better than breathing dirty air. Hey, I agree that there is no agreement on what diseases smoke may or may not cause, but is breathing smoke just as healthy as breathing our regular poluted air without the smoke ??

Breathing a higher level of poisons is worse than breathing a lower level of poisons. That's just plain common sense. Now for what diseases that may cause, well, I'm not a doctor.

Popcorn
05-10-2005, 11:18 PM
What is the most remarkable about this discussion when it comes up, is that it is a discussion in the first place. We live in a time where we are the most educated, informed population that has ever lived on the planet, yet a subject like the negative effects of smoking is still debated by some. You know there was a time when cities pumped drinking water to the public through lead pipes. Asbestos was a common ingredient in products we used every day. When I was a kid we played on a playground that was dusted with chlordane to kill ants and we rolled around in it. You can go through history and find a thousand things people commonly did that they now know better and don't do. Cigarette smoking is another but it has an added problem in that those that are addicted to it may also harm others and that is not acceptable. The jury is no longer out and the debate is over. Who really cares about what effect it will have on bars or pool rooms when bans go into effect. It is not even part of the equation or a factor in the decision. Jobs may be lost when ever change takes place, or business close, an industry may even cease to exist, that is just the way it is, although I seriously doubt pool will become extinct. It is a sad commentary that laws even have to be passed, but then I doubt there would be air bags in cars if they weren't forced to do it. Hard to believe there are morons who still wouldn't wear seat belts if not for a law.

wolfdancer
05-10-2005, 11:40 PM
Well said!!!
When the no-smoking ordinance was first proposed, I was co-managing a pool room. I went to the open discussion at City Hall, with the other manager, another non-smoker. We were there to speak up against the proposal, as it would impact the business. The first speaker however was a retired Navy Md., a thoracic surgeon, who spoke at length on the effects of smoking. We kind of back-pedaled our way out of there...
If I am interpreting your post correctly...aren't we arguing business issues Vs health issues?

Rich R.
05-11-2005, 02:54 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> What you people have said is that you rather kill yourself playing pool breathing in second hand smoke, then save a few extra dollars a week and buy your own table. For those having trouble finding the money to save, take a look at the money you spend at league night and the money you pay for table time. That ought to get you in the right direction. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif <hr /></blockquote>
I happen to have my own table and use it as much as possible. Unfortunately, it is not practical for my entire pool league to play at my home. It is also not practical to have a weekly tournament at my home. These are the two nights I go to the pool rooms.
If any player wants a little competition, you have to go to a pool room and put up with the smoke of others.

BTW, I believe Brunswick, Diamond and all the other makers of pool tables will also sell tables to smokers. Why is it that you believe that non-smokers should buy a table and play at home? Why can't the smokers buy a table and play at home?
And, if the smokers are having trouble finding the money, all they have to do is look at the money they are burning each day. /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

JimS
05-11-2005, 03:52 AM
I smoked for 49 years. I tried for 50 but I couldn't make it. No gold watch for me. I guess I'm just a quitter.

I've been going outside to get some air. Now you smokers will have to take a smoke break and go outside.

I don't care if you have an addiction. Do it up as long and as much as you want. But...don't think that because you are addicted you have the right to damage my health or diminish the quality of my life by practicing your addiction. When it gets to the point where your addiction is messing up my life then it's not exercising your rights it's abusing your rights. When what you do hurts others then it's abuse. Simple. That's it. No more arguments. When what you do hurts others then it's abuse of your right to do it and you have to change what you do. Period.

eg8r
05-11-2005, 04:09 AM
[ QUOTE ]
We live in a time where we are the most educated, informed population that has ever lived on the planet, yet a subject like the negative effects of smoking is still debated by some. <hr /></blockquote> Who here is debating this?

eg8r

eg8r
05-11-2005, 04:16 AM
[ QUOTE ]
I happen to have my own table and use it as much as possible. Unfortunately, it is not practical for my entire pool league to play at my home. <hr /></blockquote> Thank you for standing up to be the first person I was referring to. You are telling us that your league is much more important than your health and you are willing to take in some second hand smoke to hang with your buddies.

Look, this is an exaggerated point on purpose, but if you want to get down to it, and be as vehement as possible about the harmful effects of smoking, then prove it. If you want to stand and hide behind league that is fine, but just recognize that is what you are doing and quit looking for excuses. Don't worry, every other person who goes to a smoke friendly establishment is in the the same boat.

[ QUOTE ]
BTW, I believe Brunswick, Diamond and all the other makers of pool tables will also sell tables to smokers. Why is it that you believe that non-smokers should buy a table and play at home? <hr /></blockquote> I don't believe that and I did not say it. Start reading what I posted and don't add anything extra to it.

eg8r

eg8r
05-11-2005, 04:20 AM
[ QUOTE ]
I smoked for 49 years. I tried for 50 but I couldn't make it. No gold watch for me. I guess I'm just a quitter.
<hr /></blockquote> Congratulations. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[ QUOTE ]
But...don't think that because you are addicted you have the right to damage my health or diminish the quality of my life by practicing your addiction. <hr /></blockquote> Ah, we are getting off subject. This is not about you and the smoker, it is about the government and the business owner. I started getting off subject with Rich also.

eg8r

eg8r
05-11-2005, 04:28 AM
[ QUOTE ]
I'm not letting the government decide for me. I'm telling the government how I think it should be and asking them to enforce it. Big difference.
<hr /></blockquote> You are letting them be the bully for you and you are standing behine. There is no difference.

[ QUOTE ]
We've all agreed this won't work. Is it really that hard to go outside and smoke to be courteous to your fellow players?
<hr /></blockquote> I know we have agreed on this, and that is the point you are missing. A business is in business to make money. The smoking community as a whole has spoken and said they like smoking. The courteous comment goes both ways, it would be courteous for them to go outside, and it would be courteous for you to just allow them to act in a legal manner.

[ QUOTE ]
My favorite part. So because I don't smoke, and don't want to breathe your smoke, I need to be excluded from playing pool in a pool hall? <hr /></blockquote> Oh, I guess this is the first time you have read one of these threads. I am a non-smoker also, the difference between you and I is that I believe the market should be able to decide what happens in the market, and you decide what happens in your body. Time for all to grow up and take some responsibility for your own actions. As hard as Popcorn is on business not caring if they go broke, I wonder if he has the same feeling about non-smoking pool players that die from second hand smoke. It was your choice to go in the establishment. No one said you needed to be excluded, what was said was find a pool hall that caters to your predicament. If there is none, then notice you are in the minority and need to make a decision, do you go in and breath smoke, or do you go home and breath cleaner air.

[ QUOTE ]
Whatever. The argument is meaningless and it doesn't matter who's right. I've given my opinions and reasonings behinds them. If you don't like them, life goes on. <hr /></blockquote> I don't find debate meaningless, usually it is informative, however just so you know, this is not about you and I.

[ QUOTE ]
The long and short of it is if I get the chance, I'm going to vote against smoking in businesses, simple as that.
<hr /></blockquote> I absolutely agree with you, and would hope you follow through. It is quite important to make sure you are there to vote every time.

eg8r

eg8r
05-11-2005, 04:37 AM
[ QUOTE ]
ed8r, you're not being too bright when you take "rights" in that context, and assume it to mean constitutional rights.
<hr /></blockquote> Just explain what "rights" you are referring to. As far as a US citizen you are gauranteed nothing else, other than to continue in your fantasy.

[ QUOTE ]
Talk about wallowing in self-righteousness. <hr /></blockquote> Who is wallowing, I am pointing out that you are obviously not correct. You don't have those rights.

[ QUOTE ]
So if there is no right to smoke, and no right to clean air
then common sense should prevail.... <hr /></blockquote> So correct you are, and acting in a legal manner is certainly the correct choice. Prior to smoking bans, they were acting in a legal manner. This is the common sense you were referring to.

[ QUOTE ]
Speaking of rights, I'm not sure the "framers" had rhetoric like yours in mind, when they decided on free speech....they might have added an exclusionary clause <hr /></blockquote> It really does not matter what you think the framers had in mind. What is there is there.

eg8r

Rich R.
05-11-2005, 06:54 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> I don't believe that and I did not say it. Start reading what I posted and don't add anything extra to it. <hr /></blockquote>
You really should read some of what you write. It would be an education.

You continually nit pick what others post and tell them to stay on the topic or not to add to what you have said, while, at the same time, you post whatever you wish.

I've really come to the conclusion that you really don't care about any side of any issue, as long as you can find something to argue about. /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

eg8r
05-11-2005, 08:10 AM
[ QUOTE ]
I've really come to the conclusion that you really don't care about any side of any issue, as long as you can find something to argue about. <hr /></blockquote> I really don't care. If you don't have anything to say about the subject, then don't waste space on the board with it and send me a PM.

eg8r

Troy
05-11-2005, 08:17 AM
/ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Rich R.:</font><hr> I've really come to the conclusion that you really don't care about any side of any issue, as long as you can find something to argue about. /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif <hr /></blockquote>

Rich R.
05-11-2005, 08:24 AM
[quote=eg8r I really don't care. If you don't have anything to say about the subject, then don't waste space on the board with it and send me a PM.
<hr /></blockquote>
I have had things to say about the subject. You just don't recongnize anyone's opinion, but your own.

I don't argue, for the sake of arguing, on a public forum. I'm certainly not going to argue with you in private.

Qtec
05-11-2005, 08:47 AM
Rich, eg8r is pro life but he doesnt mind executing people.
He says that buisness owners should have the right to choose how they want to run their buisness/life, but he will deny that right to women.

He is a hypocrite.

Q

wolfdancer
05-11-2005, 12:01 PM
"just explain what "rights" you are referring to. As far as a US citizen you are gauranteed nothing else, other than to continue in your fantasy."

I would only be explaining "rights" as I used the word, to you.....who thinks that "rights" is somehow limited to what is spelled out in the constitution.
And you know about my fantasy? and haven't reported it to the police?

" Quote:
Talk about wallowing in self-righteousness.

Who is wallowing, I am pointing out that you are obviously not correct. You don't have those rights."

Again, you are assuming the reference was to constitutional guarantees....and would I chose to argue with a sharp legal mind, a constitutional law expert, such as yourself?

You're nit-picking, and you're trying to pass yourself off, as....?
Anyway, I have decided to end this debate with you, by declaring that you are in violation of
Robert's Rules of Order...specifically, Art. VII, 43
http://www.constitution.org/rror/rror-07.htm#43
..Decorum in Debate... "In debate a member must confine himself to the question before the assembly, and avoid personalities........."
Mr. Chairman, please remove......

wolfdancer
05-11-2005, 03:55 PM
eg8r, my final thoughts on the matter:
we non-smokers were a "disenfranchised"( a liberal use of the word that means deprived of the "rights" of citizenship )group, until legislation began, that allows us to go to the same establishments, enjoy the same freedom to do so, that smokers had, and still have.....but not have to risk our health doing so.
Unfortunately it did take Gov't involvement to grant us these "rights"....kind of like the laws that made public places "wheelchair accessible"
I don't see the difference in having a restaurant meal ruined by a smoker at the next table...or having your pool nite made uncomfortable.
We don't have non-smoking laws in either Or. or Wa.
I bought my own table rather then pay time in a smoke-filled environment.

My proposal, Constitutional amendment XXVIII, would forbid the sale, transportation, manufacture, and use of tobacco products
or we could just reinstate XVIII, change the wording a little...repeal XXI which repealed XVIII....and while we're at it...do away with XIX...never saw the need for that one.

Keith Talent
05-12-2005, 12:18 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr>
<hr /></blockquote> You are letting them be the bully for you and you are standing behind. There is no difference.

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>

I'm amazed at how much energy you've got, going down this dead end over and over again.

So, you don't want the government, which in a democracy (one can only hope) represents to some extent the will of the governed, to tell 20%-25% of the people to refrain from a habit, in public indoor spaces (yes, that includes businesses), that makes the vast majority of the population miserable and sick?

So you'd like to live by the law of the jungle (i.e., the free market) instead? You talk tough, and you sound idealistic and consistent as hell, but do you think you're really BAD enough to live in that world? And do you think it would be a desirable world to live in?

I still can't believe neither of the parties has realized the political capital to be gained by leading the way to a national ban on this idiocy. If the GOP doesn't take advantage of their chance now, watch the Dems grab it after the next election ... cause once you get away from that disgusting situation, no matter how much the griping, nobody's going to talk seriously about going back.

They aren't here in New York ... and it's one of the few things Bloomberg's got going for him, that he had the balls to push it through.

Nightstalker
05-12-2005, 08:19 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Popcorn:</font><hr> If you think a business is just the private business of the owner, try to operate without a license, proper bathrooms, meeting fire codes and other numerous requirements to be in business. You may own it but you answer to others once you open to the public. Thinking you are somehow allowed to do whatever you want to because you are the owner is fantasy. As far as people going out of business because they no longer can permit smoking, too damn bad, find another business to go into. If they were operating so close to the edge that a small drop in business sinks them, they should be considering getting out anyway. I have little sympathy anymore <hr /></blockquote>

I totally agree, the sympathy is gone.

Popcorn
05-15-2005, 12:04 PM
here is an interesting take on the rights of the business owner.
http://www.azcentral.com/business/articles/0512Smoke-ON.html

Nightstalker
05-16-2005, 08:24 AM
I don't agree with firing or not hiring smokers, as that wil inevitably lead to other extreme policies. /ccboard/images/graemlins/mad.gif

roscoe
05-16-2005, 11:10 AM
Be careful what you wish for......

Roscoe

Popcorn
05-16-2005, 11:53 AM
It goes to show you how little public sympathy there is for smokers anymore that something like this can even be considered. Smokers have done it to themselves with their in your face attitude about their addiction and lack of consideration for others. Now they may even lose their jobs and I doubt much of the public will really care.

Keith Talent
05-17-2005, 01:06 PM
That's a little spooky, but I understand how companies could see smokers as a liability. Extra sick days, lost work time for smoke breaks 3 or 4 times a day -- probably an hour right there ... still, seems way Orwellian.

Next they'll try to put me in the street for having a beer or two after work!

Marcus
05-18-2005, 10:22 AM
Speaking as an Austin pool player, I can't wait until Sept.1, when the ordinance goes into effect. I'm sick of being forced to breathe smoke. Yes, I could quit playing pool to avoid it, but smokers have an easier choice, they can continue to play and go outside to smoke.

Nightstalker
05-18-2005, 10:43 AM
I wish they would ban it where I am, it seems like everyone in this county smokes. /ccboard/images/graemlins/frown.gif