PDA

View Full Version : Local hall closing, smoking ban blamed



Wally_in_Cincy
09-21-2007, 12:33 PM
I used to go here 3 or 4 days a week. It's a nice place.

All those people that said "I would go to a pool hall/bar if there was not so much smoke". Well guess what. They didn't go. Surprise surprise.

From the Cincinnati Enquirer

SPRINGDALE - After 13 years in business, Snookers' Night Club, Billiards and Bar is set to close next weekend.
Owner Bill Nolan said he blames Ohio's new anti-smoking law.

"Things were coming back really good" after three years of construction on Princeton Pike disrupted business, said Nolan. But he estimated that business is off "50-60 percent for the year in pool, 40 percent in the bar."
The smoking ban literally killed pool," Nolan said. "Most of (the players) smoke; it disrupts their game to go outside to smoke.

"We thought we'd work this till we'd retire, but things were dictated for us," said Nolan, 65, of Anderson Township.

At age 50, Nolan retired as director of product management at Andrew Jergens & Co. He opened the pool hall with an old friend, Don Buechner, who retired as president of Suburban Federal Savings Bank.

Nolan, who said he has cut the Snookers' staff in half to 10, wants to thank his customers and employees before closing with a party on Saturday night - complete with smoking.
"We're going to put ashtrays out and to hell with 'em," Nolan said.

Rackum_n_Crackum
09-21-2007, 12:39 PM
That's a shame, but as a non smogger, I can tell you that I don't miss that smoke when I go out.. It's just too bad that they couldn't come up with some kind of compromise.. Maybe a hi-tec filter of some sort...

bignick31985
09-21-2007, 12:39 PM
That blows. I would hate it if the pool hall I play in went out of business.

I always thought of owning a pool hall with 2 seperate areas. One side is for families, with a few tables of each size and place to get soda/water/sweet tea and few snacks or such.

Then the other side (seperated by a soundproof wall) for adults, complete with smoking, drinking, food, etc. And even a seperate BAR area in the front, so the drunks dont have to wade through the players on their way out.

Deeman3
09-21-2007, 12:39 PM
Wally,

Look at all those lives that have been saved! /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Wally_in_Cincy
09-21-2007, 12:54 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Rackum_n_Crackum:</font><hr> That's a shame, but as a non smogger, I can tell you that I don't miss that smoke when I go out.. It's just too bad that they couldn't come up with some kind of compromise.. Maybe a hi-tec filter of some sort... <hr /></blockquote>

The place had really good ventilation. The only time it got smoky was on Tueasday and Thursday league nights when everybody was smoking /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Wally_in_Cincy
09-21-2007, 12:57 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote bignick31985:</font><hr> I always thought of owning a pool hall with 2 seperate areas. <hr /></blockquote>

That would make too much sense. Better to have the busybodies of the world tell these men how to run their business. Not that the nanny-staters would ever walk in the place or anything.

Wally_in_Cincy
09-21-2007, 12:58 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Deeman3:</font><hr> Wally,

Look at all those lives that have been saved! /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif <hr /></blockquote>

They did it for the children

MikeM
09-21-2007, 02:09 PM
Did they try to do any marketing to the non-smoker pool community? Did they try to adapt their business model to a changed environment. My guess is no.

I know a non-smoking pool hall here in NOVAtucky would be extremely popular.

MM

billiards89
09-21-2007, 03:52 PM
i wish that they would do that were i live in nebraska theyve already done it in the bigger citys of nebraska i wish they would make it statewide i m a 7 and i almost want to quit just for my health

Randall53
09-21-2007, 04:30 PM
Man, That's just too bad for everybody. The owners and the players. Not trying to be a S/A, but it seems to me though from what's being said, that it's the attitude of the players that smoke that closed the place by refusing to smoke outside the establishment.

There is a very nice pool establishment in my area that has been open for almost 3 years and has been smoke free for 2 of those years. It is smoke free by law, but it's doing great with 21 tables that are full almost every night. This does not mean that smokers don't play there, a lot do. When the smoking ban went into effect, the owners built an outside deck for smokers and it's very busy every night as well as the tables. They serve great food and drinks and they host APA leagues regularly.

Just My Opinion, but maybe the smokers should re-think their position. They could save the place by simply complying with the law and just shoot some pool! I mean which is worse? No place to play or smoke outside?

Rich R.
09-21-2007, 06:58 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Wally_in_Cincy:</font><hr> I used to go here 3 or 4 days a week. It's a nice place.

All those people that said "I would go to a pool hall/bar if there was not so much smoke". Well guess what. They didn't go. Surprise surprise.

From the Cincinnati Enquirer

SPRINGDALE - After 13 years in business, Snookers' Night Club, Billiards and Bar is set to close next weekend.
Owner Bill Nolan said he blames Ohio's new anti-smoking law.

"Things were coming back really good" after three years of construction on Princeton Pike disrupted business, said Nolan. But he estimated that business is off "50-60 percent for the year in pool, 40 percent in the bar."
The smoking ban literally killed pool," Nolan said. "Most of (the players) smoke; it disrupts their game to go outside to smoke.

"We thought we'd work this till we'd retire, but things were dictated for us," said Nolan, 65, of Anderson Township.

At age 50, Nolan retired as director of product management at Andrew Jergens &amp; Co. He opened the pool hall with an old friend, Don Buechner, who retired as president of Suburban Federal Savings Bank.

Nolan, who said he has cut the Snookers' staff in half to 10, wants to thank his customers and employees before closing with a party on Saturday night - complete with smoking.
"We're going to put ashtrays out and to hell with 'em," Nolan said. <hr /></blockquote>
Wally, it is good to hear from you. It has been a while since I have seen your name on this forum. Hope you are well.

Concerning your post, I don't buy it. /ccboard/images/graemlins/blush.gif
There must be other factors involved in the closing of this pool room.
I play in a pool league at one room that was forced to go non-smoking over a year and a half ago. I also play in another room that had to go non-smoking at the beginning of this year. Both are just as busy, if not more busy, than ever. Even the smokers are enjoying the smoke free environment and wouldn't want to go back to a smoking room.
Many rooms, in different areas, have closed when they were forced to go smoke free, however, IMHO, it has more to do with poor management, than the non-smoking laws.

wolfdancer
09-21-2007, 07:07 PM
Smoking discussions remind me of my two favorite quotes on the topic:
"Do you mind if I smoke?"
"No, I don't mind if you burn"

"Do you mind if I smoke?"
"No,Do you mind if I fart?"

cueball1950
09-21-2007, 08:46 PM
to bad another one bites the dust................mike

Tom_In_Cincy
09-21-2007, 10:23 PM
Wally,
I got a note from Bill just the other day.. the party is suppose to be Sept 29th... all the ashtrays will out and then thrown away..

Lots of great times at SnookerS Lots of great people..

Wally_in_Cincy
09-22-2007, 09:26 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote MikeM:</font><hr> Did they try to do any marketing to the non-smoker pool community? <hr /></blockquote>

Around here there is not much of a non-smoking pool playing community to market to.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote MikeM:</font><hr> Did they try to adapt their business model to a changed environment. My guess is no.

<hr /></blockquote>

This place did pretty good business the first 10 or 12 years. Then they started major road construction/building of a railroad overpass right in front of the joint. The mess scared a lot of people off.

They took out 4 of their seven 9-foot tables and put in a dance floor and started having bands and were more of a nightclub. Then the smoking ban went into effect and people began staying home or going to places with outdoor areas (not an option at Snookers).

You can only "change your business model" so many times before it gets to be too much trouble.

Mind you this smoking ban came pretty much out of the blue. Some group started a petition drive, got it on the statewide ballot and boom there it was. All within 6 months.

I guess Anthony's Cigar Bar and Grill should change their business model too. This guy spent 100's of G's on his place including a $50,000 humidor and a $100,000 ventilation system. Six moths later his business drops 50% overnight, thanks a bunch of do-gooders who never would have set foot in the place anyway.

It just ain't right to tilt the playing field in the middle of the game

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote MikeM:</font><hr> I know a non-smoking pool hall here in NOVAtucky would be extremely popular.

<hr /></blockquote>

You should open one. Then maybe VA would pass a law saying that all businesses must allow smoking and you can watch your investment down the drain.

Wally_in_Cincy
09-22-2007, 09:32 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Rich R.:</font><hr> Wally, it is good to hear from you. It has been a while since I have seen your name on this forum. Hope you are well.

<hr /></blockquote>

Thanks Rich. Things are going pretty well. Started a new job shortly after being laid off back in '05. This is actually a better job but it's all quite corporate, being a publicly traded companies the guidelines are a bit more stringent.

Been meaning to post from home but never seem to find the time.

Best wishes to you and Cathy. Wish I could make the Open but alas, not this year.

Scott Lee
09-22-2007, 10:30 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Tom_In_Cincy:</font><hr> Lots of great times at SnookerS Lots of great people.. <hr /></blockquote>

Tom...I agree! Snookers was a nice room to teach in also! Don and Bill are nice people! Remember the time we played and then went to eat, and I came back after hours to find my car had a flat tire? /ccboard/images/graemlins/frown.gif LOL Of course my car was packed to the roof, because I'd been on the road for months! Hate those little spares... and of course they're at the BOTTOM of the trunk! Sorry to see Snookers close.

Scott Lee

MikeM
09-22-2007, 08:16 PM
I have an approved business plan with banks ready to lend, I'm just not ready to work that hard /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif.

Actually Virginia has a law on the books that makes it illegal for a municipality to ban smoking. Gotta love that tobacco lobby. Preemptive strike.

Regardless, you gotta change with the times. Us non-smokers want to have a few places that we can go to and enjoy ourselves without risking our health! /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif I don't know the ultimate answers, but I can tell you that my 5 hours at the pool hall this afternoon were miserable because of the smoke.

I'm begging for a non-smoking pool hall. You'd be surprised how many of us there are out there.

Wally are you going to be at the Open this year?

MM

Wally_in_Cincy
09-22-2007, 08:34 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote MikeM:</font><hr> I'm begging for a non-smoking pool hall. <hr /></blockquote>

if you build it they will come?

sorry pal, history proves you wrong

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote MikeM:</font><hr> I have an approved business plan with banks ready to lend, <hr /></blockquote>

good luck in novatucky

you'll be pi$$ing up a rope trying that here

not gonna be at the Open, thanks for asking.

"Lack of MBA" = "working stiff" with little time off and even less travel funds

did go to vegas in august and won a 16 player mini so life is not all bad

smoke em if ya got em

Wally_in_Cincy
09-22-2007, 08:35 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote MikeM:</font><hr> I'm begging for a non-smoking pool hall. <hr /></blockquote>

if you build it they will come?

sorry pal, history proves you wrong

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote MikeM:</font><hr> I have an approved business plan with banks ready to lend, <hr /></blockquote>

good luck in novatucky

you'll be pi$$ing up a rope trying that here

not gonna be at the Open, thanks for asking.

"Lack of MBA" = "working stiff" with little time off and even less travel funds

did go to vegas in august and won a 16 player mini so life is not all bad

smoke em if ya got em

1Time
09-22-2007, 09:29 PM
The closing of a pool hall due to a smoking ban is definitely a sign of the times. I see nothing wrong or unfortunate at all about this. Smoking is an ill of society and it should be discouraged and not rewarded.

That said, I'm a non-smoker but have always been around it and never considered it a bother. I just accepted it as a part of the sport like I accepted being exposed to the weather a part of playing golf. And although playing pool with smoke in the air is pretty much all I've ever known, I would not wish that on any subsequent generation.

Cydpkt
09-22-2007, 09:46 PM
Do these smokers also quit going to the big tourneys that don't allow smoking inside? I wish these places that have the smokeaters installed would just turn them on. Most places around here have equipment in the room to help with ventilation but (my opinion) they save more on electricity by not having them on.

1Time
09-22-2007, 11:20 PM
If I smoked, I wouldn't let that stop me from going to a tourney. I'd just go to a designated smoking area or outside to smoke, or wear a patch.

Smoking is unhealthy and addictive and it negatively affects everyone around the smoker. It's definitely the wrong way to go to bend over backwards to cater to smokers and in doing so encourage others to smoke.

New2Pool
09-23-2007, 08:30 AM
I hate smoking and I think it is a vile disgusting habit that should not be allowed in public. However, if someone wants to open a business and allow smoking then why should they not be allowed to do so? We have two microbrewerys where I live. I frequent the one the has the second best, but still excellent, beer because the place is non-smoking. Occasionally I go to the other place and get a growler to go but not often.

In a public place, pass all the laws you want. But if someone owns their own property it should be their right to run their business as they chose as long as it does not negatively impact their neighbors.

Sid_Vicious
09-23-2007, 01:05 PM
"However, if someone wants to open a business and allow smoking then why should they not be allowed to do so?"

This has always been my view as well. Everyone has the option to NOT patronize any place, for any reason, and as far as protecting the kids, that's what parents are for. My PH requires parental company under a certain age, so there really should be no governmental intervention in one's choice to run a business with smoking IMO. "Just don't go" if you don't like the smoke, simple. Much of life is very simple that way, be it a smoking PH or a discussion over politics. That's your choice. sid

Wally_in_Cincy
09-23-2007, 06:51 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Cydpkt:</font><hr> Do these smokers also quit going to the big tourneys that don't allow smoking inside? I wish these places that have the smokeaters installed would just turn them on. Most places around here have equipment in the room to help with ventilation but (my opinion) they save more on electricity by not having them on. <hr /></blockquote>

The smokeeaters at snookers ran the entire time the place was open

sorry your local room owners are stupid

Wally_in_Cincy
09-23-2007, 06:56 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote 1Time:</font><hr> The closing of a pool hall due to a smoking ban is definitely a sign of the times. I see nothing wrong or unfortunate at all about this. <hr /></blockquote>

You obviously do not have several hundred thousand dollars of your hard earned money invested in a place that allows smoking (a perfectly legal activity) and then have some busybody "hall monitors" tell you that that your money must be flushed down the toilet due to their whims about a place they would never go anyway

Does no one see the insanity of it all?

cue_z
09-24-2007, 04:08 PM
Wally, I'm very sorry for your loss! In NH private clubs allow smoking. Could you have made your place a private club? I will have to admit that I hate second-hand smoke. I always smell like an ashtray after being in a pool hall all night! My grandkids say I smell like smoke...so I make it a point to wash the smoke odor away before seeing them! I did smoke for years when I was young and stupid. I claim stupidity and youth as my excuses. Someone once told me that cigarette companies target 4 groups of people: the young, the stupid, the poor and the minorities. I don't know if this is true...You be the judge!! I hope things work out for you, Wally....Maybe there's a reason for this change....maybe something good will come of it....I'll keep my fingers crossed for you!!

Eric.
09-24-2007, 04:23 PM
Wally!

Sorry to hear about the local poolroom, but good to see you are still with the living.


Eric

okinawa77
09-24-2007, 05:32 PM
I am familiar with the Texas smoking ban. I am curious as to whether Ohio offered the same to existing owners...

Were existing owners given any options?
examples:
Time to upgrade ventilation systems
Time to create 2 isolated areas (smoking and non-smoking)

Or is the ban similiar to California?
No smoking indoors at all.

IMO if the state gave you time to comply to air quality regulations, then the smoking ban cannot be to blame.

But, if they completely banned smoking without any alternatives, then that is unfair.

The whole smoking issue cuts both ways. For non-smokers, they have to put up with the second hand smoke when there is not a smoking ban, and if they don't like the smoke, they can leave. For smokers, when there is a smoking ban, if they don't like the fact that they are not allowed to smoke indoors, then they can leave.

In any case, you have to ask yourself....Do you value smoking, more than you value playing pool?

Wally_in_Cincy
09-25-2007, 06:41 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote okinawa77:</font><hr> Were existing owners given any options?
examples:
Time to upgrade ventilation systems
Time to create 2 isolated areas (smoking and non-smoking)

<font color="red">No, no, and no </font color>


Or is the ban similiar to California?
No smoking indoors at all.

<font color="red">Correct. </font color>

<hr /></blockquote>

okinawa77
09-25-2007, 11:18 AM
I see how that can kill business.

I am in California now, and they also don't serve liquor.

In Texas, that is how they made money...from the bar.

I had an idea to have a pool hall by night, and have it as a food catering business during the day.

I just don't see how to make a margin of profit as just a pool hall. Especially, if there is no smoking or booze.

Maybe some go-go dancers would bring in a crowd.

1Time
09-28-2007, 03:14 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Wally_in_Cincy:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote 1Time:</font><hr> The closing of a pool hall due to a smoking ban is definitely a sign of the times. I see nothing wrong or unfortunate at all about this. <hr /></blockquote>

You obviously do not have several hundred thousand dollars of your hard earned money invested in a place that allows smoking (a perfectly legal activity) and then have some busybody "hall monitors" tell you that that your money must be flushed down the toilet due to their whims about a place they would never go anyway

Does no one see the insanity of it all? <hr /></blockquote>

You are correct, Wally_in_Cincy; I am not invested in such establishments. And I can see how some could have a much harder time seeing the sanity in all of this.

The cost of smoking in terms of dollars is absolutely immense and it completely dwarfs the financial impact that non-smoking laws have on businesses. Non-smoking laws improve the quality and length of many lives, while not discouraging smoking does the opposite. Smoking is a public health issue and as such non-smoking laws are in the best interest of our country and mankind as a whole. Those addicted to smoking and those who benefit from it financially or otherwise are the most likely to respond more selfishly regarding this matter.

I consider it a good thing for the government to regulate things that are unhealthy or detrimental to public health and thus to our country, and it is not uncommon or undesirable for our government to do so. Now if smoking were not the unhealthy and costly burden that it is, then I could agree with those who argue for government staying out of our business (as I usually do when I deem it in our country's best interest).

Is smoking a perfectly legal activity?

No. It used to be perfectly legal to smoke practically everywhere and it used to be widely not considered a health risk, but that's not the case anymore. And that's progress. Just because something used to be legal, doesn't mean it still should be.

Why not extend business owners the right to allow smoking in their public establishments?

Should employees of such businesses have the right to work in a smoke-free workplace?

Should the non-smoking public have the right to freely patronize businesses without concern for whether it is smoke-free?

The reduction and eventual eradication of smoking should be the goal, and it should be because it would be for the betterment of all. The costs of smoking far, far out-weigh the costs of not smoking. Current legislation is simply a compromise solution because there are still many smokers and supportive businesses around, but laws will continue to change over time and in greater favor of the non-smokers.

And so yes, the closing of a pool hall due to a smoking ban is definitely a sign of the times, and I see nothing wrong or unfortunate at all about this.

Wally_in_Cincy
09-28-2007, 06:38 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote 1Time:</font><hr> I consider it a good thing for the government to regulate things that are unhealthy or detrimental to public health <hr /></blockquote>

Oh my. /ccboard/images/graemlins/shocked.gif

strong response to follow.

Deeman3
09-28-2007, 07:09 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Wally_in_Cincy:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote 1Time:</font><hr> I consider it a good thing for the government to regulate things that are unhealthy or detrimental to public health <hr /></blockquote>

Oh my. /ccboard/images/graemlins/shocked.gif <font color="blue">

The DNC would be proud! </font color>

strong response to follow. <hr /></blockquote>

Rich R.
09-28-2007, 07:18 AM
Wally, all I can say is, I have seen first hand, in my area, that pool rooms are alive and well, even prospering, after the smoking bans started. New York City has had a smoking ban for a while and I haven't heard of any of those rooms closing, because of the ban.
Yes, pool rooms have a lot of financial concerns and it is a tough business. However, I don't believe the smoking bans will be the down fall of a good room. For example, I remember when I could walk around my favorite grocery store while smoking. That is no longer allowed and I haven't seen any grocery stores closing because of that. The same can be said for many other businesses.
Whether you want to believe it or not, everyone in your area does not smoke. After the smoking ban, you may begin to see some strange faces in the pool room. Some of them may be non-smokers who did not come before, because of the smoke. They will take the place of those who want to smoke more than they want to play pool. Other smokers will just take a break and go outside for a smoke, just as they do in many areas of the country.

New2Pool
09-28-2007, 07:41 AM
Wow 1Time,
You and people like you scare me. You think that you know what is best for everyone and therefore you should be allowed to dictate exactly what everyone can or cannot do based upon what you think is good or bad for them. Talk about a god complex. To address a few things point-by-point:

[ QUOTE ]

Smoking is a public health issue and as such non-smoking laws are in the best interest of our country and mankind as a whole. <hr /></blockquote>
Smoking in public is a public health issue. If you would advocate banning smoking on publicly held land then I would be right there with you. Smoking is a dirty, filthy habit and I hate to be around it. But what people do on their own property is none of your business or mine.

[ QUOTE ]
Those addicted to smoking and those who benefit from it financially or otherwise are the most likely to respond more selfishly regarding this matter. <hr /></blockquote>
Wow, how Orwellian. To want to smoke on your own property is selfish but to impose dictates upon other people about what they can do on their own property is heroic and for the public good?

[ QUOTE ]
I consider it a good thing for the government to regulate things that are unhealthy or detrimental to public health and thus to our country, and it is not uncommon or undesirable for our government to do so.<hr /></blockquote>
So instead of every adult having free will to decide what is in their own best interest we should have the government decide what everyone should do. If you think that someone is overweight then let's force them to go on a diet. You don't like deep fried donuts because they are unhealthy. Let's pass a law against them. The lastest research shows that drink a small amount of wine or beer everyday has benificial health effects, let's make it mandatory that you have to drink wine or beer every day. Where does it end? What gives you the right to live everone else's life for them can't you be content to just live your own that best way you can without wanting to interfer with everyone else?

[ QUOTE ]
Now if smoking were not the unhealthy and costly burden that it is, then I could agree with those who argue for government staying out of our business (as I usually do when I deem it in our country's best interest).<hr /></blockquote>
Actually, that is the second time you have mentioned smoking as being costly. Studies have shown that people who smoke actually cost the government less money because they die younger and don't get to collect as many old age benefits. If cost is a main factor require everyone to smoke and we will balance the budget of the savings from people dying younger!


[ QUOTE ]
Why not extend business owners the right to allow smoking in their public establishments?

Should the non-smoking public have the right to freely patronize businesses without concern for whether it is smoke-free?<hr /></blockquote>

Obviously you and I disagree with the role of government. I believe that the founding fathers were correct and that all people are born with inalienable rights. Among these rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The government should not be there to grant us rights the government is there to provide a common framework or laws, to enforce contracts, and to help establish civil order. People are interested in advancing their own interest in the vast majority of cases whether you are talking about government officials, citizens, or those lowly business owners who make our country great. Don't turn how you can live your life over to the government.

[ QUOTE ]
Should employees of such businesses have the right to work in a smoke-free workplace?<hr /></blockquote>
Nope, they should not. The business owner OWNS the business. They should be able to decide how they will run their business. On the other hand, if I am a business owner and I do not want to hire people who smoke that should be my right as well.

[ QUOTE ]
The reduction and eventual eradication of smoking should be the goal, and it should be because it would be for the betterment of all. The costs of smoking far, far out-weigh the costs of not smoking. Current legislation is simply a compromise solution because there are still many smokers and supportive businesses around, but laws will continue to change over time and in greater favor of the non-smokers.<hr /></blockquote>

I agree that we should try to get rid of smoking. We should educate people about the hazards or smoking and we should advocate that businesses not allow smoking in their establishments. If enough non-smokers want a business to be non-smoking and they are willing to let the owners know that they will take their business elsewhere if it is not made nonsmoking then the business with become nonsmoking. But that is a role for the market to fulfil not for governemnts. Just because you are to lazy to want to put in the work required to make a difference does not mean that you should be free to impose your will open your fellow free men.

[ QUOTE ]
And so yes, the closing of a pool hall due to a smoking ban is definitely a sign of the times, and I see nothing wrong or unfortunate at all about this.<hr /></blockquote>
How sad that you cannot see anything wrong with a man losing his freedom. Even those of us who refuse to go into a place that permits smoking are made poorer when the liberties or our smoking brethern are infringed upon.

For those of you who would like more information about living as a free person there is nice video called "The Adventures of Jonathan Gullible" that explains the concepts if liberty is a clear way. I watch in every year because I find it so clear and compelling. In case you are interested, here is the link (http://www.jonathangullible.com/) .

New2Pool
09-28-2007, 07:54 AM
Rich,
What you say is true within limits. Smoking bans have actually been linked to increased revenues from food but decreased revenues from liquor in communities that have imposed them. Businesses that depend on liquor sales and don't serve much food are thus hurt more that businesses that serve food but not much alcohol.

The proximity of substitutes is another variable that has been shown to effect the impact of a smoking ban. If you are in an area where there are substitute businesses outside of the limit of the ban then a percentage of the customer base will vote with their feet and go to the competitor that allows smoking. Keep in mind that this does not have to be a direct competitor. There will be some pool players who would go to a bowling ally to bowl and play pool on worse tables so they will be able to smoke.

We don't have a smoking ban where I live and I don't go to our local pool hall because it is so smoky. I would probably go 3 or 4 times per month if it was smoke free but I don't blame the business for allowing smoking. I have stopped by twice to play and a cloud of smoke billowed out when I opened the door both times so I never even went it. While that cloud is disgusting to me it is a pretty strong sign that the steady customers enjoy smoking.

I wish all businesses were smoke free. But even more than that, I respect the right of all people to be free to make their own choices.

Wally_in_Cincy
09-28-2007, 08:55 AM
Co-owner Bill Nolan will be interviewed on radio station 700WLW sometime between 12:30 and 3:00 today. If you canít get the station you can listen online at http://www.700WLW.com

WLW is also on XM somewhere (maybe channel 163 or 165?)

wolfdancer
09-28-2007, 09:13 AM
The DNC would be proud!
I'd hope so...I thought he worded the line carefully:
"..regulate things that are unhealthy or detrimental to public health" (in this case,protecting John Q public from that cancer causing environment)
But, don't they already regulate other addicting, debilitating,drugs like heroin, meth,...without much objection, save for the addicts themselves? Or is this considered a sophisticated drug, for urbane adults, unlike them street drugs? Isn't it a fact that smoking creates dependency on the drug? One becomes a nicotine addict?
Personally, considering the number of innocent people that are killed each year by illnesses contracted from these right to smoke people....I don't think the smoking penalties are severe enough....make it a felony,incarceration, and if there is proof that one has caused the death of another....have the jury consider the death penalty as an option....
I wonder why if someone won't smoke in their children's nursery , they feel free to smoke on elevators, in crowded restaurants, etc. I realize though as a non smoker, I should get up and leave the restaurant, take the escalator, or maybe the stairs, rather then violate the smoker's rights be asking him to shove that cigarette up his....
I'm sure also that the hundreds of thousands of second hand smoke victims would also be proud.
As far as a pool hall, or bar losing business because of smoking regs....in an extreme example....it's like when the cops raid a "shooting gallery" business falls off

Fran Crimi
09-28-2007, 09:23 AM
Hey Wally,

I've been reading the thread with interest because I've noticed a decline lately in the entire pool industry. I think this decline extends far beyond pool rooms, unfortunately. It's very possible that the non-smoking thing has caused some decrease in business, but it's hard to measure just how much because of this overall decline going on. It's almost as if the entire industry has fallen into a pool recession.

I also know some room owners around the country who blame their decline in business on the smoking bans, but these bans coincidentally happen to be taking place at the same time this pool recession is kicking in, so I think it's really hard to tell what's causing what at the moment.

Fran

Deeman3
09-28-2007, 09:44 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote wolfdancer:</font><hr> The DNC would be proud!
I'd hope so...I thought he worded the line carefully:
"..regulate things that are unhealthy or detrimental to public health" (in this case,protecting John Q public from that cancer causing environment)
But, don't they already regulate other addicting, debilitating,drugs like heroin, meth,...without much objection, save for the addicts themselves? Or is this considered a sophisticated drug, for urbane adults, unlike them street drugs? Isn't it a fact that smoking creates dependency on the drug? One becomes a nicotine addict?
Personally, considering the number of innocent people that are killed each year by illnesses contracted from these right to smoke people....I don't think the smoking penalties are severe enough....make it a felony,incarceration, and if there is proof that one has caused the death of another....have the jury consider the death penalty as an option....
I wonder why if someone won't smoke in their children's nursery , they feel free to smoke on elevators, in crowded restaurants, etc. I realize though as a non smoker, I should get up and leave the restaurant, take the escalator, or maybe the stairs, rather then violate the smoker's rights be asking him to shove that cigarette up his....
I'm sure also that the hundreds of thousands of second hand smoke victims would also be proud.
As far as a pool hall, or bar losing business because of smoking regs....in an extreme example....it's like when the cops raid a "shooting gallery" business falls off <hr /></blockquote> <font color="blue">

Well, as I have joined the ranks of non-smoker for several months now, I'd agree it is a disgusting habit but fall a little short of wanting more government controls on our already saturated lives. Should alocohol be regulated in the same way? How many lives could be saved if no one ever had a drink? Both from the automotive accidents and deaths caused by the disease of consumption? Yes, I do believe we can "protect" ourselves too much. Just because carbon monoxide is killing people in L.A. may not mean we have to ban cars. However, reasonable regulation is necessary in a lot of cases. The fervent targeting of smokers is not only an easy target but makes one feel "better" to be on the "right" side of the argument. Yes, smoking is stupid and nasty but there are many other evils out there that impact individuals and society that will not be seriouly addressed as they are not the "in" thing to the politically correct in the our society. Outlaw smoking? Please call to outlaw rap music because many are shot in the culture it breeds, slap heavy fines on drinkers before they have the opportunity to do harm, ban homosexual male contact as it leads to AIDS!

Where will we stop? When it gets inconvienent to blame a group your not in. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

I would like for the free market to decide these things when not absolutely necessary for government intrustion. My wife still smokes (horror of horrors) and that does dictate a lot of the places we frequent when we are together. Right now, there are numerous restaurants booming in my area just outside town. The ones in town where you can't smoke are just hanging on, two old family ones have closed. Non-smokers are not appearing in droves to select these places. Should we tax to assist them in the competition so that the non-smokers will have refuge from the smoke? There is an upside, the carryout fast food places are doing well as people can pick up their food and carry it home. Of course, there are no pool halls at all. They both closed down. Good riddance, they were probably stinking up the town with taxes anyway.

Jail all smokers, drinkers and karoke singers....</font color>

Wally_in_Cincy
09-28-2007, 09:59 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fran Crimi:</font><hr> Hey Wally,

I've been reading the thread with interest because I've noticed a decline lately in the entire pool industry. I think this decline extends far beyond pool rooms, unfortunately. It's very possible that the non-smoking thing has caused some decrease in business, but it's hard to measure just how much because of this overall decline going on. It's almost as if the entire industry has fallen into a pool recession.

I also know some room owners around the country who blame their decline in business on the smoking bans, but these bans coincidentally happen to be taking place at the same time this pool recession is kicking in, so I think it's really hard to tell what's causing what at the moment.

Fran <hr /></blockquote>

Fran you are right it seems the entire scene is down. Michael's in Fairfield and SnookerS had both experienced a decline before the smoking ban. The smoking ban exacerbated the problem though.

Hopefully Michael's will get a boost from the closing of Snookers. Small comfort for Bill and Don though.

Wally_in_Cincy
09-28-2007, 10:11 AM
Snookers farewell poster. Notice the license plate.

http://i175.photobucket.com/albums/w144/Wally-Cincinnati/FarewellParty.jpg

1Time
09-28-2007, 10:29 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Wally_in_Cincy:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote 1Time:</font><hr> I consider it a good thing for the government to regulate things that are unhealthy or detrimental to public health <hr /></blockquote>

Oh my. /ccboard/images/graemlins/shocked.gif

strong response to follow. <hr /></blockquote>

Think FDA (http://tobaccofreekids.org/reports/fda/), DEA, and other governmental regulatory entities, and you should find my government regulation comment much more sensible.

Or, would you consider the U.S. better off without the government regulating what the public is exposed to?

1Time
09-28-2007, 10:35 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Deeman3:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Wally_in_Cincy:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote 1Time:</font><hr> I consider it a good thing for the government to regulate things that are unhealthy or detrimental to public health <hr /></blockquote>

Oh my. /ccboard/images/graemlins/shocked.gif <font color="blue">



The DNC would be proud! </font color>

strong response to follow. <hr /></blockquote> <hr /></blockquote>

My views are my own and I make them irrespective of the views of any political organization and politics in general.

New2Pool
09-28-2007, 10:52 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote 1Time:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Wally_in_Cincy:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote 1Time:</font><hr> I consider it a good thing for the government to regulate things that are unhealthy or detrimental to public health <hr /></blockquote>

Oh my. /ccboard/images/graemlins/shocked.gif

strong response to follow. <hr /></blockquote>

Think FDA (http://tobaccofreekids.org/reports/fda/), DEA, and other governmental regulatory entities, and you should find my government regulation comment much more sensible.

Or, would you consider the U.S. better off without the government regulating what the public is exposed to? <hr /></blockquote>

The FDA is a mixed bag in my nonperfect opinion. Manufactures should not be free to make claims that they can't support. i.e. "Drug X cures cancer." But if there is a drug that might cure cancer, AIDs, or another horrible disease who should the consumer not be allowed to try the drug knowing that it might not help? I see the role of many government agencies to protect against fraud and to enforce contracts, not to keep people from engaging in behavior that they want to engage in.

To take it another step, who do people who do nails have to have a beauticians liscense in many states? Could it have something to do with rent seeking (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent_seeking) by keeping out competitors? I think that before any law is passed we should ask "How does this infringe upon the rights of those who are negatively affected by the law?" Is it really my business what someone does in their bedroom, what drug they knowingly consume, what gun they own or what they eat? Nope. Is it my business whether they carry a gun in public, smoke in public, have sex in public, murder someone, rape, have sex with kids, or perform or acts that either directly affect me or cause harm to innocents? Yep, that should be regulated.

People are born to be free. When you take their choices away you take part of their freedom away.

dave666
09-28-2007, 11:22 AM
after jan 1st our area in illinois is going non smoking in public areas. i don't think that it will effect us greatly because we do have a full kitchen and an under 21 side. it really depends on what you offer the public. of course i don't agree with "1time" he has a personallity of a career gvmnt groupie. good luck to the owners of the pool room closing i hate to see any small buisiness close because of political bull!@#$%^.

wolfdancer
09-28-2007, 12:05 PM
There isn't an easy answer...I'm just guided by the fact that without any regulations, I'm at the mercy of any smoker that cares to light up in my area, and impact my health.
But I'm a life long non smoker, with an allergic reaction to cigarette smoke...and wouldn't be surprised if I do come down with emphysema or lung cancer, after a lifetime of inhaling second hand smoke.
Karaoke....where else can you have so much fun proving that you don't have any singing talent yourself?
I just found out that a team mate's mother has a Karaoke business...in several bars ......this could be my "in" to karaoke fame and fortune....

Wally_in_Cincy
09-28-2007, 02:51 PM
New2Pool you said exactly what I would have stated in my strong response.

Thanks for saving me all that typing.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote New2Pool:</font><hr>

Actually, that is the second time you have mentioned smoking as being costly. Studies have shown that people who smoke actually cost the government less money because they die younger and don't get to collect as many old age benefits. If cost is a main factor require everyone to smoke and we will balance the budget of the savings from people dying younger!


<hr /></blockquote>

Here's a report on this subject.

Cato is admittedly a libertarian institute but the study was done by a Harvard professor.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=5964


Smokers actually save society about $.32 per pack smoked. Not only do smokers save taxpayers money, smokers also pay an average of $.53 per pack in federal and state taxes. And given the approximately 30 billion packs of cigarettes smoked a year in the United States, smokers pay $15.9 billion more than would be necessary if we were to follow the principle that people should pay for the costs they impose on others. In effect, smokers pay taxpayers for the right to smoke in addition to the savings that they create for taxpayers by dying early.

wolfdancer
09-28-2007, 03:58 PM
You're right on !!!
Lets do away with these draconian smoking bans and get some ads rolling again:
Here's one from from the past when Government didn't care about the health costs and deaths:
web page (http://www.chickenhead.com/truth/julep1_40.html)
AND a whole slew of them from the 40's and 50's


web page (http://www.chickenhead.com/truth/)
....makes me think I been missing out on the fun and enjoyment of cigarettes, all my life.

Maybe I'll go set fire to some oily rags and inhale the fine aroma, until I can afford to buy some cigs....

Rich R.
09-28-2007, 08:29 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote New2Pool:</font><hr> Rich,
What you say is true within limits. Smoking bans have actually been linked to increased revenues from food but decreased revenues from liquor in communities that have imposed them. Businesses that depend on liquor sales and don't serve much food are thus hurt more that businesses that serve food but not much alcohol.

<font color="red">So now you claim that people won't drink unless they can smoke with that drink.
Actually, there may be some validity to that point, but it still says nothing about the ability to step outside for a smoke and then coming back to a drink.

I also believe the reduced drinking has a lot to do with states, in general, being much more strict about driving under the influence than they used to be. The days of the police giving you a ride home, after pulling you over, are long gone. I know, in my state, if you get caught for DUI, you are in big trouble. I think that may have more to do with the reduction in alcohol sales than any smoking ban. </font color>

The proximity of substitutes is another variable that has been shown to effect the impact of a smoking ban. If you are in an area where there are substitute businesses outside of the limit of the ban then a percentage of the customer base will vote with their feet and go to the competitor that allows smoking. Keep in mind that this does not have to be a direct competitor. There will be some pool players who would go to a bowling ally to bowl and play pool on worse tables so they will be able to smoke.

<font color="red"> I can only speak for my area. Here, there are no alternatives. Bars, including poolrooms serving alcohol, were one of the last areas where smoking was banned. Other businesses have been smoke free for many years and, stange as it may seem, none of them closed because of the ban.
In fact, at this time, the smoking ban for bars is on a county by county basis, but it will be state wide beginning in 2008. </font color>

We don't have a smoking ban where I live and I don't go to our local pool hall because it is so smoky. I would probably go 3 or 4 times per month if it was smoke free but I don't blame the business for allowing smoking. I have stopped by twice to play and a cloud of smoke billowed out when I opened the door both times so I never even went it. While that cloud is disgusting to me it is a pretty strong sign that the steady customers enjoy smoking.

I wish all businesses were smoke free. But even more than that, I respect the right of all people to be free to make their own choices.

<font color="red">No one is taking away the right of people to smoke. Smokers are just being asked, or told, to go outside to smoke. The right to enjoy a smoke free environment is being given back to the majority of the population. </font color> <hr /></blockquote>

<font color="red">I honestly don't understand why everyone is so concerned with the loss of rights for smokers, but no one seems to give a damn about the rights of non-smokers. Currently, smokers are not being denied the right to smoke. They can smoke at home and they can smoke outside anytime they wish to. They are only being told that they can not smoke inside any business that opens its doors to the public. I don't think that is too much to ask. After all, a certain portion or our tax dollars is still going to help subsidize tobacco farmers. When that subsidization is taken away, and it will be taken away, smoking will become so expensive that most people will note be able to afford smoking. </font color>

MikeM
09-29-2007, 07:59 AM
Good post Fran. I, for one, think that smoking has kept lots of people OUT of places like pool halls.

MM

1Time
09-29-2007, 08:11 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote New2Pool:</font><hr> Wow 1Time,
You and people like you scare me. You think that you know what is best for everyone and therefore you should be allowed to dictate exactly what everyone can or cannot do based upon what you think is good or bad for them. Talk about a god complex. To address a few things point-by-point:<hr /></blockquote>

Your extreme privacy views would make more sense if everyone lived in their own seperate universes and as such were unable to harm one another. However, what people do in private can negatively affect others. And because your views do not adequately account for this, I consider them obviously and fatally flawed.

There are many examples of behavior done in private or on private property that can harm others, and here are a few. A husband beats his wife. A man keeps inoperative vehicles in plain view in his front yard. A woman locks her children in the bathroom and starves them. A man has sex with his child. A man attempts to profit from the operation of a meth lab. Adults smoke cigarettes indoors with their children near by.

So I wonder... in your seperate universe, just how much of a god complex does it take for people like me to vote for those who will enact laws to protect the innocent from the harm people do in private or on their private property?

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote 1Time:</font><hr>
Smoking is a public health issue and as such non-smoking laws are in the best interest of our country and mankind as a whole. <hr /></blockquote>
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote New2Pool:</font><hr>Smoking in public is a public health issue. If you would advocate banning smoking on publicly held land then I would be right there with you. Smoking is a dirty, filthy habit and I hate to be around it. But what people do on their own property is none of your business or mine.<hr /></blockquote>

Wrong. See my first response.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote 1Time:</font><hr>
Those addicted to smoking and those who benefit from it financially or otherwise are the most likely to respond more selfishly regarding this matter. <hr /></blockquote>
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote New2Pool:</font><hr>Wow, how Orwellian. To want to smoke on your own property is selfish but to impose dictates upon other people about what they can do on their own property is heroic and for the public good?<hr /></blockquote>

The matter to which I referred was smoking in a business that's open to the public, not smoking on personal property that is not open for business to the public. And so your comments were not based on what I wrote. Regarding what you did address, see my first response.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote 1Time:</font><hr>
I consider it a good thing for the government to regulate things that are unhealthy or detrimental to public health and thus to our country, and it is not uncommon or undesirable for our government to do so.<hr /></blockquote>
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote New2Pool:</font><hr>So instead of every adult having free will to decide what is in their own best interest we should have the government decide what everyone should do. If you think that someone is overweight then let's force them to go on a diet. You don't like deep fried donuts because they are unhealthy. Let's pass a law against them. The lastest research shows that drink a small amount of wine or beer everyday has benificial health effects, let's make it mandatory that you have to drink wine or beer every day. Where does it end? What gives you the right to live everone else's life for them can't you be content to just live your own that best way you can without wanting to interfer with everyone else?<hr /></blockquote>

See my first response.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote 1Time:</font><hr>
Now if smoking were not the unhealthy and costly burden that it is, then I could agree with those who argue for government staying out of our business (as I usually do when I deem it in our country's best interest).<hr /></blockquote>
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote New2Pool:</font><hr>Actually, that is the second time you have mentioned smoking as being costly. Studies have shown that people who smoke actually cost the government less money because they die younger and don't get to collect as many old age benefits. If cost is a main factor require everyone to smoke and we will balance the budget of the savings from people dying younger!<hr /></blockquote>

The monitary cost of smoking is many times more than that of not smoking, and any study that contradicts this is inadequate and contradicted by other studies.

Your convenient discounting of smoking's cost to quality and length of life is sad and telling.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote 1Time:</font><hr>
Why not extend business owners the right to allow smoking in their public establishments?

Should the non-smoking public have the right to freely patronize businesses without concern for whether it is smoke-free?<hr /></blockquote>

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote New2Pool:</font><hr>Obviously you and I disagree with the role of government. I believe that the founding fathers were correct and that all people are born with inalienable rights. Among these rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The government should not be there to grant us rights the government is there to provide a common framework or laws, to enforce contracts, and to help establish civil order. People are interested in advancing their own interest in the vast majority of cases whether you are talking about government officials, citizens, or those lowly business owners who make our country great. Don't turn how you can live your life over to the government.<hr /></blockquote>

I agree with the founding fathers. See my first response.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote 1Time:</font><hr>
Should employees of such businesses have the right to work in a smoke-free workplace?<hr /></blockquote>
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote New2Pool:</font><hr>Nope, they should not. The business owner OWNS the business. They should be able to decide how they will run their business. On the other hand, if I am a business owner and I do not want to hire people who smoke that should be my right as well.<hr /></blockquote>

Exchange the words "smoke-free" with the words "drug-free" and you should see my point. Cigarette smoking is harmful to those who smoke and to those around the smoker, and so much so it should be illegal, just like many drugs are illegal.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote 1Time:</font><hr>
The reduction and eventual eradication of smoking should be the goal, and it should be because it would be for the betterment of all. The costs of smoking far, far out-weigh the costs of not smoking. Current legislation is simply a compromise solution because there are still many smokers and supportive businesses around, but laws will continue to change over time and in greater favor of the non-smokers.<hr /></blockquote>

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote New2Pool:</font><hr>I agree that we should try to get rid of smoking. We should educate people about the hazards or smoking and we should advocate that businesses not allow smoking in their establishments. If enough non-smokers want a business to be non-smoking and they are willing to let the owners know that they will take their business elsewhere if it is not made nonsmoking then the business with become nonsmoking. But that is a role for the market to fulfil not for governemnts. Just because you are to lazy to want to put in the work required to make a difference does not mean that you should be free to impose your will open your fellow free men.<hr /></blockquote>

No. The public's health and well being of our country should not be left only to the care of a free market. One look at the tobacco industry's profit motivated behavior should settle this matter. Enforcement and education are more effective than education only, and there is no reasonable foundation to not use both. See my first response.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote 1Time:</font><hr>
And so yes, the closing of a pool hall due to a smoking ban is definitely a sign of the times, and I see nothing wrong or unfortunate at all about this.<hr /></blockquote>
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote New2Pool:</font><hr>How sad that you cannot see anything wrong with a man losing his freedom. Even those of us who refuse to go into a place that permits smoking are made poorer when the liberties or our smoking brethern are infringed upon. <hr /></blockquote>

How sad that you cannot see the man was free to operate his business within the new non-smoking law and lost his business due in part to free market influences. And yes, I see nothing wrong with such businesses being lost because they cater to smokers since this in turn discourages smoking and that's what's better for all.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote New2Pool:</font><hr>
For those of you who would like more information about living as a free person there is nice video called "The Adventures of Jonathan Gullible" that explains the concepts if liberty is a clear way. I watch in every year because I find it so clear and compelling. In case you are interested, here is the link (http://www.jonathangullible.com/) . <hr /></blockquote>

So how do you consider this video about personal liberty to be applicable to the matter of non-smoking laws for businesses?

1Time
09-29-2007, 07:45 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote New2Pool:</font><hr>
The FDA is a mixed bag in my nonperfect opinion. Manufactures should not be free to make claims that they can't support. i.e. "Drug X cures cancer." But if there is a drug that might cure cancer, AIDs, or another horrible disease who should the consumer not be allowed to try the drug knowing that it might not help? I see the role of many government agencies to protect against fraud and to enforce contracts, not to keep people from engaging in behavior that they want to engage in.
<hr /></blockquote>

At the very least the FDA should regulate the tobacco industry (http://tobaccofreekids.org/reports/fda/). That alone should set a foundation for profound and positive changes for the health of Americans. And I would expect this regardless of any issue you have with the FDA or your view of government's role in America. Quite frankly, it's hard for me to imagine how incredibly worse American life would be without the government's role in keeping people from engaging in "any" behavior they wanted.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote New2Pool:</font><hr>
To take it another step, who do people who do nails have to have a beauticians liscense in many states? Could it have something to do with rent seeking (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent_seeking) by keeping out competitors? I think that before any law is passed we should ask "How does this infringe upon the rights of those who are negatively affected by the law?" Is it really my business what someone does in their bedroom, what drug they knowingly consume, what gun they own or what they eat? Nope. Is it my business whether they carry a gun in public, smoke in public, have sex in public, murder someone, rape, have sex with kids, or perform or acts that either directly affect me or cause harm to innocents? Yep, that should be regulated.
<hr /></blockquote>

Smoking and the tobacco industry at the very least should be better regulated because of its harmful effects, and preferrably smoking should be outlawed like other harmful and addictive drugs.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote New2Pool:</font><hr>
People are born to be free. When you take their choices away you take part of their freedom away. <hr /></blockquote>

Taken literally your statement "People are born to be free" means people are born to behave any way they choose and without laws or restrictions on their behavior. And so since by your own commentary laws that govern behavior are desired, your "people are born to be free" statement is irrelevant. Taking choices away and thereby taking some freedom away is necessary to help prevent people from hurting one another.

Wally_in_Cincy
09-29-2007, 08:28 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote 1Time:</font><hr>Taking choices away and thereby taking some freedom away is necessary to help prevent people from hurting one another. <hr /></blockquote>

In this context this should be worded as preventing people from hurting themselves. Do you really think this is something that could actually be accomplished

You really must be joking. Or as the Brits say, this a wind-up.

Wally_in_Cincy
09-29-2007, 08:39 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote MikeM:</font><hr> Good post Fran. I, for one, think that smoking has kept lots of people OUT of places like pool halls.

MM <hr /></blockquote>

and what evidence do you have of that?

since smoking has been banned why are not these theoretical people not flooding the pool halls with all this new business?

I'm sure all pool hall owners are giving praise to providence that the smoking ban has saved their failing businesses from ruin.

Mike, you are obvioously a smart guy. You probably have an MBA and I would guess you still drive a BMW. Why would you post something that makes no sense?

wolfdancer
09-29-2007, 08:41 PM
I think it's really simple...they aren't taking away anybodie's right to smoke, just making them do it where they can't impair the health of others.
works for me!!

1Time
09-29-2007, 08:59 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Wally_in_Cincy:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote 1Time:</font><hr>Taking choices away and thereby taking some freedom away is necessary to help prevent people from hurting one another. <hr /></blockquote>

In this context this should be worded as preventing people from hurting themselves. Do you really think this is something that could actually be accomplished

You really must be joking. Or as the Brits say, this a wind-up. <hr /></blockquote>

Perhaps if you re-read what I've written, you may better understand what I meant and that I'm not joking. Smoking hurts the smoker and those around the smoker. Removing choices and some freedom is not only something that actually can be accomplished, it already has been accomplished. For example, laws exist preventing smokers from smoking anywhere they choose. And so, some of their freedom has been taken away, their freedom to smoke anywhere they choose.

Wally_in_Cincy
09-29-2007, 10:06 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote 1Time:</font><hr> Perhaps if you re-read what I've written, you may better understand what I meant and that I'm not joking. Smoking hurts the smoker and those around the smoker. Removing choices and some freedom is not only something that actually can be accomplished, it already has been accomplished. For example, laws exist preventing smokers from smoking anywhere they choose. And so, some of their freedom has been taken away, their freedom to smoke anywhere they choose. <hr /></blockquote>

I am so happy to see the Junior-high hall monitors have taken over the world.

Sorry 1Time but I have nothing but disadain for your nanny-state attirude.

Make sure your kids are wearing their little helmets when they head down the sidewalk on their bikes. And don't let them out of your sight lest some child molester might snatch them away.

the world is so scary I just might pee my pants.

1Time
09-29-2007, 10:29 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Wally_in_Cincy:</font><hr>
I am so happy to see the Junior-high hall monitors have taken over the world.

Sorry 1Time but I have nothing but disadain for your nanny-state attirude.

Make sure your kids are wearing their little helmets when they head down the sidewalk on their bikes. And don't let them out of your sight lest some child molester might snatch them away.

the world is so scary I just might pee my pants. <hr /></blockquote>

Yes, change with the times or pee your pants, you are still free to choose.

wolfdancer
09-30-2007, 12:28 AM
In all these carpings about smokers rights being taken away...does anybody consider the plight of the non smokers?
I had sinus congestion all my life until the bans became law.
I've had restaurant meals ruined, had to change my seat in ball games, move to a different table in pool rooms, gag in elevators, trains, airplanes, not to mention Buses. I used to pull the bus over to the side of the road on the pretext of checking the tires, just to get some fresh air.
I guess that people allergic to smoke being blown into their face, were just supposed to leave the premises when a smoker showed up, and exercised his rights?
They wont let you take a dump in public because of the smell, and health hazard...I don't see any difference in public smoking

Fran Crimi
09-30-2007, 10:58 AM
You know, Wally, historically, pool has only had two booms since the 1960's. The first was when the film 'The Hustler' came on the scene. Business really started to pick up and for the first time, the term 'family pool room' was invented. I came in at the end of that era in the mid 70's where there were still some poolrooms around where each table had a different color cloth. That was meant to be the appeal to women. Make it bright and pretty and they'll show up.

Then we hit another recession when the novelty of the 'family room' died out. From mid 70's to mid 80's, pool was a dead sport. That was the infamous era of promoters not being able to raise enough money to pay their prize funds and we all used to have to run to the bank to cash our prize money checks, knowing that half of them would probably bounce.

Then came the Color Of Money in 1986 and the second boom to the industry. We were able to ride that wave for a good 15 years but now the thrill is gone and we need to create new interest in the game.

Fran

1Time
09-30-2007, 01:39 PM
Fran, you have my vote for this board's pool historian.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fran Crimi:</font><hr>
Then came the Color Of Money in 1986 and the second boom to the industry. We were able to ride that wave for a good 15 years but now the thrill is gone and we need to create new interest in the game. <hr /></blockquote>

My guess is the next pool boon will kick off with another successful pool movie.

I think the most overlooked way to grow the sport is for pool halls to help players more readily experience improvement and success at playing pool. That's what's going to turn casual players into regulars. And I suggest the playing of pool videos at pool halls that target beginners, daters, and bangers would be a cost effective way do do this.

Anyone want to make a movie?

Wally_in_Cincy
09-30-2007, 05:44 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote 1Time:</font><hr> I suggest the playing of pool videos at pool halls that target beginners, daters, and bangers would be a cost effective way do do this.

<hr /></blockquote>

Ironically the hall that instigated this thread used to do just that.

When there was not a NASCAR race or Reds game on /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

1Time
09-30-2007, 06:53 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Wally_in_Cincy:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote 1Time:</font><hr> I suggest the playing of pool videos at pool halls that target beginners, daters, and bangers would be a cost effective way do do this.
<hr /></blockquote>

Ironically the hall that instigated this thread used to do just that.

When there was not a NASCAR race or Reds game on /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif <hr /></blockquote>

The gains to be made in public health and the well being of our country from the reduction of the costs of smoking, vastly out-weigh the importance of the profitability or existence of any number of pool halls and the advancement of the sport of pool. Hence, there is no irony.

And, the sport of pool can surely thrive without smoking. That about 75% of the U.S. are non-smokers shows the vast potential for this. Catering to the approximate 25% of the smokers at the expense of the majority is simply bad business.

Wally_in_Cincy
09-30-2007, 07:06 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote 1Time:</font><hr>

The gains to be made in public health and the well being of our country from the reduction of the costs of smoking, vastly out-weigh the importance of the profitability or existence of any number of pool halls and the advancement of the sport of pool. Hence, there is no irony.

<hr /></blockquote>

The wants of the few outweighs the liberty of the many.

I fear for the future of Liberty.

Rich R.
09-30-2007, 07:51 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Wally_in_Cincy:</font><hr> The wants of the few outweighs the liberty of the many.

I fear for the future of Liberty.
<hr /></blockquote>
Wally, I hate to break this to you, but, in this case, you are saying that the few who "want" to smoke, should take precedence over the "liberty" of the many who don't want to be subjected to a smokey environment.
At the current time, non-smokers far and away out number the smokers. That is the only reason that the non-smoking laws have passed.
And again, no one is taking away the right to smoke. Smokers only have to refrain from smoking in any business that opens its doors to the public. Smokers are not the only ones with rights.
We do live in a democracy, where the majority rules. At one time, the majority of people were smokers and the smokers made the rules. Now, the majority of the people are non-smokers, therefore, the non-smokers get to make the rules.

1Time
09-30-2007, 09:49 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Wally_in_Cincy:</font><hr>
The wants of the few outweighs the liberty of the many.
<hr /></blockquote>

Gallup polls (http://www.galluppoll.com/content/default.aspx?ci=1717&amp;pg=1) show this is not true. Click that link and read the last paragraph.

The truth is the wants of the majority outweigh the harmful behavior of the few.

Liberty does not mean the right to do whatever you want. For liberty to be at a risk of loss, the action must not harm others.

Smoking harms people and so much so it warrants the loss of the freedom to smoke, just like other harmful behaviors have been outlawed like drunk driving, doing drugs, stealing, and murder.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Wally_in_Cincy:</font><hr>
I fear for the future of Liberty.
<hr /></blockquote>

And so outlawing smoking which harms is no reason to fear for liberty.

DSAPOLIS
10-01-2007, 06:01 AM
This is an interesting thread. Having been a room owner that has seen the plight of the pool hall industry first hand, let me say that anybody that believes that these businesses are failing because of cigarettes is completely out of their mind. The room owner can blame anything they want, but until they look in the mirror and point their finger, they will continue to be clueless.

Pool halls have changed over the past 10 years. What brought in money 5-10 years ago is no longer acceptable to the patrons that these establishments have attracted. I know this because I recently stepped aside while trying to compete with "sports bars" and what I call "poker halls". The smoking bans in that city had been in a effect for over 5 years. I couldn't blame cigarettes.

I bought the 10 flat screen TV's - hooked up the cable TV and paid $800 a month to be able to show the fights - I catered to the poker crowd - I had leagues - I had darts - an internet jukebox - hot waitresses - etc, etc. In the end, I looked around and I saw that it wasn't a pool hall, and it wasn't making anymore money with all the added nonsense. In fact, it increased my overhead. I became frustrated and I decided that after 15 years of doing this, I was no longer motivated to continue.

If pool halls want to survive - then take the advice of someone that has been there.

1) Stop catering to the poker tables. If poker is such a great game, if it is such a money maker, then have them open their own establishments. Make sure that on every Tuesday night, that they close 4 of their tables so that the pool crowd can play some one pocket on their poker tables. When the numbers at the poker tables start to dwindle down just like the numbers dwindled down at the pool tables, you will see many more rooms closing.

2) Stop catering to the bullying tactics of the league system. They don't bring in half the money they claim to. Many of them want free pool during the week in exchange for havong the league in teh pool hall. That takes money out of the register. Have them pay like everybody else. If they refuse, tell them to go to hell. If after this they decide to leave and go somewhere else - tell them to make sure that the door doesn't hit them in the a$$ on the way out. The leagues need to seriously take a look at some of their league operators that are continually threatening room owners with leaving in order to get more benefits for their players. League operators that do that - suck in my book. So do the players that take advantage of these "benefits. If you're one of these people and you are reading this, you're killing the sport, not helping it. This has been killing businesses for a long time. Showing up for your "free pool", purchasing a bottle of water and sipping on it for 4 hours until your free time expires - I'll let you figure out how I feel about that.

3) Anybody that is not a paying customer in your establishment is considered a loiterer. Pool hall clientele has become 80% loiterer - 20% paying customer. Until that changes, doors will be closing at an increasingly rapid rate. Don't blame cigarettes. The blame falls upon the shoulders of the room owners (like myself) that gave in to this new crowd that was unwilling to stick their hands in their pockets and pay for anything in order to keep the doors open. That's why pool halls are dying.

Wally_in_Cincy
10-01-2007, 06:25 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Rich R.:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Wally_in_Cincy:</font><hr> We do live in a democracy, where the majority rules. <hr /></blockquote>

We live in a reperesentative republic, not a true democracy.

There are more women than men in this country. In a true democracy the women could vote thet all men have to work and all women don't have to and the men have to support the women with their tax money.

And if there were more men in this country they could vote to legalize rape.

Wally_in_Cincy
10-01-2007, 06:27 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Wally_in_Cincy:</font><hr> The wants of the few outweighs the liberty of the many.


<hr /></blockquote>

Just to clarify, that statement should have had a question mark at the end.

Rich R.
10-01-2007, 07:11 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Rich R.:</font><hr> We do live in a democracy, where the majority rules. <hr /></blockquote>

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Wally_in_Cincy:</font><hr> We live in a reperesentative republic, not a true democracy.

There are more women than men in this country. In a true democracy the women could vote thet all men have to work and all women don't have to and the men have to support the women with their tax money.

And if there were more men in this country they could vote to legalize rape. <hr /></blockquote>
Wally, you're really starting to stretch things to try to prove your point. We both know that the examples you site are not going to happen, whether we have a true democracy or a representative republic. It is obvious, in society, that many women really want to work and they do no want to be supported by men. It is even more obvious that most men would not vote to legalize rape. You picked a couple of outrageously bad examples.

Your a very intelligent man, but I believe your allowing your smoking addiction to cloud your thinking. (no pun intended)

It is really a very simple issue. Any business that opens its doors to the public is subject to rules. At this point in time, non-smokers are in the majority and they are making the rules.

For many, many years, the rules were made by the smokers and non-smokers had to live with those rules. Now that non-smokers are making the rules, smokers will have to live with the rules.

I also have to refer you to the post by Blackjack, who is very respected and has been a room owner. He makes it very clear that the non-smoking rules have nothing to do with rooms closing.

1Time
10-01-2007, 07:26 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Wally_in_Cincy:</font><hr> We live in a reperesentative republic, not a true democracy. <hr /></blockquote>

The U.S. is better defined as a constitutional republic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_republic). I didn't know that until I just looked it up.

New2Pool
10-01-2007, 07:30 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote wolfdancer:</font><hr> In all these carpings about smokers rights being taken away...does anybody consider the plight of the non smokers?
I had sinus congestion all my life until the bans became law.
I've had restaurant meals ruined, had to change my seat in ball games, move to a different table in pool rooms, gag in elevators, trains, airplanes, not to mention Buses. I used to pull the bus over to the side of the road on the pretext of checking the tires, just to get some fresh air.
I guess that people allergic to smoke being blown into their face, were just supposed to leave the premises when a smoker showed up, and exercised his rights?
They wont let you take a dump in public because of the smell, and health hazard...I don't see any difference in public smoking <hr /></blockquote>

Wolfdancer,
I am allergic to smoke as well and I share your concerns about smoke in publicly owned areas. I see absolutely nothing wrong with smoking being illegal on city buses, in parks, on sidewalks, in public restrooms, and in other publicly funded areas. If the government wants to use a carrot approach instead of the stick and say that government employees will only fly on airlines that are non-smoking then I am 100% supportive of that as well. Heck, I would even be supportive of a law requiring all publically traded companies to be non-smoking. But if a business owner wants to allow smoking in the privacy of his or her own business then I can chose to not go there.

You concerns are real and if any of my posts have appeared to dismiss them I apologize. My intent is to convey that the government should not be able to deprive people of the control of their own life just because the government does not approve of the decisions you make. (Assuming was are talking about decisions that only harm you and not others.)

New2Pool
10-01-2007, 07:45 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Rich R.:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Wally_in_Cincy:</font><hr> The wants of the few outweighs the liberty of the many.

I fear for the future of Liberty.
<hr /></blockquote>
Wally, I hate to break this to you, but, in this case, you are saying that the few who "want" to smoke, should take precedence over the "liberty" of the many who don't want to be subjected to a smokey environment.
At the current time, non-smokers far and away out number the smokers. That is the only reason that the non-smoking laws have passed.
And again, no one is taking away the right to smoke. Smokers only have to refrain from smoking in any business that opens its doors to the public. Smokers are not the only ones with rights.
We do live in a democracy, where the majority rules. At one time, the majority of people were smokers and the smokers made the rules. Now, the majority of the people are non-smokers, therefore, the non-smokers get to make the rules. <hr /></blockquote>

Rich,
A point for you to consider, Liberty is about protecting the rights of all. Everyone has the choice on whether or not to enter a privately owned business. If the busienss owner believed that they would make more money by being a non-smoking establishment then the vast majority of business owners would make the switch. But the privately owned business should be able to make their own decision as to how they want to run their business and then you can make your decision about whether or not to frequent the business.

The rule of the majority is not liberty. Nobel Prize winning economist Friedrich Hayek wrote about this topic in his book "The Road to Serfdom" and it is still a great read if you are interested. There is really not much much more that I can say on this topic and I definitely can't match Hayek's brillance so I will leave you with that thought on the topic.

As an aside, I appreciate all of the great posts about billiards on this board that many of you make. I have enjoyed this thread because it is about a topic that I feel I can participate in with some level of competence. I am glad that none of the comments have gotten personal and that this board is able to discuss an emotional issue on the merits instead of going strictly for cheap emotional tricks. I wish the politicians on both sides of the political aisle could do the same.

I still think some of you are horribly wrong. But I respect your good intentions and your right to be wrong. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif

MikeM
10-01-2007, 08:06 AM
Wally,

I AM a smart guy but with no degree at all.

I am also a promoter of pool whenever I can.

I have been told many, many times by people I have tried to get to play pool that they stay away because of the smoking. The last time I quit playing was because of the constant exposure of cigarette smoke. I am concerned about it again, because of the way I feel when I come home from the pool hall.

Like it or not, pool is associated with smoking. Believe it or not, there are a whole lot of non-smokers who WOULD play pool if someone could give them a place to play where they didn't feel endangered by the environment.

Do you really think that smoking doesn't keep people away from the pool hall? If so, you need a reality check.

MM...makes sense to me.

MikeM
10-01-2007, 08:21 AM
Fantastic post David. I couldn't agree more on all points.

Our league just left one room because of the poor service and condition of the tables for a new room. I listened in on some of the "negotiation" when we were choosing the new room. I was embarrassed at the demands we were putting on the room owners and even more embarrassed that they were accepted.

Businesses have to change with the times. If they fail by not reacting it is their own fault, no one else is to blame.

Poker has passed it's peak. It will be interesting to see where poker ultimately ends up.

MM

MikeM
10-01-2007, 08:24 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Wally_in_Cincy:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Rich R.:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Wally_in_Cincy:</font><hr> We do live in a democracy, where the majority rules. <hr /></blockquote>

We live in a reperesentative republic, not a true democracy.

There are more women than men in this country. In a true democracy the women could vote thet all men have to work and all women don't have to and the men have to support the women with their tax money.

And if there were more men in this country they could vote to legalize rape.

<hr /></blockquote>

Come on, Wally. Keep the maturity level a little higher.

Mike

Fran Crimi
10-01-2007, 09:38 AM
Just jumping in here....

It's my understanding that the smoking ban is more of a civil rights issue than it is a health issue, believe it or not. The ban is not about protecting the patrons of any given establishment. It's about workers' rights.

Employers have certain obligations to fulfill with regard to hiring employees. Employers are not allowed to expect the employee to expose themselves to second hand smoke in order to earn a living.

The argument that a person can just get a job someplace else if they have a problem with second hand smoke does not hold legal water. Civil rights law has determined that if a person meets the qualifications to be able to perform their duties at a place of employment, then they should be able to work there without enduring the hazard of second hand smoke.

THAT is what the smoking ban is all about. It has nothing to do with protecting the customers from second hand smoke. That's just a byproduct of the ban.

It's also my understanding that if you are a sole owner and have no one working at your establishment other than yourself at all times, then you can make it a smoking establishment.

Fran

New2Pool
10-01-2007, 09:57 AM
1Time (and everyone else),
Thank you for stating your case politely and based on the facts. I have said about all I care to say on the topic and I think we both understand the other person's point of view.

There are a couple of things that you stated in you reply that I do want to correct though.

1.) You imply that my position advocates anarchy and that I would condone rape, murder, bestiality, and other such acts. I suppose it got lost in all the lengthy posts but as I reviewed my former posts to see where you could have gotten that idea I found several places where I explicitly say that actions that harm others should be regulated (made illegal) and that actions that occur in public can be regulated.

2.) Thanks for watching the video. I am sorry that it does not say the same thing to you as it does to me but I appreciate you taking the time to view it.

And my final thought, look at all the times in our country's history where the majority has terrorized the minority. The majority never thought that what they did was evil. They genuinely believed that they were doing the best thing. To take away a person's right to use their property as they chose is to take away the portion of that person's life that they used to acquire that property.

Regards to all and thanks again.

Wally_in_Cincy
10-01-2007, 10:38 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote MikeM:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Wally_in_Cincy:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Rich R.:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Wally_in_Cincy:</font><hr> We do live in a democracy, where the majority rules. <hr /></blockquote>

We live in a reperesentative republic, not a true democracy.

There are more women than men in this country. In a true democracy the women could vote thet all men have to work and all women don't have to and the men have to support the women with their tax money.

And if there were more men in this country they could vote to legalize rape.

<hr /></blockquote>

Come on, Wally. Keep the maturity level a little higher.

Mike <hr /></blockquote>

Just trying to illustrate a point by exrapolating to an (admittedly) absurd degree. The particular scenarios I cited are not necessarily of any significance, I just used them as an example to illustrate the possible inherent problems of a true democracy.

I think the folks who said "Take Jesus and free Barabas" were engaged in democracy in action. (Sorry, another extreme example)

Wally_in_Cincy
10-01-2007, 10:40 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote MikeM:</font><hr> Wally,

I AM a smart guy but with no degree at all.

I am also a promoter of pool whenever I can.

I have been told many, many times by people I have tried to get to play pool that they stay away because of the smoking. The last time I quit playing was because of the constant exposure of cigarette smoke. I am concerned about it again, because of the way I feel when I come home from the pool hall.

Like it or not, pool is associated with smoking. Believe it or not, there are a whole lot of non-smokers who WOULD play pool if someone could give them a place to play where they didn't feel endangered by the environment.

Do you really think that smoking doesn't keep people away from the pool hall? If so, you need a reality check.

MM...makes sense to me. <hr /></blockquote>

I'll have to take your word for it Mike. We'll see what happens when the smoking ban is enacted in NoVa.

BLACKHEART
10-01-2007, 11:15 AM
I'm excited to see a thread with some interest. I'm so tired of "what's the best lathe (or cue), under $100. It hasn't been said here yet, that starting Jan 1st of 2008, Illinois has a no smoking law. As I read it,if you are caught smoking in a pyblic building or within 15 feet of a doorway or street, you will be fined $100. If it is IN a public building the owner will also recieve a $500 fine. Also if you are smoking in a car, with a young child in it, you will also be fined $100...JER

wolfdancer
10-01-2007, 12:11 PM
Smoking in a car with a young child inside.....that should rate a fine

SKennedy
10-01-2007, 01:42 PM
I agree with you guys about the smoking, and I get tired of going home stinking worse (sometimes better?) than I normally do, but where do you draw the line? Fines for going thru McD's and getting a "Happy Meal" for the kid? We legislate too much. If it's smoky and you don't like the place, don't go back. If they (owner) don't allow smoking and you smoke and are unhappy, then don't go back. You have a choice of where you go and the owners should have the choice anout allowing smoking in the place they own.

MikeM
10-01-2007, 02:31 PM
So where should I play pool? What if I want to join a league? Oh, I'm out of luck.

Wrong response. For all of you who answer "if you don't like the smoke, stay home" do you realize the implications? You're driving the sport of pool right into the ground and for what? So you can light up any time you want, wherever you want?

Smoke at home, not in the pool hall.

Mike

SKennedy
10-01-2007, 02:36 PM
You are assuming that all pool halls will allow smoking. I agree with you about the number of players and potential players who oppose smoking. So OK, someone open a pool hall and don;t allow smoking. Either way, I'll be there. I can put up with the smoke if I don't smoke and I can go outside every 1 to 2 hours if I have to to smoke. I know, cause I've done both and have only recently quit (7 months ago).

MikeM
10-01-2007, 02:52 PM
I only assume that because I live in Virginia which, I guarantee you will be the last state to have smoking bans (maybe North Carolina). If I want to play pool I HAVE to put up with the smoke and I think that's not fair - cry me a river! /ccboard/images/graemlins/mad.gif

Congrats and good luck on quitting. I know it's not easy. My wife quit almost twenty years ago and it was rough on both of us /ccboard/images/graemlins/crazy.gif.

Mike

wolfdancer
10-01-2007, 06:25 PM
thar weren't no place to run and hide from all this carcinogenic pollution, for the non smoker, people with respiratory ailments,the very young, the very old.....before these laws came into effect. Two of us went to City Hall, when this ordinance was first proposed....because we knew it would affect business at the pool hall where we worked.
Just so happened the first speaker was a retired Navy Thoracic Surgeon,and when he finished his horror stories, we left without speaking. The real irony was that we were both non smokers....
It didn't pass that time though...not until OSHA started the ball rolling again some 4 years later.

SKennedy
10-01-2007, 07:48 PM
I knew 2 Navy pulmonary docs who both smoked. Smoking is bad. The worst part for me was having something like nicotene control my actions.
Mime, you appear to be a dog person. Are you by chance a duck hunter with a retriever?

Wally_in_Cincy
10-02-2007, 07:04 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Rich R.:</font><hr> I believe your allowing your smoking addiction to cloud your thinking. <hr /></blockquote>

Not true.

I have never smoked in my house.

I am more than happy to step outside.

Smoking ban will never keep me from going to a pool hall.

and I have not been in Snookers in 2 or 3 years.

To ne honest I am not particularly fond of the (former) owners.

But, they built the first upscale pool hall in this area and it won Cincinnati Magazine's "Cool Place for a Date" award and it is just not fair to change the rules on them in the middle of the game.

I think I have said my peace on this, love it, hate it, call me fool, matters not to me.

Wally_in_Cincy
10-03-2007, 06:30 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Wally_in_Cincy:</font><hr> Co-owner Bill Nolan will be interviewed on radio station 700WLW sometime between 12:30 and 3:00 today. If you canít get the station you can listen online at http://www.700WLW.com

WLW is also on XM somewhere (maybe channel 163 or 165?)
<hr /></blockquote>

http://www.700wlw.com/cc-common/podcast/single_podcast.html?podcast=bill_cunningham.xml

If anyone wants to listen to the interview go to this link and scroll down ad look for


Bill Cunningham 9-28 Hour 2