PDA

View Full Version : bca mistake!



=k=
03-21-2003, 07:09 AM
imho i think bca is making a mistake backing smokeing in pool rooms. a giant step back for pool. k

Wally_in_Cincy
03-21-2003, 07:47 AM
how is the BCA backing smoking?

Troy
03-21-2003, 08:14 AM
According to a press release on AZBilliards, http://www.azbilliards.com/2000pressrelease.cfm?id=102 , the BCA is part of a challenge to LOCAL laws banning smoking in public places.

Apparently statewide laws are OK with the BCA, but local laws are not. Curious indeed.

California has been non-smoking for years. At first many businesses, mostly bars and pool rooms, complained about the loss of revenue.

Troy

Wally_in_Cincy
03-21-2003, 08:27 AM
Well, as a representative for the industry, including pool halls, they should oppose smoking bans. IMO

L.S. Dennis
03-21-2003, 09:03 AM
I agree the BCA is making a mistake on this. Here in California as Troy mentioned it has been a non smoking environment for several years now and it's wonderful! What a pleasure to go any public place incuding bars and pool rooms and be smoke free. This is clearly the trend of the future and I think the BCA should take heed!

SpiderMan
03-21-2003, 10:12 AM
My home room in my VNEA league closed recently, after passage of a restaurant smoking ban. Because they had too high a portion of income in food sales (vs alcohol), they were subject to the ban. We're currently homeless, floating in the void. Of course, I play in four weekly leagues so I'll find something to do.

SpiderMan

Fran Crimi
03-21-2003, 10:16 AM
I don't think this is about smoking. It's about the way in which the law is being enacted. There are several problems that appear to be unconstitutional in the way this is coming about.

First: It's inconsistent and prejudicial. Why haven't weapons like guns and knives been banned in pool rooms? Have you ever seen someone pull a gun or a knife in a pool room? I have and it isn't pretty. Just because they're out of sight and you don't ingest them, doesn't mean they aren't potentially lethal to anyone around.

Second: Many private business owners build their businesses on a particular client base. If a law is being enacted that changes that business' client base, particularly to the extent that it may put them out of business, then proper notice needs to be given. 90 Days is not proper notice for a business owner to deal with a such drastic change.

Third: There are fairer ways to enact the law that do not cause immediate damage to business owners. Off the top of my head, I can think of quite a few alternatives and I'm not even in government.

If I were going into business I'd want the security of knowing that the government isn't going to suddenly step in and make a drastic change without notice that could drive me into bankruptcy.

Fran

Steve Lipsky
03-21-2003, 10:23 AM
Fran, I agree. The thing that sickens me most about this NYC ban is the way Bloomberg enacted it.

I don't remember this being a part of his campaign at all. How can such Draconian measures not have been a part of his platform? When the constituents of NYC voted for mayor, they had no idea they were voting for or against this measure.

In that sense, it should not even be legal.

- Steve

Fran Crimi
03-21-2003, 10:46 AM
Steve,

Yep, I'm really disappointed in Bloomberg too. It seems as if he fell to special interest groups in a big way. He's supposed to be encouraging new business in NYC, especially after 9-11, and instead he's sending the message that no business is secure because the government is liable to step in and change the rules at any time.

BTW, Giuliani successfully fought against this for his entire term.

Fran

Leviathan
03-21-2003, 11:35 AM
I think you're right. The cultural environment is changing, and the BCA should be helping room owners find ways to adapt to and profit from the new conditions. Standing in front of the wave of the future and shouting "Stop!" isn't a promising business strategy.

Duke Mantee

Rod
03-21-2003, 12:27 PM
I agree Fran,
If you note Tempe was one of those cities listed. The owner of a large well run room in Tempe had to let it go back to the original owners. When smoking was banned he lost a lot of business. Even if there was a year or more notice, doesn't matter. The fact is Phoenix has not banned smoking nor has the county or state obviously. If smoking was banned state wide then it becomes fair to all, so to speak.

It reminds me of the brilliant minds in Tucson! lol IBM was far outside the southeast part of the city. Our dumb A$$ city fathers decided to annex that section. Why, well increase revenue from taxes. We needed every big corporation we could get. Tucson was all small business with people swapping dollars. IBM says, well ok were moving with 4500 employees. They left a small crew but it hurt the city big time. That's poor advertising for a city. What business would want to move there after hearing how IBM was treated? They lost a lot big business in and out the city after that bone head move.

The city fathers need to base their decisions on more than, It's a bad habit and they need to quit. It is a bad habit though.

What bugs me outside of guns knives etc, is the amount of traffic polution. I can think of several ways to ease the situation. But some people run out several times a day poluting the air, when they could plan one or two trips to take care of everything. I know a number of people that do such, jabber on there cell phone and the list goes on. Two of them have had accidents. One hurting a gal and her daughter while they were on the phone driving around poluting the air and cutting off people in traffic. I know I've been with some. Ok another day or forum, this isn't the place, I just need to vent a little.

Rod

Ralph S.
03-21-2003, 12:50 PM
I dont know much about NYC or its current day to day political situation, but from what I have read and seen in the news Guliani has done a far better job than what Bloomberg has done to date.

Wally_in_Cincy
03-21-2003, 12:58 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fran Crimi:</font><hr> I don't think this is about smoking. It's about the way in which the law is being enacted. There are several problems that appear to be unconstitutional in the way this is coming about.

First: It's inconsistent and prejudicial. Why haven't weapons like guns and knives been banned in pool rooms? Have you ever seen someone pull a gun or a knife in a pool room? I have and it isn't pretty. Just because they're out of sight and you don't ingest them, doesn't mean they aren't potentially lethal to anyone around.

Second: Many private business owners build their businesses on a particular client base. If a law is being enacted that changes that business' client base, particularly to the extent that it may put them out of business, then proper notice needs to be given. 90 Days is not proper notice for a business owner to deal with a such drastic change.

Third: There are fairer ways to enact the law that do not cause immediate damage to business owners. Off the top of my head, I can think of quite a few alternatives and I'm not even in government.

If I were going into business I'd want the security of knowing that the government isn't going to suddenly step in and make a drastic change without notice that could drive me into bankruptcy.

Fran <hr /></blockquote>

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote U.S. Constitution:</font><hr> Article V.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; <font color="red">nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. </font color> <hr /></blockquote>

The smoking ban could be interpreted, however loosely, as a violation of the takings clause.

If you recall when wetlands preservation laws were passed many landowners lost 90% of the value of their property with no compensation. I believe this was finally rectified about 5 years ago.

Imagine if a person built a grocery store and had a thriving business for 10 years. Suddenly the local gov't changes the zoning laws to residential only, thereby rendering the store valueless. I think the smoking ban can be viewed along those lines, altough not quite as devastating.

I guess Mayor Bloomberg doesn't realize waitresses and bartenders and bar owners have to feed their families too. I guess all that money gives him the right to tell people how to behave, thereby destroying someone else's livelihood.

Wally~~guess what one of my pet peeves is /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

Steve Lipsky
03-21-2003, 01:05 PM
Wally, the funniest part about all this "Health in the Workplace" nonsense is that - to a one - every bartender I know smokes about 3 packs of cigarettes a day.

- Steve

NBC-BOB
03-21-2003, 01:26 PM
I think a few of you have some very valid opinions.I wonder how many of you are nonsmokers? I for one am a nonsmoker and
chose to stop going to pool halls because I don't like the
smoke.So although I agree with many of you, I'm looking forward to the end of the month, when I will start going out and playing again.I suppose it would of been nice if some of the larger clubs,would of had real nonsmoking areas to start with. But thats life!

ChrisW
03-21-2003, 01:35 PM
Which brings up the questions:
How many people will stop playing pool in non-smoking pool halls?
How many people will start playing in non-smoking pool halls?

Granted the will be an adjustment period where business will suffer, but I bet that enough people will start playing (who did not before) and even smokers will return (once they realize that a lot of people are still playing pool)so that business will return to normal if not improve.

Chris ~~~~~ Will play no matter what!

#### leonard
03-21-2003, 01:47 PM
I can see it putting a big dent in the Funeral/Undertaking business. ####

L.S. Dennis
03-21-2003, 04:20 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote ChrisW:</font><hr> Which brings up the questions:
How many people will stop playing pool in non-smoking pool halls?
How many people will start playing in non-smoking pool halls?

Granted the will be an adjustment period where business will suffer, but I bet that enough people will start playing (who did not before) and even smokers will return (once they realize that a lot of people are still playing pool)so that business will return to normal if not improve.

Chris ~~~~~ Will play no matter what!
<hr /></blockquote>

The answer to your first question is that nobody will stop going to pool halls just because there's a no smoking allowed anymore. I can tell you what happens here in California, people simply step outside to lite up. No big deal, the people inside don't have to endure the cigarette smoke and the smokers get their fix. Problem solved no big deal.

Steve Lipsky
03-21-2003, 05:33 PM
LS, what do rooms in California do when people go outside to light up, and then never come back to pay their time bill?

I'm asking this seriously, because rooms in NY are concerned about this. Do they have to start taking IDs when you rent a table?

Thanks,
Steve

NH_Steve
03-21-2003, 06:42 PM
Nowhere in that article does the BCA even hint at what sort of tobacco money the BCA may be lobbying for, or have indeed accepted -- or affiliate members of the BCA! Rember the Camel tour??? With Winston leaving Nascar's 'Winston Cup', is the BCA angling for some of that big tobacco money? I'd like full disclosure here.

Two other points:

1) I also agree with others who have posted already, that the number (percentage) of pool players that smoke is probably exagerated. In virtually every demographic (except teenage girls /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif ), smoking has been on the steady decline for years. Why the hell would the BCA jump on a sinking ship???

2) Unfortunately, with the totally inadequate 'non-smoking' areas, and poorly maintained &amp; undersized air purifying equipment most pool rooms offer, all it takes is about a dozen smokers to fill a room with 75 players with a horrible pall of smoke /ccboard/images/graemlins/frown.gif . Iv'e seen it so bad that after my eyes started to burn I started to feel a little green, I actually went outside and watched my opponent shoot through the front window! This in a room that ostensibly had a non-smoking section -- of course it was no different than the regular section in terms of smoke /ccboard/images/graemlins/frown.gif If pool rooms actually took seriously the idea of air quality and non-smoking sections, they'd have a lot more credibility fighting this, IMO.

You know the smoke is bad when you leave a poolroom &amp; practically gag on the fresh air when you step outside /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Troy
03-21-2003, 07:14 PM
Steve... Two rooms wherw I've worked/managed over the past 5 years require some form of deposit from customers not known to the staff. One room is extremely tight about this almost to the point of being obnoxious. The room I'm at now is looser but smaller.

Troy
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Steve Lipsky:</font><hr> LS, what do rooms in California do when people go outside to light up, and then never come back to pay their time bill?

I'm asking this seriously, because rooms in NY are concerned about this. Do they have to start taking IDs when you rent a table?

Thanks,
Steve <hr /></blockquote>

Photoguy
03-21-2003, 07:16 PM
Fran,
Don't cloud the issue with bringing in Guns and Knives. First off, It's not inconsistant and prejedicial. We are talking about smoking which is a proven health risk to others. Also, if you are playing in a place where guns and knives are being drawn, you shouldn't be in that environment in the first place. I live in Oakland, CA where last year I think they had one of the highest murder rates per capita . . . There are many safe and smoke free places to play in that area. And btw, I have never been in a place where a weapon of any sort was drawn. If I don't feel comfortable walking into a place, I turn right around and go somewhere that I do feel safe.

Second, the smoking ban will not reduce the client base. That was proven in California. Everybody thought people would stop going to bars. In fact, it increased business. The smokers just take a quick break, go outside and destroy only their lungs. I, as a non smoker, can now frequent more places that were too unhealthy before - it HAS increased business. . . .

Third, you mention that you can think of alternatives and you aren't even in government . . . but you fail to mention any alternatives . . .

bluewolf
03-21-2003, 08:02 PM
Fran made good points. I dont get whay you are saying. They do not ask you to check your knives at the door. Regardless of what someone thinks of smoking, banning it hurts the pool business.

Laura

Photoguy
03-21-2003, 08:10 PM
Laura,
We can agree to disagree. Out here in California, the smoking ban HAS NOT hurt the pool business or any other business for that matter. . . It has helped it.

L.S. Dennis
03-21-2003, 08:49 PM
Actually photoguy is right, here in California the smoking ban has actually increased business in bars as strange as that may seem at first glance. Studies have born this out oddly enough. And if this is true for the bar scene, it obviously holds true for billiard parlors or pool rooms as well. As I said before just step outside and have a puff if you must and let everyone else breath some fresh air!

Drake
03-21-2003, 08:59 PM
I'm an ex smoker and I know the enjoyment of a good cigarette and a cup of coffee just as much as the next guy. BUT, I think the answer to this issue is not banning smoking in all pool rooms but making a law about how many smoke eaters per square feet a pool room must have.

Fran Crimi
03-21-2003, 09:53 PM
OK, I'll be polite, even though you weren't.

Do you think that all states are like California? There is a genuine concern out there for loss of business and IMO, in many locals it's justified. Spiderman mentioned a room that closed down due to the smoking ban. I know of one in New Jersey that opened as a non-smoking room several years ago and closed shortly after. Every locale is different.

An alternative? How about taking it to the voters? Let them choose from a variety of plans.

First, form a committee consisting of local gov't officials, affected business owners and private citizens and have them come up with options for the community to choose from.

Here are some possibile alternatives:

1.) Install enclosed smoking areas that meet specific environmental specs. Strictly enforced.

or-

2.) A 5-year plan to phase out smoking. Start with an interim deadline, say 18 mos, for existing businesses to install enclosed smoking sections. If they're not enclosed by the deadline, they either convert to non-smoking or they close down. After 5 years, everyone converts to non-smoking.

-or

3.) A proposed 3 or 4 year plan to phase out smoking.

4.) Combine any of the above with smoking only in 21 or older places.

I'm sure there are plenty of other options people in various communities can present to the voters.

As for prejudicial and other constitutional issues, the courts will ultimately decide.

Fran

Troy
03-21-2003, 10:14 PM
Fran, the smoking ban in ALL public places/businesses in CA was passed via referendum by an overwhelming majority. If I remember correctly, about 65%-35%. The law went into effect about 1 year later.

At first, bar &amp; pool room owners were convinced it would destroy businss. After about a year or two the ban actually proved to increase business.

I personally believe that the business owner, the person putting up the money, should be able to decide how the business will be operated. However, with smokers in the minority, about 25-30% at the most, I know the majority will ultimately rule.

Troy...~~~ And I'm a smoker
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fran Crimi:</font><hr>
An alternative? How about taking it to the voters?
Fran <hr /></blockquote>

Fran Crimi
03-21-2003, 10:45 PM
I know what you're saying, Troy, and I have a problem with business owners being forced into certain things as well. But it doesn't look like business owners will be able to make their own decisions regarding smoking. I think that's been made clear, unless the Supreme Court rules in their favor. The only hope they proabaly have is to have a say in the options presented to voters.

I doubt that California presented a 5-year plan to their voters. Lucky for them it worked out. But California is not Texas. Never will be.

Fran

L.S. Dennis
03-21-2003, 11:13 PM
Fran is correct when she says that California isn't Texas, but I think one could reasonably agree that California and New York are relatively similar in mentality and political leanings.

Troy is correct in that the law in California was passed by the people in state wide referendum, although I'm not sure of the actual percentage but it passed with a solid majority to be sure. Also if my memory serves me correctly, bars were allowed a certain time frame in phasing it in. I'm not sure it may have been a year or two after the measure was passed.

I'm not sure what the situation is in New York, but for this type of thing to work well it should really be a state wide law and not simply left up to the localities to enforce. Reality seems to dictate this.

Good luck with it out there!

Fran Crimi
03-22-2003, 12:35 AM
Well, we're not as similar to California as you would think. Our last two mayors were Republicans (although the last one is a fake) and our Governer is Republican. I think we do electricity better than they do and our gas prices are cheaper. Oh and we walk a lot. Haha!

Fran

Photoguy
03-22-2003, 12:42 AM
Fran,

Business owners are always told by local, state and Fed laws about how they can run their business. Hours of operations, alcohol regulations, food safety, fire codes, etc. What would a five year phase out plan do? Are you going to phase out your smoking over a five year plan. Since smokers aren't concerned about the health of others, the government is stepping in and trying to make it a healthier environment for everybody - including the smokers. If all of the pool rooms were smoke free, you are still going to have to go to some pool room to play - most people don't have their own table. BTW, why is it that at all WPBA events, there is no smoking in the arena area? As far as not being polite - not being polite is me having to deal with the smoke from others.

Steve Lipsky
03-22-2003, 12:42 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote L.S. Dennis:</font><hr> I think one could reasonably agree that California and New York are relatively similar in mentality and political leanings.<hr /></blockquote>

Well, as far as mentality and political leanings, probably. But as far as smoking, I don't think so. I do not have access to the numbers, but California probably has one of the lowest smoking rates in the nation. New York probably has twice as many smokers, percentage-wise.

I think the California law passed because the people wanted it. I think the NY law was passed to eventually get people to want it. In other words, the law in NY is like an arranged marriage, where we're expected to "grow" to like it.

- Steve

fast_eddie_B
03-22-2003, 06:05 AM
yeah, well us pennsylvanianer's happen to like our cloudy pool halls and most of the pool halls i go to could give a rat behind about what the bca says about smoking. Their job is the rules, not to say whether or not i can light up or not. Isn't there anything better ppl can talk about around here. lol. jk. love for everyone. we are all american right?
Would want to shock and awe ya's, lol

bluewolf
03-22-2003, 06:27 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Photoguy:</font><hr> Laura,
We can agree to disagree. Out here in California, the smoking ban HAS NOT hurt the pool business or any other business for that matter. . . It has helped it. <hr /></blockquote>

Well, California was always a little different /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

No slam intended. I almost took a job in a calif town near the sierra nevadas a couple of years ago /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Laura

bluewolf
03-22-2003, 06:44 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fran Crimi:</font><hr> OK, I'll be polite, even though you weren't.

Do you think that all states are like California? There is a genuine concern out there for loss of business and IMO, in many locals it's justified. Spiderman mentioned a room that closed down due to the smoking ban. I know of one in New Jersey that opened as a non-smoking room several years ago and closed shortly after. Every locale is different.

An alternative? How about taking it to the voters? Let them choose from a variety of plans.

1.) Install enclosed smoking areas that meet specific environmental specs. Strictly enforced.


Fran <hr /></blockquote>

Maryland really suchs. They are doing everything to get rid of smoking, but yet they do not pass laws to keep people from killing themselves from alcohol or drinking in public including poolhalls.

They tried to ban smoking in public places but, Their efforts to ban it from pool halls has failed for the moment. But most pool halls have a smoking side and a non smoking side. This is better than nothing but an irritation if a person is playing in a tournament in the 2/3 of the pool hall where smoking is disallowed.Most pool players stand at the divider and blow their smoke into the smoking side. /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

It is indeed a hot topic about where ones rights end and anothers begin but outlawing smoking does hurt business. I just dont think that is debatable. There are always exceptions but those exceptions should not dictate to all of the rest.

Thanks Fran.

Laura

Sid_Vicious
03-22-2003, 08:02 AM
"if you are playing in a place where guns and knives are being drawn, you shouldn't be in that environment in the first place."

Photoguy....Same thoughts here. I've never seen such weapons pulled at any of the PHs I go to, this reference from Fran sounds weak if even mentionable compared to the smoking thing. Go figure, I don't understand some people's reasoning at all...sid

L.S. Dennis
03-22-2003, 08:35 AM
This has been a great topic for people on which to vent a little. That's good it's a little out of the ordinary for this this forum (boarding on the politcal) but that's good too.

Being from California and a non smoker it's obvious were I stand on this but it's good to hear such lively debate on this.

I would like to point out that at the bi-annual Sands Regency Open that's been going on now for about 20 years or so now it has become a totally non smoking event in the tournament area mezzanine. And what's amazing is that this is in Reno Nevada! As a non smoker I remember dying a thousand deaths trying to watch a match in the jam packed stands and having someone lite up next to me. When the casino implemented the no smoking rules there was a lot of grumbling at first and Scott Smith had to continually advise people on the microphone that there was no smoking in the tournament area but over the years it has been accepted and the stands are no less packed now than they were during the smoking years. I guess the point I'm trying to make is that if Reno Nevada can do this in a casino, it can probably be done anywhere!

NH_Steve
03-22-2003, 08:58 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote bluewolf:</font><hr> Fran made good points. I dont get whay you are saying. They do not ask you to check your knives at the door. Regardless of what someone thinks of smoking, banning it hurts the pool business.

Laura <hr /></blockquote>Blue, you and Fran both totally overlook how poorly poolrooms have managed the smoking problem over the years! Those room owners who smoke seem to assume that everyone smokes (not at all true!), and have only taken ridiculously inadequate steps to create non-smoking areas or install woefully inadequate air handling equipment (then neglecting to maintain the equipment anyway /ccboard/images/graemlins/frown.gif ). If I had a nickel for everytime I've seen a smoker light up right under a 'No Smoking' sign in a poolroom -- it might cover my pool time /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif The pisser is that many of those butts are just sitting in an ashtray like incense, just burning happily away on their own, since the smokers who lit them only took a few puffs before ignoring them -- very inconsiderate, IMO. Many times I have stubbed them out myself, and not once has the smoker even noticed.

You can count me in the statistics of players who AVOID excessively smokey rooms like the plague...

NH_Steve
03-22-2003, 09:03 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote L.S. Dennis:</font><hr> This has been a great topic for people on which to vent a little. <hr /></blockquote>Hahaha -- no pun intended?

The Derby City Classic is also non-smoking during main tournament hours -- and certainly gets bigger and bigger every year? Maybe Fran and Bluewolf have stayed away 'cuz it's nonsmoking /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif ?

NH_Steve
03-22-2003, 09:05 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Drake:</font><hr> I'm an ex smoker and I know the enjoyment of a good cigarette and a cup of coffee just as much as the next guy. BUT, I think the answer to this issue is not banning smoking in all pool rooms but making a law about how many smoke eaters per square feet a pool room must have. <hr /></blockquote>They could also use those special ashtrays that suck the smoke down so it never wafts up into the breathing zone...

Fran Crimi
03-22-2003, 09:15 AM
Will you guyz quit it? My issue is a legal issue. I'm all for smoke-free environments. I'm against the concept of changes with no notice by the government.

With any foresight, five years ago they could have given notice and there would be smoke-free rooms across the country today, and both business owners and customers would have been prepared.

The government continues to waste taxpayers money fighting senseless court battles because of lack of foresight.

Now stop accusing me of wanting a smoke-filled environment.

Fran

Troy
03-22-2003, 09:18 AM
I wouldn't / don't stay away from anything 'cuz it's non-smoking. I just go outside. That to me is quite simple folks.

Troy
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote NH_Steve:</font><hr>
.....stayed away 'cuz it's nonsmoking /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif ? <hr /></blockquote>

Fran Crimi
03-22-2003, 09:20 AM
You have no right to assume what I overlook or not.

My end of this discussion is regarding legal issues. It has nothing to do with smoke.

Don't put words in my mouth.

Fran

Fran Crimi
03-22-2003, 12:27 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Steve Lipsky:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote L.S. Dennis:</font><hr> I think one could reasonably agree that California and New York are relatively similar in mentality and political leanings.<hr /></blockquote>


Well, as far as mentality and political leanings, probably. But as far as smoking, I don't think so. I do not have access to the numbers, but California probably has one of the lowest smoking rates in the nation. New York probably has twice as many smokers, percentage-wise.

I think the California law passed because the people wanted it. I think the NY law was passed to eventually get people to want it. In other words, the law in NY is like an arranged marriage, where we're expected to "grow" to like it.

- Steve <hr /></blockquote>

Right but there's even more at stake here which the pool room and bar owners will be arguing in court. It's about freedom of choice.

Take guns and knives for example (the point I made before that people missed. LOL): People have the right to carry them and when you walk into an establishment, you understand that some may be carrying them, unless otherwise stated at the door.

Laws enacted for health purposes involve people's right to a choice as well as to protect people from unhealthy situations that they have no control over, such as rodent droppings in your food that you couldn't possibly know were there, or tainted food you may ingest through no consent of yours, due to poor refrigeration. If you go into a restaurant, you have a right to expect that the food is safe to eat. Take the handicapped laws: Those laws give handicapped people the right to choose to enter or not enter an establishment, just like the rest of us have that right.

Smoking issues are tricky constitutionally because there is a big issue regarding freedom of choice. Tobacco companies were forced to pay out large sums of money to sick smokers because they did not properly inform them of the hazards at the time when they knew of the hazards. Thus it was determined that people were making a choice under misleading pretenses. That will not be the case in the future, since this information has now been brought to public attention.

So, pool room owners will argue their right to operate their business under their constitutional right to choose, without violating any other person's right to choose, since the public is informed of the hazards of smoke, and they can make a choice to enter or not to enter. Non smokers are angry because they don't have many options right now and because of that they feel they are forced to endure unhealthy smoke. However, constitutionally, they are not being forced to do anything, unless it is determined that their entry into that establishment is essential, such as with train stations, airport terminals, public restrooms, etc.

It continues to get more complicated when you consider the issue of workers in a smoke-filled environment. Workers have a right to get a job and make a living and the big question will be, are they being deprived of an opportunity to work because of this? This will be where the big battle takes place and probably is where the government may win out over the pool rooms, although there are legitimate arguments that could be offered on both sides.

Once the government wins, which I predict it will, then the subject of giving proper notice can be argued.

That's how I think it's going to play out. I also think that had the government given proper notice, it probably wouldn't have come to as many complicated law suits as it will.

Fran

SecaucusFats
03-22-2003, 04:38 PM
Apparently statewide laws are OK with the BCA, but local laws are not. Curious indeed.

California has been non-smoking for years. At first many businesses, mostly bars and pool rooms, complained about the loss of revenue.

Troy <hr /></blockquote>

The BCA is not taking a pro, or anti, smoking position, it is only trying to help the pool industry. A statewide smoking ban levels out the playing field for room owners. More than a few rooms have been forced out of business because of local (municipal) smoking bans. Why should a smoker stay loyal to one room, when he can go to a room in a nearby town that allows smoking?

I smoke and that's that. If smoking is banned altogether in my state then I would choose to stay out of public rooms and play at home or at a friend's home and wait until some enterprising businessperson opens a private 'members only' pool club. The losers would be the public room owners who would see a huge chunk of the pool playing public abandon their establishments in favor of the private clubs.

Fats

Troy
03-22-2003, 04:56 PM
C'mon Fats, simply go outside for a smoke as I do.

Since pool is basically a social endeavor, I seriously doubt any so called Private Club could ever generate enough revenue to stay in business. Like it or not, the Ball Bangers spending money at the spur of the moment are keeping Pool Rooms in business.

Troy
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote SecaucusFats:</font><hr>
.....choose to stay out of public rooms and play at home or at a friend's home and wait until some enterprisig businessperson opens a private 'members only' pool club. The losers would be the public room owners who would see a huge chunk of the pool playing public abandon their establishments in favor of the private clubs.

Fats <hr /></blockquote>

L.S. Dennis
03-22-2003, 05:00 PM
Private rooms or clubs in concept may seem like the answer for smokers should a smoking ban go into effect but cold hard reality dictates otherwise. Once again using California as the model, to the best of my knowledge there hasn't been a single 'private billiard club' that has opened as a result of the smoking ban in this state.

The reality is that the smokers will continue to go to the their old pool rooms and albeit grudgingly simply step outside for a smoke. And after some perfunctory pissing and moaning about having to do that they will eventually accept it just as they have in California. No big deal!

Hopster
03-22-2003, 05:10 PM
Im a smoker and if by some act i couldnt smoke in pool halls here in Nevada anymore i would simply step outside, have my smoke and come back in, period. It actually might be better for me as i smoke more when im playing.
But trust New York and California to rile everyone up though. They dont want you to have weapons and wont lock criminals up or use the death penalty to deter crime but god forbid you light a smoke up. lol
Communist reigmes in action.

Troy
03-22-2003, 05:57 PM
The twice-annual Sands Open in Reno, NV has been non-smoking for a couple years.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Hopster:</font><hr> Im a smoker and if by some act i couldnt smoke in pool halls here in Nevada anymore i would simply step outside, have my smoke and come back in, period. It actually might be better for me as i smoke more when im playing.
But trust New York and California to rile everyone up though. They dont want you to have weapons and wont lock criminals up or use the death penalty to deter crime but god forbid you light a smoke up. lol
Communist reigmes in action. <hr /></blockquote>

NH_Steve
03-22-2003, 10:25 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fran Crimi:</font><hr> You have no right to assume what I overlook or not.

My end of this discussion is regarding legal issues. It has nothing to do with smoke.

Don't put words in my mouth.

Fran

<hr /></blockquote>Words in your mouth???
Is this better? Your argument overlooks the pisspoor job poolrooms have done with the opportunity to do something on their own about the smoke problem. Fran, you're on the wrong side of this issue -- nothing personal, but it is pretty hard not to sound feeble trying to defend a minority's right to pollute public bars and poolrooms with smoke, IMO. Private clubs, wel,l you might have something there...

I just got home from a tournament that got progressively smokey as the evening crowd rolled in, and more and more sweaters and players ignored the 'non-smoking' signs -- what a joke. Well, at least I won /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif , but man I could hardly get out of there fast enough. 'Good for business', my arse...

Ken
03-23-2003, 08:25 AM
Fran, I guess I must be one who missed your point about guns and knives. Let me see now. Most states have a right to carry law and the bringing of guns and knives into a poolroom is just as legal as bringing tobacco products in. The showing or use of those concealed weapons is illegal. Are you suggesting that people not be permitted to show their tobacco products in public?

I guess that is what you suggest since it is now perfectly legal to bring all the tobacco products you want into a poolroom. We have plenty of laws about using guns and knives so I must conclude you think smoking should be prohibited just as shooting, stabbing and threatening are now prohibited.

Or am I still missing some point? Which poolroom was it where it was legal to draw a gun?

I certainly agree that local towns and cities should not legislate something that gives neighboring locations an economic advantage. Anti-smoking legislation should be left to the state. Such legislation by a single entity that derives its power from the state might well be unconstitutional since it injures the well being of business owners. The rights of towns to legislate is limited compared to the states to which the towns owe their existance.
KenCT

Sid_Vicious
03-23-2003, 09:19 AM
"Or am I still missing some point? Which poolroom was it where it was legal to draw a gun?"

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Yea which pool rooms Fran? "That dog ain't gonna hunt!" I'd punt on the guns and knives if I were you, and find some other more relative issues, like say all those long pointy sticks supplied at the PH. I've seen 'em in 95% of all the fights I've witnessed...sid

NBC-BOB
03-23-2003, 09:48 AM
I was in the Chicago area on a business trip and found a room that had real nice Meucci cues as house cues. If they didn't know you, they held your drivers license.I guess they could do that for table time also.

L.S. Dennis
03-23-2003, 10:59 AM
Meucci cues as house cues, now that's a billiard room with class!!!

Fran Crimi
03-23-2003, 01:21 PM
Ken, not really answering your question directly here, but studying matters of law is a hobby of mine. I used to spend a lot of time in courtrooms as a forensic accountant and I became fascinated with the whole process of law. In hindsight, I probably would have enjoyed a career in law.

When I come across a topic that interests me, such as something that affects our industry, I start to do research. I try to understand the logic and direction of the law surrounding the issues in question. I look up stuff, I ask experts, anything that will bring me closer to understanding the issue.

So, that's what I did here. I won't kid you. This smoking issue is complicated stuff and if you picture a river with about a thousand tributaries, it may give you an idea of how much is involved.

I'm an amateur at this and probably the worst person to try to explain it, so if you or anyone else is really interested in getting to the meat of the issue, then maybe you could do a little research on your own and draw your own conclusions.

Fran

03-23-2003, 03:54 PM
I generally hate to see any legislation of morality issues (Prohibition worked real well). Obesity is becoming a bigger health problem in the U.S. than smoking, but I'm sure we won't see any bans on eating a Big Mac in public anytime soon! That being said, the smoking environment has kept me out of pool halls on a regular basis for over 5 years now, and I used to play hours daily. The pool halls around here have so much smoke in them that if they went smoke free for a year, you could still play 1 hour and walk out smelling like your full time job is Product Tester for RJ Reynolds. I used to get sinus infections all the time, which coincidentally began happening much more rarely after I started staying out of the pool halls. I am fortunate enough to now have a table at home, which I enjoy very much, but it's not the same as the competition at the pool hall and in tournaments. So, I guess I'm on both sides of this fence. My political side would rather we not legislate this type of stuff, but my personal side would love to play in a cleaner, healthier atmosphere. Who knows? Maybe there will be more like me that will return to the pool halls, or begin playing regularly because pool loses the "dark, smoky" image. And anything to improve pool's image is sorely needed.

Deniel
03-23-2003, 08:44 PM
"I smoke and that's that. If smoking is banned altogether in my state then I would choose to stay out of public rooms and play at home or at a friend's home and wait until some enterprising businessperson opens a private 'members only' pool club."

LOL ^__^ this is exactly the opposite of what I'm looking for.

I dream of playing in a non smoking pool room /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif(without traveling all the way accross the earth to california /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif)

Fran Crimi
03-24-2003, 07:21 AM
Banker, I think you summed it up very well. There are arguments for violations of basic human rights on both ends of this.

I personally know at least 3 people who frequent the CCB who have the background and knowledge to share their take on the law here, but the truth is that they aren't interested in sharing anything with the rest of the CCB'ers. They don't have a very high opinion of the people who post here and they don't have any interest in extending themselves.

Fran

eg8r
03-24-2003, 07:42 AM
[ QUOTE ]
(Prohibition worked real well). Obesity is becoming a bigger health problem in the U.S. than smoking, but I'm sure we won't see any bans on eating a Big Mac in public anytime soon! <hr /></blockquote> I don't know if you were kidding when you typed this, but, obesity does not harm those around you. You can eat a big Mac in the full comfort knowing that you are not blowing cancer into the air.

Now off of that crap. I love the idea of smoke free pool rooms and smoke free restaurants, but I love freedom of speech much more. I hate this smoking ban, and I am not even a smoker. As a customer, I will decide when I enter an establishment if the smoke is going to be too much. If I cannot handle the smoke I leave.

Government is not a social worker and I wish it would quit trying to be one. There are much more pressing issues at hand concerning budget, education, etc than spending money on enforcing a smoking ban.

eg8r

Wally_in_Cincy
03-24-2003, 08:20 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote NH_Steve:</font><hr>

Blue, you and Fran both totally overlook how poorly poolrooms have managed the smoking problem over the years! Those room owners who smoke seem to assume that everyone smokes (not at all true!), and have only taken ridiculously inadequate steps to create non-smoking areas or install woefully inadequate air handling equipment (then neglecting to maintain the equipment anyway /ccboard/images/graemlins/frown.gif ). ......<hr /></blockquote>

I think this is an excellent point which I have made in the past also. It's not that hard to deal with the smoke with proper equipment. A bit expensive sure, but better than having the government step in with a solution involving a new law. Heck, you can install a big exhaust fan if nothing else.

Wally~~gonna go burn one now

Dang, nothing like a smoking thread to get folks <font color="red"> fired </font color> up, so to speak... /ccboard/images/graemlins/shocked.gif

SpiderMan
03-24-2003, 10:12 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Ken:</font><hr> Fran, I guess I must be one who missed your point about guns and knives. Let me see now. Most states have a right to carry law and the bringing of guns and knives into a poolroom is just as legal as bringing tobacco products in. The showing or use of those concealed weapons is illegal. Are you suggesting that people not be permitted to show their tobacco products in public?

I guess that is what you suggest since it is now perfectly legal to bring all the tobacco products you want into a poolroom. We have plenty of laws about using guns and knives so I must conclude you think smoking should be prohibited just as shooting, stabbing and threatening are now prohibited.

Or am I still missing some point? Which poolroom was it where it was legal to draw a gun?
KenCT <hr /></blockquote>

Ken,

I sense your answer was a little tongue-in-cheek, however I agree with your assessment. To clarify, yes, in Texas and many other enlightened states it is legal under the correct circumstances for a person to go armed about their daily business, whether or not it includes visiting pool rooms. New York, however, is not generally considered very enlightened in this regard - it would be very difficult or impossible for the average citizen to become a legal firearm carrier in a New York City bar.

The point Fran missed or omitted was that the legal carrying of weapons is intended as a deterrent to the illegal acts of robbery and murder; ie it's to make the environment safer. I'm also for the legal carrying of cigarettes, as long as the perpetrators don't cross over into acts of poisoning the breathing room we share.

I don't favor government mandates in privately-owned businesses, but since we've accepted and condoned many (cleanliness, handicap access, etc) burdensome restrictions on enterprise there's no good excuse for saying government has no right to regulate smoking.

SpiderMan

heater451
03-24-2003, 02:08 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote SpiderMan:</font><hr> . . .the legal carrying of weapons is intended as a deterrent to the illegal acts of robbery and murder; ie it's to make the environment safer. <hr /></blockquote> <font color="blue">An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life. ---Robert A. Heinlein</font color>
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote SpiderMan:</font><hr> I don't favor government mandates in privately-owned businesses, but since we've accepted and condoned many (cleanliness, handicap access, etc) burdensome restrictions on enterprise there's no good excuse for saying government has no right to regulate smoking.<hr /></blockquote>I would argue that the mandates of OSHA/FDA/ADA relate more to 'standards of health' (specifically, biologically) and equality. And, while I think that they are "close enough", for the government to use as grounds, I find that I am still upon the side that favors choice for the owners/operators--with employees signing waivers.

Now, here's a one for the crowd (WARNING! Tangent approaching.):

I have the choice, whether or not to patronize a (health threatening, smoke-filled pool hall, making the decision to safeguard myself from harm. Now, when I drive to the pool hall, any huge "SUV"-wielding soccer-mom, or self-important moron with a cellphone can take my life in their hands. Why isn't there special licensing required for when you can't see over the steering wheel, or why is driving considered a privilege, but talking on the phone while driving is a right?


====================

03-24-2003, 10:10 PM
eg8r, I totally agree with you, even though you're from Texas! lol! And yes, I was kidding about the prohibition thing, and I agree that obesity doesn't injure others, but it is a pertinent analogy because this is a health issue, one that I feel is blown out of proportion. The health risk associated with smoking is well known, but the connection between second hand smoke and serious disease is loose at best. Again, I'm not a smoker, and I personally hate the smoky atmosphere in the pool halls I once (and occasionally still do) frequent, but I'd just prefer the government stay out of it for now.

03-24-2003, 10:17 PM
Fran, thanks for the support. I don't personally know anyone on this board, but I think anyone who would not think the membership here is worthy of their input would be mistaken. Since I have been visiting here, I have found most of the posters to offer intelligent and pertinent input to the discussions. And if your reference to people here "who have the background and knowledge ...on the law" are attorneys, I'm not sure we need the input. No slam against attorneys. I have friends and many clients who are attorneys, but this is more a political issue than legal. I'll keep all my derogatory attorney jokes to myself (for now)!

L.S. Dennis
03-24-2003, 10:22 PM
Well if it's any consoltation they're about to make talking on cell phones while driving (unless it's a hands free type) also illegal in California. And I have to say that I am in favor of that too!

The cigarette thing needs to be a state wide thing for it to work as has already been stated. Simply put it to a state wide referemdum and that will settle it. If people think government shouldn't be involved in legistating this thing they'll vote agaisnt it plain and simple. This thing is not that hard to figure out!

heater451
03-24-2003, 10:47 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote L.S. Dennis:</font><hr> . . .Simply put it to a state wide referemdum and that will settle it. If people think government shouldn't be involved in legistating this thing they'll vote agaisnt it plain and simple. This thing is not that hard to figure out! <hr /></blockquote>Ah, but I think the "majority", which tends towards the non-smoking nowadays (local exceptions allowed), will vote for non-smoking venues over owners-rights--thus, leaving the gov't in it.

I see this as selfishness of the patrons--if they want to "vote" against smoking in an establishment, then they should do it with their $, and not by government proxy. (JMO)


==========================