I was gonna say earplugs! Now somebody say gas masks, ok.
Noise is tha closest analogy to smoke anyone has come up with so far, but as Eva states, much easier to deal with. In fact, many employees do use earplugs. Many band members use 'em.
BTW; I am not anti-cigarette. I just don’t think it’s the non-smokers job to avoid smoke.
I guess that means that I think smoking bans in bars, etc are a good thing. Especially when you consider that all the smoker need do is
step outside.
Another flaw with the noise analogy: yes, unnecessary hearing damage is bad, but potential swift death (due to an uncontrolled asthma attack), or even slow death (due to lung cancer or emphysema), is much worse.
**Why couldn’t one person’s post be indicative of an entire movement? What exactly is your point? I meant just what I said and nothing more. Stop squirming about pathetically in an attempt to avoid the fact that your point was specious.
**No, congratulations to you, genius, for so helpfully pointing out that a hypothetical was, um–what’s the word?–hypothetical. That is a gotcha that will go down in the annals of the SDMB for its suprising cleverness.
**Jesus, you really aren’t very good at this, are you? No, an attacking question directed at a particular person, especially when that question assigns obviously absurd motives, is a question that unequivocally invites a response. At least on the planet where the rest of us live. YMMV.
You have yet to acknowledge the absolute ridiculousness of suggesting I wanted to assume a common (and counter opinion) for every non-smoker, when I am a member of that very group. In case you’re taking notes, this would be an example of how you’re not terribly good at this. When I pointed this out to you, you reverted to something I suppose I am to infer as, “this is a rhetorical question, so any non sequiturs are merely illusions.” What a clever, clever technique! I’ll have to remember that one. “Pay no attention to the idiotic nature of my post. It was rhetorical.”
**My God, you are terrible at this! You said this:
**Stating subsequently that this is a “rhetorical” question does not change the fact that you are attacking me as having dishonest debating techniques and (in the same breath) that I want to assume I myself have an opinion you know I disagree with. I realize that was not what you intended to imply. I am just pointing out how colossally stupid this statement was. So, your feigned derision of my debating skills is a real laugher, given your profound deficiencies in this regard. Keep weaseling, bub.
Wow, I’ll try to live with this horrible shame. What a laugh! See ya around, genius.
You two, blowero and Bob Cos, are so engrossed in argueing each other’s debating skills that Eva Luna and I can pretty much say anything we want about the OP and get away with it.
:smack:
I never suggested anything of the sort. You made an implication about “the movement”, not about every single non-smoker.
You totally lost me. I called you on your unfounded characterization of what the “smoking movement” is about. That’s what I said, and that’s what I meant. I stated it as a rhetorical question, a common English construct. You weren’t supposed to infer anything, except what I said. It’s my opinion; if you disagree, fine. I can’t even understand what you’re talking about now. Why are you making this so difficult?
And the rest of your post is just pointless ranting. Maybe you need your nicotene fix.
And your nicotine fix, too.
**You never did, eh? Then can you explain the proper interpretation of your words, the post under discussion above (emphasis added)?:
**Christ, you can’t even weasel effectively. It’s a bitch debating in a forum where your words are there for everyone to see, ain’t it? Never did anything of the sort, okee-dokee…
**That’s not a terrible shock. Reading comprehension doesn’t appear to be a strong suit for you given your interpretation of what your own words, “every non-smoker,” mean. Apparently in your lexicon, this means something other than “every non-smoker.”
Honestly, this is tough to follow from a guy who states, “That’s what I said, and that’s what I meant.” Shall I consider what you said or what you meant to be the conclusive sentiment? Just let me know. In the future perhaps you can provide footnotes.
That’s a knee-slapper. And by that I mean the fact that you can’t seem to grasp that I don’t smoke, despite my having pointed it out multiple times. Other than that, ouch!, what a zinger. :rolleyes:
My apologies. I guess I did say “every non-smoker”. Consider it retracted. If it makes you happy, I will gladly concede that, although you made a generalization about those who are in favor of smoke-free bars and restaurants, you did not explicitly state that it was true of every non-smoker. Can we unbunch those panties now?
Please continue. So far I am in agreement with both of you. And you’re right - Bob’s anal-ness is sucking me in. No more semantics - on with the real issues…
What an elegant retraction and apology! An ongoing exchange that began with your unfounded statement, an exchange that continued with your active participation as you denied you said what you said, an exchange where you continued to fling non sequiturs and invective in an attempt to obscure the absurdity of your position, one in which you continued with willful ignorance to assert that your broad inference is the only reasonable interpretation, is the result of my “anal-ness.” Yes, someone’s panties are indeed in a bunch. You are truly the big person I thought you were.
I did read it again, but apparently you missed this part:
If nonsmoking bars get cheaper liquor licenses than smoking bars, it’s petty semantics to argue that smoking bars don’t have an extra cost. If the license fee for smoking bars is raised from its present level, well, there’s no arguing that it’s not an extra cost.
Why does it matter whether the price for nonsmoking bars goes down, or the price for smoking bars goes up? The result is that smoking bars are more expensive than nonsmoking bars, which is an incentive for people to operate and patronize nonsmoking bars.
No, not semantics.
But I’d open a non-smoking bar and keep my prices the same as the smoking bar and make out like a bandit. 
Do people price-shop taverns?
… until someone else opens a non-smoking bar next door that charges half as much as yours. And that’s exactly what will happen when he notices he can charge half as much as you, and still make a profit.
Unless your town is under the iron thumb of the tavern cartel, the public will quickly come to expect lower prices from non-smoking bars.
So you believe that people do price-shop taverns? I’m not convinced. Now if I were to double my prices (above normal), somebody probably would notice.
Anyway, any town would quickly restore license fees to their original level to recover their losses. Cheaper, and smarter, to just ban smoking.
I don’t like to be pushed into something either, but there is simply nothing bad about this law.
A suggestion, to those who believe the “employee protection” schtick:
Who goes to bartending school expecting to find a job a year later in a non-smoking environment…?
Why would this one business be an exception to the laws of economics?
They just banned smoking in restaurants here in Florida beginning July 1. I can’t wait!!
The only thing I don’t like about the banning is the people crowd around the doors to smoke. Well I have to pass thru them and I don’t like smoke being blown on me. It gets in your hair and clothes and makes you get a headache.
Yeah, but it’s infinitely better than being trapped inside the building with it. Not sure why they have to stand right by the doorway, but what are you gonna do? I just hold my breath 'til I get past them - no biggie.
Back when I did go to bars, I patronized one almost exclusively. They had local bands, nice customers and friendly staff. And a softball team. I enjoyed my evenings there, and never compared prices. Why should I?
Do other people actually price shop taverns?
Now? Around here, a lot of people. With BIG smiles.