Holy crap i just lit up a smoke at a bar

[Pop23]

I've provided links to the impact on business and many of them closing. You're being intentionally obtuse.

Many people that drink also smoke. In fact, when they drink they smoke more. It impacts how long that individual stays, if they come at all, and therefore, how much money is dropped. Why do we have DJs that play music at a faster tempo? Because people have a tendency to drink more.

Further, if you are a neighborhood bar or a mom and pop bar in a working class neighborhood you were absolutely impacted. Many of these people work outdoors or work for say the steel mills. The vast majority of those folks smoke. Work hard/play hard.

If there was such a demand for a non smoking bar then they would have opened them, eh? They didn't.

You provided links to cherrypicking. You still can't answer how anybody would be forced out of a place because not enough people are smoking. And you're trying to dance around the equation of smoking with drinking as if they're inseparable. They're not. They're not even related.

But to return to the central question -- take two people, one smoking, one not: which one is impacting the other whether the other wants it or not? There ain't no way around that.

Denial is part and parcel of the smoking experience. When you take a noxious weed, have poor government-subsidized subsistence farmers grow it, have huge multinational megacorporations buy it at levels that keep them confined to sharecropping, wrap it in wood pulp that's been treated with chlorine to make it so "only pure white touches your lips", and then use emotional hooks to sell to the gullible the only product that, when used as intended kills you, so they can pick those chlorine insecticided weed sticks out one by one, set that thing on fire and intentionally inhale the smoke into their lungs and keep it there ------- that's a demonstration of how far human self-delusion can sink.

Smokers sulked when they could no longer breathe filth in their favorite establishments. But they got used to getting kicked outdoors at work, in public spaces even at home

They came back to restaurants and bars

I suspect a deep part of it is psychological insecurity --- if you're gonna commit a heinous, intrusive, self-destructive act, you'd rather have other co-conspirators in the room doing it too so you can tell each other it's a reasonable thing to do. So you create echobubble cells.

A singularly selfish act it is.

If I were you, I'd stay out of private businesses that would allow such a thing, or start your own business and restrict it.

So easy.

Guess what I'm doing right now.

---- not smoking.

Are you 'offended'?

Not at all. Problem?

 

[rightwinger]

You seem to have missed my question. Like, all of them.

Or are you actually saying that yes, drinking and smoking are the same thing, and anyone who drinks also smokes?
Because I don't get the connection.

Did it impact businesses financially? I'm sure it did, since more people could now go where they couldn't before. That means a bigger customer base. No one was driven out of them because "I can't go in there, there's too much non-smoke in the room".

I've provided links to the impact on business and many of them closing. You're being intentionally obtuse.

Many people that drink also smoke. In fact, when they drink they smoke more. It impacts how long that individual stays, if they come at all, and therefore, how much money is dropped. Why do we have DJs that play music at a faster tempo? Because people have a tendency to drink more.

Further, if you are a neighborhood bar or a mom and pop bar in a working class neighborhood you were absolutely impacted. Many of these people work outdoors or work for say the steel mills. The vast majority of those folks smoke. Work hard/play hard.

If there was such a demand for a non smoking bar then they would have opened them, eh? They didn't.

You provided links to cherrypicking. You still can't answer how anybody would be forced out of a place because not enough people are smoking. And you're trying to dance around the equation of smoking with drinking as if they're inseparable. They're not. They're not even related.

But to return to the central question -- take two people, one smoking, one not: which one is impacting the other whether the other wants it or not? There ain't no way around that.

Denial is part and parcel of the smoking experience. When you take a noxious weed, have poor government-subsidized subsistence farmers grow it, have huge multinational megacorporations buy it at levels that keep them confined to sharecropping, wrap it in wood pulp that's been treated with chlorine to make it so "only pure white touches your lips", and then use emotional hooks to sell to the gullible the only product that, when used as intended kills you, so they can pick those chlorine insecticided weed sticks out one by one, set that thing on fire and intentionally inhale the smoke into their lungs and keep it there ------- that's a demonstration of how far human self-delusion can sink.

Smokers sulked when they could no longer breathe filth in their favorite establishments. But they got used to getting kicked outdoors at work, in public spaces even at home

They came back to restaurants and bars

I suspect a deep part of it is psychological insecurity --- if you're gonna commit a heinous, intrusive, self-destructive act, you'd rather have other co-conspirators in the room doing it too so you can tell each other it's a reasonable thing to do. So you create echobubble cells.

A singularly selfish act it is.

If I were you, I'd stay out of private businesses that would allow such a thing, or start your own business and restrict it.

So easy.

The owner of a business is free to allow smoking in his own home

Once he opens a business, that business is subject to the rules of the community

 

[Pogo]

You provided links to cherrypicking. You still can't answer how anybody would be forced out of a place because not enough people are smoking. And you're trying to dance around the equation of smoking with drinking as if they're inseparable. They're not. They're not even related.

But to return to the central question -- take two people, one smoking, one not: which one is impacting the other whether the other wants it or not? There ain't no way around that.

Denial is part and parcel of the smoking experience. When you take a noxious weed, have poor government-subsidized subsistence farmers grow it, have huge multinational megacorporations buy it at levels that keep them confined to sharecropping, wrap it in wood pulp that's been treated with chlorine to make it so "only pure white touches your lips", and then use emotional hooks to sell to the gullible the only product that, when used as intended kills you, so they can pick those chlorine insecticided weed sticks out one by one, set that thing on fire and intentionally inhale the smoke into their lungs and keep it there ------- that's a demonstration of how far human self-delusion can sink.

Smokers sulked when they could no longer breathe filth in their favorite establishments. But they got used to getting kicked outdoors at work, in public spaces even at home

They came back to restaurants and bars

I suspect a deep part of it is psychological insecurity --- if you're gonna commit a heinous, intrusive, self-destructive act, you'd rather have other co-conspirators in the room doing it too so you can tell each other it's a reasonable thing to do. So you create echobubble cells.

A singularly selfish act it is.

If I were you, I'd stay out of private businesses that would allow such a thing, or start your own business and restrict it.

So easy.

Guess what I'm doing right now.

---- not smoking.

Are you 'offended'?

Not at all. Problem?

Correct. Because it has no effect on you.
Now do the math.

 

[Darkwind]

Again. I reiterate. You were never excluded. They are bars. You knew what they were walking in. Let me help you out:

Yes or no: Did it impact businesses financially?
Did many close?
Did it impact people who worked in those establishments financially?

Pretty simple.

Smoking bans have been in place for over a decade. Bars and restaurants have survived and people are still eating and drinking.

Only difference is smokers are sulking outdoors

16 states differ and it looks like one of yours may be changing. Try as you might, this was not a well thought out move. Especially considering you have bar owners that were not complying to keep their customers happy. They just ran over to Indiana where they can.

Public smoking is doomed. Smoking itself will be obsolete in a decade or two as vaping takes hold with younger smokers

Yes, but the nazi smoking police wants to ban vaping too!!!!

When I stopped smoking I started vaping

There is no way to make those people happy. Danm if you do, damn if you don't

What a life!

Look at this way. Other people are trying to save your life. That is if you care about your life.

No they are not. What gives you or anyone the right to make choices for others?

 

[rightwinger]

Smoking bans have been in place for over a decade. Bars and restaurants have survived and people are still eating and drinking.

Only difference is smokers are sulking outdoors

16 states differ and it looks like one of yours may be changing. Try as you might, this was not a well thought out move. Especially considering you have bar owners that were not complying to keep their customers happy. They just ran over to Indiana where they can.

Public smoking is doomed. Smoking itself will be obsolete in a decade or two as vaping takes hold with younger smokers

Yes, but the nazi smoking police wants to ban vaping too!!!!

When I stopped smoking I started vaping

There is no way to make those people happy. Danm if you do, damn if you don't

What a life!

Look at this way. Other people are trying to save your life. That is if you care about your life.

No they are not. What gives you or anyone the right to make choices for others?

It is the smoker making a choice for everyone in the room

That is why they kicked them the hell out

 

[Disir]

There was a big drop. Big. You guys can sit on the sidelines and pat yourselves on the back like you done good but the reality is that it was a big hit. Big. The tax revenue that was lost had an impact. The employees took a hit and were impacted. The business owners took a hit and some of them folded.

Questions?

Me next!

Gonna answer post 129? Specifically, as regards, to wit:

And what I'm saying is, yeah everybody knew what it was before, and many were excluded.

Well ---- now they're not excluded.
Seems to me opening up an entire new population of customers would be good for business -- not bad.

Here are some study questions to help navigate --

Yes or no: is smoking the same activity as drinking?
Yes or no: Do people only go to a bar in order to smoke? Does everyone who drinks --- smoke?
Yes or no: Is any smoker driven out of the room because some asshat walked in and started not-smoking?

Again. I reiterate. You were never excluded. They are bars. You knew what they were walking in. Let me help you out:

Yes or no: Did it impact businesses financially?
Did many close?
Did it impact people who worked in those establishments financially?

Pretty simple.

You seem to have missed my question. Like, all of them.

Or are you actually saying that yes, drinking and smoking are the same thing, and anyone who drinks also smokes?
Because I don't get the connection.

Did it impact businesses financially? I'm sure it did, since more people could now go where they couldn't before. That means a bigger customer base. No one was driven out of them because "I can't go in there, there's too much non-smoke in the room".

I've provided links to the impact on business and many of them closing. You're being intentionally obtuse.

Many people that drink also smoke. In fact, when they drink they smoke more. It impacts how long that individual stays, if they come at all, and therefore, how much money is dropped. Why do we have DJs that play music at a faster tempo? Because people have a tendency to drink more.

Further, if you are a neighborhood bar or a mom and pop bar in a working class neighborhood you were absolutely impacted. Many of these people work outdoors or work for say the steel mills. The vast majority of those folks smoke. Work hard/play hard.

If there was such a demand for a non smoking bar then they would have opened them, eh? They didn't.

You provided links to cherrypicking. You still can't answer how anybody would be forced out of a place because not enough people are smoking. And you're trying to dance around the equation of smoking with drinking as if they're inseparable. They're not. They're not even related.

But to return to the central question -- take two people, one smoking, one not: which one is impacting the other whether the other wants it or not? There ain't no way around that.

Denial is part and parcel of the smoking experience. When you take a noxious weed, have poor government-subsidized subsistence farmers grow it, have huge multinational megacorporations buy it at levels that keep them confined to sharecropping, wrap it in wood pulp that's been treated with chlorine to make it so "only pure white touches your lips", and then use emotional hooks to sell to the gullible the only product that, when used as intended kills you, so they can pick those chlorine insecticided weed sticks out one by one, set that thing on fire and intentionally inhale the smoke into their lungs and keep it there ------- that's a demonstration of how far human self-delusion can sink.

They weren't cherry picked. You just don't like them because they stand in the way of your moral crusade. Which is a lovely, if you weren't dealing with a bar.


Look, guy, it's pretty simple. If your clientele is comprised of smokers they are inseparable. You don't have to like it but that is exactly what it is. Once again it dictates how long they stay, if they come in at all and, therefore, how much cash is dropped.

 

[rightwinger]

Me next!

Gonna answer post 129? Specifically, as regards, to wit:

Here are some study questions to help navigate --

Yes or no: is smoking the same activity as drinking?
Yes or no: Do people only go to a bar in order to smoke? Does everyone who drinks --- smoke?
Yes or no: Is any smoker driven out of the room because some asshat walked in and started not-smoking?

Again. I reiterate. You were never excluded. They are bars. You knew what they were walking in. Let me help you out:

Yes or no: Did it impact businesses financially?
Did many close?
Did it impact people who worked in those establishments financially?

Pretty simple.

You seem to have missed my question. Like, all of them.

Or are you actually saying that yes, drinking and smoking are the same thing, and anyone who drinks also smokes?
Because I don't get the connection.

Did it impact businesses financially? I'm sure it did, since more people could now go where they couldn't before. That means a bigger customer base. No one was driven out of them because "I can't go in there, there's too much non-smoke in the room".

I've provided links to the impact on business and many of them closing. You're being intentionally obtuse.

Many people that drink also smoke. In fact, when they drink they smoke more. It impacts how long that individual stays, if they come at all, and therefore, how much money is dropped. Why do we have DJs that play music at a faster tempo? Because people have a tendency to drink more.

Further, if you are a neighborhood bar or a mom and pop bar in a working class neighborhood you were absolutely impacted. Many of these people work outdoors or work for say the steel mills. The vast majority of those folks smoke. Work hard/play hard.

If there was such a demand for a non smoking bar then they would have opened them, eh? They didn't.

You provided links to cherrypicking. You still can't answer how anybody would be forced out of a place because not enough people are smoking. And you're trying to dance around the equation of smoking with drinking as if they're inseparable. They're not. They're not even related.

But to return to the central question -- take two people, one smoking, one not: which one is impacting the other whether the other wants it or not? There ain't no way around that.

Denial is part and parcel of the smoking experience. When you take a noxious weed, have poor government-subsidized subsistence farmers grow it, have huge multinational megacorporations buy it at levels that keep them confined to sharecropping, wrap it in wood pulp that's been treated with chlorine to make it so "only pure white touches your lips", and then use emotional hooks to sell to the gullible the only product that, when used as intended kills you, so they can pick those chlorine insecticided weed sticks out one by one, set that thing on fire and intentionally inhale the smoke into their lungs and keep it there ------- that's a demonstration of how far human self-delusion can sink.

They weren't cherry picked. You just don't like them because they stand in the way of your moral crusade. Which is a lovely, if you weren't dealing with a bar.


Look, guy, it's pretty simple. If your clientele is comprised of smokers they are inseparable. You don't have to like it but that is exactly what it is. Once again it dictates how long they stay, if they come in at all and, therefore, how much cash is dropped.

If your clientele is comprised of smokers and the guy down the street allows smoking, they will move down the street. If nobody is allowed to permit smoking, smokers have little choice

Stay home and smoke or go to the bar and refrain from your offensive behavior

 

[Disir]

Again. I reiterate. You were never excluded. They are bars. You knew what they were walking in. Let me help you out:

Yes or no: Did it impact businesses financially?
Did many close?
Did it impact people who worked in those establishments financially?

Pretty simple.

You seem to have missed my question. Like, all of them.

Or are you actually saying that yes, drinking and smoking are the same thing, and anyone who drinks also smokes?
Because I don't get the connection.

Did it impact businesses financially? I'm sure it did, since more people could now go where they couldn't before. That means a bigger customer base. No one was driven out of them because "I can't go in there, there's too much non-smoke in the room".

I've provided links to the impact on business and many of them closing. You're being intentionally obtuse.

Many people that drink also smoke. In fact, when they drink they smoke more. It impacts how long that individual stays, if they come at all, and therefore, how much money is dropped. Why do we have DJs that play music at a faster tempo? Because people have a tendency to drink more.

Further, if you are a neighborhood bar or a mom and pop bar in a working class neighborhood you were absolutely impacted. Many of these people work outdoors or work for say the steel mills. The vast majority of those folks smoke. Work hard/play hard.

If there was such a demand for a non smoking bar then they would have opened them, eh? They didn't.

You provided links to cherrypicking. You still can't answer how anybody would be forced out of a place because not enough people are smoking. And you're trying to dance around the equation of smoking with drinking as if they're inseparable. They're not. They're not even related.

But to return to the central question -- take two people, one smoking, one not: which one is impacting the other whether the other wants it or not? There ain't no way around that.

Denial is part and parcel of the smoking experience. When you take a noxious weed, have poor government-subsidized subsistence farmers grow it, have huge multinational megacorporations buy it at levels that keep them confined to sharecropping, wrap it in wood pulp that's been treated with chlorine to make it so "only pure white touches your lips", and then use emotional hooks to sell to the gullible the only product that, when used as intended kills you, so they can pick those chlorine insecticided weed sticks out one by one, set that thing on fire and intentionally inhale the smoke into their lungs and keep it there ------- that's a demonstration of how far human self-delusion can sink.

They weren't cherry picked. You just don't like them because they stand in the way of your moral crusade. Which is a lovely, if you weren't dealing with a bar.


Look, guy, it's pretty simple. If your clientele is comprised of smokers they are inseparable. You don't have to like it but that is exactly what it is. Once again it dictates how long they stay, if they come in at all and, therefore, how much cash is dropped.

If your clientele is comprised of smokers and the guy down the street allows smoking, they will move down the street. If nobody is allowed to permit smoking, smokers have little choice

Stay home and smoke or go to the bar and refrain from your offensive behavior

Yes, yes they will move down the street and then everyone would be happy. That's how that works.

 

[rightwinger]

You seem to have missed my question. Like, all of them.

Or are you actually saying that yes, drinking and smoking are the same thing, and anyone who drinks also smokes?
Because I don't get the connection.

Did it impact businesses financially? I'm sure it did, since more people could now go where they couldn't before. That means a bigger customer base. No one was driven out of them because "I can't go in there, there's too much non-smoke in the room".

I've provided links to the impact on business and many of them closing. You're being intentionally obtuse.

Many people that drink also smoke. In fact, when they drink they smoke more. It impacts how long that individual stays, if they come at all, and therefore, how much money is dropped. Why do we have DJs that play music at a faster tempo? Because people have a tendency to drink more.

Further, if you are a neighborhood bar or a mom and pop bar in a working class neighborhood you were absolutely impacted. Many of these people work outdoors or work for say the steel mills. The vast majority of those folks smoke. Work hard/play hard.

If there was such a demand for a non smoking bar then they would have opened them, eh? They didn't.

You provided links to cherrypicking. You still can't answer how anybody would be forced out of a place because not enough people are smoking. And you're trying to dance around the equation of smoking with drinking as if they're inseparable. They're not. They're not even related.

But to return to the central question -- take two people, one smoking, one not: which one is impacting the other whether the other wants it or not? There ain't no way around that.

Denial is part and parcel of the smoking experience. When you take a noxious weed, have poor government-subsidized subsistence farmers grow it, have huge multinational megacorporations buy it at levels that keep them confined to sharecropping, wrap it in wood pulp that's been treated with chlorine to make it so "only pure white touches your lips", and then use emotional hooks to sell to the gullible the only product that, when used as intended kills you, so they can pick those chlorine insecticided weed sticks out one by one, set that thing on fire and intentionally inhale the smoke into their lungs and keep it there ------- that's a demonstration of how far human self-delusion can sink.

They weren't cherry picked. You just don't like them because they stand in the way of your moral crusade. Which is a lovely, if you weren't dealing with a bar.


Look, guy, it's pretty simple. If your clientele is comprised of smokers they are inseparable. You don't have to like it but that is exactly what it is. Once again it dictates how long they stay, if they come in at all and, therefore, how much cash is dropped.

If your clientele is comprised of smokers and the guy down the street allows smoking, they will move down the street. If nobody is allowed to permit smoking, smokers have little choice

Stay home and smoke or go to the bar and refrain from your offensive behavior

Yes, yes they will move down the street and then everyone would be happy. That's how that works.

Not when nobody on the street allows smoking

All bars are now equal.....

 

[Disir]

I've provided links to the impact on business and many of them closing. You're being intentionally obtuse.

Many people that drink also smoke. In fact, when they drink they smoke more. It impacts how long that individual stays, if they come at all, and therefore, how much money is dropped. Why do we have DJs that play music at a faster tempo? Because people have a tendency to drink more.

Further, if you are a neighborhood bar or a mom and pop bar in a working class neighborhood you were absolutely impacted. Many of these people work outdoors or work for say the steel mills. The vast majority of those folks smoke. Work hard/play hard.

If there was such a demand for a non smoking bar then they would have opened them, eh? They didn't.

You provided links to cherrypicking. You still can't answer how anybody would be forced out of a place because not enough people are smoking. And you're trying to dance around the equation of smoking with drinking as if they're inseparable. They're not. They're not even related.

But to return to the central question -- take two people, one smoking, one not: which one is impacting the other whether the other wants it or not? There ain't no way around that.

Denial is part and parcel of the smoking experience. When you take a noxious weed, have poor government-subsidized subsistence farmers grow it, have huge multinational megacorporations buy it at levels that keep them confined to sharecropping, wrap it in wood pulp that's been treated with chlorine to make it so "only pure white touches your lips", and then use emotional hooks to sell to the gullible the only product that, when used as intended kills you, so they can pick those chlorine insecticided weed sticks out one by one, set that thing on fire and intentionally inhale the smoke into their lungs and keep it there ------- that's a demonstration of how far human self-delusion can sink.

They weren't cherry picked. You just don't like them because they stand in the way of your moral crusade. Which is a lovely, if you weren't dealing with a bar.


Look, guy, it's pretty simple. If your clientele is comprised of smokers they are inseparable. You don't have to like it but that is exactly what it is. Once again it dictates how long they stay, if they come in at all and, therefore, how much cash is dropped.

If your clientele is comprised of smokers and the guy down the street allows smoking, they will move down the street. If nobody is allowed to permit smoking, smokers have little choice

Stay home and smoke or go to the bar and refrain from your offensive behavior

Yes, yes they will move down the street and then everyone would be happy. That's how that works.

Not when nobody on the street allows smoking

All bars are now equal.....

It is amazing how bothered you are about what someone else is doing.

'Cept for 13 states and Michigan may go back.

 

[Pop23]

I've provided links to the impact on business and many of them closing. You're being intentionally obtuse.

Many people that drink also smoke. In fact, when they drink they smoke more. It impacts how long that individual stays, if they come at all, and therefore, how much money is dropped. Why do we have DJs that play music at a faster tempo? Because people have a tendency to drink more.

Further, if you are a neighborhood bar or a mom and pop bar in a working class neighborhood you were absolutely impacted. Many of these people work outdoors or work for say the steel mills. The vast majority of those folks smoke. Work hard/play hard.

If there was such a demand for a non smoking bar then they would have opened them, eh? They didn't.

You provided links to cherrypicking. You still can't answer how anybody would be forced out of a place because not enough people are smoking. And you're trying to dance around the equation of smoking with drinking as if they're inseparable. They're not. They're not even related.

But to return to the central question -- take two people, one smoking, one not: which one is impacting the other whether the other wants it or not? There ain't no way around that.

Denial is part and parcel of the smoking experience. When you take a noxious weed, have poor government-subsidized subsistence farmers grow it, have huge multinational megacorporations buy it at levels that keep them confined to sharecropping, wrap it in wood pulp that's been treated with chlorine to make it so "only pure white touches your lips", and then use emotional hooks to sell to the gullible the only product that, when used as intended kills you, so they can pick those chlorine insecticided weed sticks out one by one, set that thing on fire and intentionally inhale the smoke into their lungs and keep it there ------- that's a demonstration of how far human self-delusion can sink.

Smokers sulked when they could no longer breathe filth in their favorite establishments. But they got used to getting kicked outdoors at work, in public spaces even at home

They came back to restaurants and bars

I suspect a deep part of it is psychological insecurity --- if you're gonna commit a heinous, intrusive, self-destructive act, you'd rather have other co-conspirators in the room doing it too so you can tell each other it's a reasonable thing to do. So you create echobubble cells.

A singularly selfish act it is.

If I were you, I'd stay out of private businesses that would allow such a thing, or start your own business and restrict it.

So easy.

The owner of a business is free to allow smoking in his own home

Once he opens a business, that business is subject to the rules of the community

Thanks, you do enjoy appearing helpless.

 

[Pop23]

Smokers sulked when they could no longer breathe filth in their favorite establishments. But they got used to getting kicked outdoors at work, in public spaces even at home

They came back to restaurants and bars

I suspect a deep part of it is psychological insecurity --- if you're gonna commit a heinous, intrusive, self-destructive act, you'd rather have other co-conspirators in the room doing it too so you can tell each other it's a reasonable thing to do. So you create echobubble cells.

A singularly selfish act it is.

If I were you, I'd stay out of private businesses that would allow such a thing, or start your own business and restrict it.

So easy.

Guess what I'm doing right now.

---- not smoking.

Are you 'offended'?

Not at all. Problem?

Correct. Because it has no effect on you.
Now do the math.

Drinking sure does though. You asked earlier is smoking the same as drinking.

The answer is yes. Neither is necessary, and both have second hand effects.

Drinking has more immediate second hand effects.

 

[Pogo]

You provided links to cherrypicking. You still can't answer how anybody would be forced out of a place because not enough people are smoking. And you're trying to dance around the equation of smoking with drinking as if they're inseparable. They're not. They're not even related.

But to return to the central question -- take two people, one smoking, one not: which one is impacting the other whether the other wants it or not? There ain't no way around that.

Denial is part and parcel of the smoking experience. When you take a noxious weed, have poor government-subsidized subsistence farmers grow it, have huge multinational megacorporations buy it at levels that keep them confined to sharecropping, wrap it in wood pulp that's been treated with chlorine to make it so "only pure white touches your lips", and then use emotional hooks to sell to the gullible the only product that, when used as intended kills you, so they can pick those chlorine insecticided weed sticks out one by one, set that thing on fire and intentionally inhale the smoke into their lungs and keep it there ------- that's a demonstration of how far human self-delusion can sink.

They weren't cherry picked. You just don't like them because they stand in the way of your moral crusade. Which is a lovely, if you weren't dealing with a bar.


Look, guy, it's pretty simple. If your clientele is comprised of smokers they are inseparable. You don't have to like it but that is exactly what it is. Once again it dictates how long they stay, if they come in at all and, therefore, how much cash is dropped.

If your clientele is comprised of smokers and the guy down the street allows smoking, they will move down the street. If nobody is allowed to permit smoking, smokers have little choice

Stay home and smoke or go to the bar and refrain from your offensive behavior

Yes, yes they will move down the street and then everyone would be happy. That's how that works.

Not when nobody on the street allows smoking

All bars are now equal.....

It is amazing how bothered you are about what someone else is doing.

Once again you can't answer the point that a non-smoker in a room of smokers affects them in no way whatsoever, and that the reverse is not the case. So get off this contrived high horse about who's forcing themselves on who.

 

[Pogo]

They weren't cherry picked. You just don't like them because they stand in the way of your moral crusade. Which is a lovely, if you weren't dealing with a bar.

Actually they stand in the way of what I and everybody else knows about how commerce works. If you have a business that sells only to blue-eyed people, and then you open up to all eye colors ------ you have a bigger customer base. Simple math. Your attempt at scare stories just doesn't counter that. It can't.

Look, guy, it's pretty simple. If your clientele is comprised of smokers they are inseparable.

Are they all Siamese twins then?
Assuming that's not your meaning, you must be saying they're all in a world of emotion-based irrationality.

Can't argue with that. That's got much to do with why they're smokers in the first place. Whelp, that's their problem and irrelevant. The point remains, A can't force B to breathe what B doesn't choose to breathe. Bring your own exhaust tank and everything's fine. The free ride is over.

You don't have to like it but that is exactly what it is. Once again it dictates how long they stay, if they come in at all and, therefore, how much cash is dropped.

And how long they 'hold their breath 'til they turn blue'?
Sounds like somebody's customers need to find their big boy pants.

 

[Pogo]

I suspect a deep part of it is psychological insecurity --- if you're gonna commit a heinous, intrusive, self-destructive act, you'd rather have other co-conspirators in the room doing it too so you can tell each other it's a reasonable thing to do. So you create echobubble cells.

A singularly selfish act it is.

If I were you, I'd stay out of private businesses that would allow such a thing, or start your own business and restrict it.

So easy.

Guess what I'm doing right now.

---- not smoking.

Are you 'offended'?

Not at all. Problem?

Correct. Because it has no effect on you.
Now do the math.

Drinking sure does though. You asked earlier is smoking the same as drinking.

The answer is yes. Neither is necessary, and both have second hand effects.

Drinking has more immediate second hand effects.

BZZZZT. I'm sorry that's not correct. They're not the same thing.

But you be sure to let us all know when you're pulled over on the road for having a nicotine level of .014.

 

[Pop23]

If I were you, I'd stay out of private businesses that would allow such a thing, or start your own business and restrict it.

So easy.

Guess what I'm doing right now.

---- not smoking.

Are you 'offended'?

Not at all. Problem?

Correct. Because it has no effect on you.
Now do the math.

Drinking sure does though. You asked earlier is smoking the same as drinking.

The answer is yes. Neither is necessary, and both have second hand effects.

Drinking has more immediate second hand effects.

BZZZZT. I'm sorry that's not correct. They're not the same thing.

But you be sure to let us all know when you're pulled over on the road for having a nicotine level of .014.

I won't be pulled over for any nicotine level.

No one ever killed a family of 4 because of nicotine levels in their blood. They have after drinking in a bar.

No one has ever beaten or killed their wife and kids because they inhaled nicotine.

I guess in a way they aren't the same.

 

[Pop23]

They weren't cherry picked. You just don't like them because they stand in the way of your moral crusade. Which is a lovely, if you weren't dealing with a bar.


Look, guy, it's pretty simple. If your clientele is comprised of smokers they are inseparable. You don't have to like it but that is exactly what it is. Once again it dictates how long they stay, if they come in at all and, therefore, how much cash is dropped.

If your clientele is comprised of smokers and the guy down the street allows smoking, they will move down the street. If nobody is allowed to permit smoking, smokers have little choice

Stay home and smoke or go to the bar and refrain from your offensive behavior

Yes, yes they will move down the street and then everyone would be happy. That's how that works.

Not when nobody on the street allows smoking

All bars are now equal.....

It is amazing how bothered you are about what someone else is doing.

Once again you can't answer the point that a non-smoker in a room of smokers affects them in no way whatsoever, and that the reverse is not the case. So get off this contrived high horse about who's forcing themselves on who.

They're only effected if they choose to be there. A sign on the door is all that is required to deliver proper notice.

Most adults can deal with that.

 

[rightwinger]

You provided links to cherrypicking. You still can't answer how anybody would be forced out of a place because not enough people are smoking. And you're trying to dance around the equation of smoking with drinking as if they're inseparable. They're not. They're not even related.

But to return to the central question -- take two people, one smoking, one not: which one is impacting the other whether the other wants it or not? There ain't no way around that.

Denial is part and parcel of the smoking experience. When you take a noxious weed, have poor government-subsidized subsistence farmers grow it, have huge multinational megacorporations buy it at levels that keep them confined to sharecropping, wrap it in wood pulp that's been treated with chlorine to make it so "only pure white touches your lips", and then use emotional hooks to sell to the gullible the only product that, when used as intended kills you, so they can pick those chlorine insecticided weed sticks out one by one, set that thing on fire and intentionally inhale the smoke into their lungs and keep it there ------- that's a demonstration of how far human self-delusion can sink.

Smokers sulked when they could no longer breathe filth in their favorite establishments. But they got used to getting kicked outdoors at work, in public spaces even at home

They came back to restaurants and bars

I suspect a deep part of it is psychological insecurity --- if you're gonna commit a heinous, intrusive, self-destructive act, you'd rather have other co-conspirators in the room doing it too so you can tell each other it's a reasonable thing to do. So you create echobubble cells.

A singularly selfish act it is.

If I were you, I'd stay out of private businesses that would allow such a thing, or start your own business and restrict it.

So easy.

The owner of a business is free to allow smoking in his own home

Once he opens a business, that business is subject to the rules of the community

Thanks, you do enjoy appearing helpless.

Looks like smokers are helpless

 

[rightwinger]

If your clientele is comprised of smokers and the guy down the street allows smoking, they will move down the street. If nobody is allowed to permit smoking, smokers have little choice

Stay home and smoke or go to the bar and refrain from your offensive behavior

Yes, yes they will move down the street and then everyone would be happy. That's how that works.

Not when nobody on the street allows smoking

All bars are now equal.....

It is amazing how bothered you are about what someone else is doing.

Once again you can't answer the point that a non-smoker in a room of smokers affects them in no way whatsoever, and that the reverse is not the case. So get off this contrived high horse about who's forcing themselves on who.

They're only effected if they choose to be there. A sign on the door is all that is required to deliver proper notice.

Most adults can deal with that.

Most adults can deal with a sign that says no smoking

 

[Pop23]

Smokers sulked when they could no longer breathe filth in their favorite establishments. But they got used to getting kicked outdoors at work, in public spaces even at home

They came back to restaurants and bars

I suspect a deep part of it is psychological insecurity --- if you're gonna commit a heinous, intrusive, self-destructive act, you'd rather have other co-conspirators in the room doing it too so you can tell each other it's a reasonable thing to do. So you create echobubble cells.

A singularly selfish act it is.

If I were you, I'd stay out of private businesses that would allow such a thing, or start your own business and restrict it.

So easy.

The owner of a business is free to allow smoking in his own home

Once he opens a business, that business is subject to the rules of the community

Thanks, you do enjoy appearing helpless.

Looks like smokers are helpless

How so. Smokers don't demand that private businesses be regulated on their behalf.

Strange logic RW. Of course, you are helpless