/ck/ - Food & Cooking

>>10554452
Agreed 100%. I've had similar conversations with many people, all of us are non-smokers BTW, and we still think the blanket no smoking policies are ridiculous, especially in a bar.

Public places like airports, gov't buildings, etc, I can see. But a smoking ban in a fucking bar? Insane. If you don't like a smoky atmosphere then don't go there. Simple as that.

>>10554452
Smokers are like fatties. They deserve to be shamed, harassed, and inconvenienced at every possible opportunity. Fuck 'em.

>>10554473
I agree with this and I'm a non smoker as well but I've had this conversation with other non smokers and they seem to all be in favor of it.

Usually their response is that smoking is disgusting or whatever, which sure I agree with, but I don't see why you being offended by someone smoking should be a cause for everyone else to cater the world around you.

Don't like people smoking? Don't go to a bar that allows it? It's not that hard. It's like going to a male strip club and getting mad that there are dicks in your face.

>>10554487
>I don't mind being a bootlicker as long as I don't have to deal with that stinky smoke

t. You

It’s a public health thing.

>>10555508
What does "public health" have to do with private establishments which the general public has no need to visit unless they specifically desire to?

"public health" covers things like post offices, schools, hospitals, court houses, and other municipal or government buildings. WTF does a bar have to do with that?

>>10554452
>should the government tell you that you can't let people smoke inside?
Yes. It's bad for society at large if people smoke so it should be banned. No one needs to smoke.

>>10555530
I want to fuck those children.

>>10555530
>thicc
Theyre just fat. Their boobs and ass arent very big

>>10554452
Obviously it should not be the government's decision, but it is pretty nice to not have to deal with you rednecks smoking around us

>>10555530
So the government should ban everything deemed by bureaucrats as "bad for society"?

>>10555571
that's how they do it in england

>>10554473
Most airports are privately owned. Hartsfield-Jackson airport in Atlanta has indoor smoking areas, and all of the airport bars allowing smoking. It is the only positive thing I have to say about ATL airport.

>>10555576
Alcohol is legal in England

And what happened in America when progressives banned alcohol is all you need to see to show that the government does not deserve the right to choose what should be banned from free citizens

>>10555590
Is heroin legal in the UK?

>>10555530
What's the point of banning it though? Surely we must understand that throughout all our efforts to ban things troughout history it never actually works, and insted creates a black market which lowers the safety of the goods in question and serves to make criminals rich as hell while meanwhile fucking over the rights of law-abiding citizens. Surely we must have learned something from the utter failures of prohibition, banned books, the "war on drugs", gun control failures, etc?

>>10555530
Guns are bad for society. As is alcohol. One was banned and then had the ban repealed, the other will never be banned as long as there's enough lobbyist money.

>>10555517
It’s public because the general public are allowed to access it.

You might as well argue that restaurants should have the right to ban black people because the owner is a racist.

>>10555693
>It’s public because the general public are allowed to access it.
But they aren't necissarily allowed to access it. It's private property. Access is completely up to the decision of the property's owner.

>>restaurants have the right to ban black people if they want to
I absoloutely support the idea of that being legal. No, I am not racist, but the fact is that the owner of the property ought to be able to make that decision. And let's face it: in today's SJW world we don't need a law preventing people from being racist assholes--social justice will do that job far better than any law or prosecutor could. If someone wants to be an ass about it then he/she can face the court of public opinion and deal with the consequences.

>>10555693
Keep in mind that most American segregation was by government decree, not because of individual business owners

If someone is fucking dumb enough to not want people of a certain race in their place so be it, its pretty unlikely that will be a successful business model

>>10554452
Smoking laws exist for the same reason regulation on food does, you're expected to have a certain QUALITY of habitation and sanitation. You're the type of sleasy business owner who demands a cut of waitresses tips.

Quit being an ancap freetard.

Did glassed off smoking sections even work? I remember them in restaurants but I grew up with smokers so I didn't notice.

>>10555613
>Surely we must understand that throughout all our efforts to ban things troughout history it never actually works

Yet you're sperging out about smoking laws.. because they actually work? lel. Freetards everyone.

>>10555746
Idiot. There’s a difference between smoking which literally anyone can notice and decide to stay or leave and e.coli in a burger that no one without a lab can confirm.

>>10555756
Your reading comprehension is abysmal.
1) I'm not a smoker
2) People still puff up all over the place, and there is a very strong market for untaxed cigs.

The only thing "working" about a smoking ban is that you've pissed off smokers (but they haven't quit), and that cig smugglers--criminals--are getting rich.

>>10555754
>Did glassed off smoking sections even work?
No

>>10555623
>Fatty food and anything that tastes good is bad for society. We should ban them in order to save fatasses from themselves.

t. You

>>10554452

>when you first learn of libertarianism the thread

I jizz in the food at work on roughly the same logic.

The bar I go to (can't disclose the location or name) lets you smoke if you're a well paying customer and you go the little private cove in the back with all the special booze and stuff. We also drink after hours there. Nothing like a nice wheat whiskey with a cheap cigar and only two or three other people you know personally in a public space doing what the normies can't

if i had a bar i would close it down and call all of my customers faggots for drinking and smoking

>>10554452
I think it is just about those ding durn dorrru

>>10555830
i love places like that. i live in the south where last call is about 1:30 am and there's no smoking, but if you're a "member" the rules don't apply because it's sort of a private club loophole.

>>10554452
Because smoking creates an uncomfortable if not outright unhealthy environment for employees and patrons against their will.

Personally I don't care if you sit next to me watching porn, but a bunch of people who whine that they can't control their addictions enough to waddle out the door for smoke break, or control themselves for an hour or two, I have little sympathy for. You're coughing for the same reason everyone else is trying to stay away from you. You're burning trash indoors which is a sanitation no-no.

>>10556421
The employee signed a contract (supposedly) to work at a bar, and the employee must deal with the consequences.

>>10556421
>for employees and patrons against their will.

what sadistic restaurant is this where they lock you in a smoky room against their will?

>>10554452
The fact is we don't want you idiots around anymore. Smoking would be illegal if it weren't for rich corporations ingraining it into society while they had the chance. In a better world all smokers should just be executed. Give them a month to quit, and anybody who lights up after that point gets decapitated or deported to Syria or something. But of course we can't do that because you bleeding heart libertarian morons start crying about your right to lack self control.

>>10554452
Even eurotrash have the sense to smoke outside. Even if it were harmless, it gets everything dirty.

>>10556474
>signing a contract to simply accept unsafe working conditions when they're not necessary
Where the fuck are you posting from? Are you unfamiliar with OSHA?
>>10557239
This. Just one smoker ruins things for an entire room full of people, stains the walls and ceilings, bothers anyone with allergies, stinks even though their addiction makes them not realize it. Move your bum ass 25 feet to the exit to take a break if you're too pathetic to not last a couple hours without a cigarette. If you can't, you probably need to see a doctor.

>>10557233
LOL bet u smoke cock every night tho

>>10557233
How about seizing control of the industry and incrementally lowering the tobacco content over a decade until there's too little for addiction to be possible? Let the mouth fedora take its place so only users are disaffected.

>>10555571
>so if you want to ban X then why not ban everything???

Smoking is extremely bad for you and for everyone else nearby the smokers when they smoke. It also cost society a shit ton of money from benefits, treatment etc.

You are however right in that we should not ban everything that is bad for you.

But in the case of smoking it is different because, its damages outweigh its necessity (as opposed to sugar and alcohol).

Also, if you allow some bars to violate this ban and allow smoking inside, it would give said bars an unfair competetive edge, which in turn would defeat the purpose of the ban.

>>10555693
Yes

>>10554452
becuase america is quickly becoming a "tourist" destination. becuase of their lack of exports.

the "smoking ban" enacted in several cities are most likely touristy cities or want to fashion themselves as such.

it took my hometown a while to have a modified smoking ban-- basically if you make more money on food than you do alcohol then you have to be non smoking. got in when they were gearing towards becoming a tourist destination.

>>10554452
Literally you cannot open a bar without any license. Government license.
You don't own any rights, the government own it.
This is the stupidity of an american dream, and that's why it's a dream.

>>10557316
>Smoking is extremely bad for you and for everyone else nearby
This.
Smokers kill themselves and everyone around them, albeit very slowly.

They are a suicide bomber in slow motion.

>mfw I once told a jewish smoker that and she threw a fit because a suicide bomber once tried and failed to blow up a bus that her great-aunt was on

>>10555590
>Alcohol is legal in England

Only in the zones not subject to Sharia law

>>10554452
>why should the government tell you that you can't let people smoke inside?
because they're the government, they have all the guns, and having to step outside to smoke is a really autistic hill to LITERALLY die on

>>10554452
>If you owned a bar, why should the government tell you that you can't let people smoke inside?
Because your employees have rights.

>>10555517
That's like saying you should be able to murder people who come inside the bar because once they're in a private establishment, it's no longer "public safety" issue.

Because smoking has an impact on more than just the smokers health especially in a close area like a bar.

/2secondsofthought

>>10557316
cigarettes are practically free without the shitload of tax put on them. I can get them a dollar in some backwater shitholes. You pretend smokers don't pay $5-$10 in tax on every pack and higher insurance premiums on top of it and society just loses it's ass off of it.

1st world governments are purposefully making it as difficult as possible to smoke without outright banning it because "muh freedums" I wish they would just nut up and ban it and if anyone complains they get marched into the sea at bayonet-point. even libertardians have to agree because their mortal enemy Obama smokes so they'd be taking him with them.

you can't even smoke on patios where i live

>>10557233
I love the smoking issue because it's doesn't have a lot of defenders and thus allows leftists to unveil their mask and show their true colors like this, which is that you're a bunch of violent little pricks given the opportunity. There's no humor or analogy behind you're hate, which means you'd actually do it if you could.

>>10554452
i agree 100%
however, at least in the UK, most pubs are owned by the brewery and not the 'landlord', so the issue becomes more complicated.
Freehouses (a pub untied to a brewery) used to be the norm, but over the last few decades have dwindled to less than 5% of pubs in the country.

>>10558039
>1st world governments are purposefully making it as difficult as possible to smoke without outright banning it because "muh freedums"
No you bootlicking dumbass they need the massive amount of tax money collected to fund all of your pie in the sky inefficient leftist social schemes

>>10558004
Nobody expects to be murdered.
Everybody expects that bars have smoke in them, and know that if they don't like smoke they can simply not enter the bar.

>>10554487
I'm in OP in that gov should fuck off form what individuals and companies do voluntarily, but at the same time I think smoking is disgusting and smokers should suffer as much as possible. It's a tough one.

>>10558059
yep all those cigarette tax money is paying for that socialist medicare and social security. that 13.85B totally pays for nearly a full .3% of government expenditures. Whoa where would we be without those big smoker dollars rolling in?

you know how to save some government money? by marching smokers into the sea at bayonet-point and not having to pay for their medical care at the added bonus of not having to smell them or be around people so weak-willed that they were literally brainwashed by some leaves wrapped up in paper LMAO

>>10558075
>It's a tough one.
it's really not, because there's things you undoubtedly like to do or are that 80% of the public doesnt like where you don't harm anyone else past a minor inconvenience(secondhand smoke in infrequent amounts is not a danger lol). When that time comes calling for those things you need the others to stick up for your rights.

I feel exactly this way about obese people .I don't like smelling them or sitting in a booth after them and finding pools of obesity sweat, and every metric you want to use(life expectancy, public health cost burden, etc) are at least or worse than smokers, yet I don't want fat taxes implemented or anything of the like, and they don't have to jump through 1% of the hoops or pay for their choice as smokers as it already is

>>10558120
Dude, chill, I was joking, I'm always against pointless gov. action. And this one is clearly retarded. What next, no peanuts in bars because they have a lot of salt and salt is bad for you or some shit?

>>10558120
sugar taxes, unsaturated fat taxes/bans, and drink size regulation have all been considered and in some places passed.

>>10558091
>full .3% of government expenditures.
That's a ton considering we are talking about one single activity 20-25% of people do. You act like banning cigarettes would influence society overall by more than that.

But you're a leftist so it's more probable than not you're mentally ill

>>10558073
>Nobody expects to be murdered.
Then why do Americans carry full-length rifles and full-size handguns everywhere?

>>10558134
I'll gladly pay .3% more in taxes if it means that I don't have to be around smokers. In fact, I'll pay 3% more, that way I'll cover you and 8 other liber "muh freedums" tarians

>>10558129
Yeah what's your point? They're mostly little dinky dink taxes relative to tobacco. When 12 packs of pop cost $25-50 everywhere then it will be equatable

>>10558143
>pop

flyover outed

>>10558142
Cool, at least you're a true believer. The vast majority of you talk a big game until you have to open up your own wallet, that's why you faggots don't donate of your own volition but love taxation so much, because someone else pays for moral crusades

>>10558153
if you were a true believer wouldn't you move to the middle of the woods and only use a mesh-powered decentralized internet? why are you on my government owned/operated internet?

>>10558150
pacific northwest

>>10558163
whoops I stand corrected. also soda sucks and it should cost fifty bucks to buy a 12-pack that would be so dope

>>10555693
>It’s public because the general public are allowed to access it.
Yeah... this is the logic that gets assault knives banned...

Can we just have a big holocaust on all pussies? I mean, what would they even do about it?

>>10555746
>freetard
I have never seen a term that was so categorically catered to the slave mentality.

Bravo, anon.
You're a very very good boy.

>>10558174
imagine unironically owning something called an "assault knife"

if you owned a bar why should the government tell you that you can't have asian sex slaves that people can torture and kill and because you pay them good money that goes to their families

you paid for everything and everyone consents shouldn't you be able to set the rules???? shadilay praise kek

>>10558136
>full-length rifles
that's a political statement.

>>muh concealed carry
just because you don't expect something to happen doesn't mean you shouldn't be prepared for it.

It's no different than the emergency kit in my car. I don't think I will ever need it. But I'd rather have it and not need it than need it but not have it.

>>10558174
>Yeah... this is the logic that gets assault knives banned...
no it's not, it's legislation over what goes on in private businesses that are open to the public, not general weapons law that affects purchasing and all carrying/ownership anywhere anytime

why americans dont understand laws??

>>10558188
>that's a political statement.
of what? that you're so scared of life that you need a gun to go to the coffee shop?

>It's no different than the emergency kit in my car. I don't think I will ever need it.
but cars break down all the time. you might need it someday. why not carry hundreds of empty coffee cans in your trunk as well at that rate? you'll never need empty coffee cans either, but you may as well be prepared for when you need exactly 66.6 empty coffee cans

>>10554452
Well, it's good because now I get to go around and tell stinky potsmokers to fuck off. They are going to wish it was still illegal lmao. I'm going to show up at town council meetings that pot addicts are too drug addled to even be aware of their existence and get all sort of bullshit passed like only getting to buy weed between 11 a.m. and 2 p.m on a friday.

pretty much every bullshit rule that happened to tobacco smokers, I am going to try ensure happens tenfold to potheads

>>10558187
are you seriously equivocating smoking indoors with owning sex slaves?
really?

>>10558206
>smoke tobacco
>die earlier
>cost more money to healthcare and insurance
>stink

>smoke trees
>live forever
>resistant to cancer and mental illness
>kinda stink but not really

LOL UR REKT KIDDO

>>10558136
realpost i like guns but if i saw someone come into my store with this dumb sheepdawg shit I'd ask them to leave just for being belligerent retards in general. maybe even just shoot them. when the cops come, they'll be on my side.
>four men with ASSAULT WEAPONS came into my shop, I had no choice but to defend my life by using my Pepe™ Liberator® available today at TheGhostGunner.net for only 420.69 MSRP"

>>10558195
>why americans dont understand laws??
We're talking about silly logic that leads to misguided laws, not the laws themselves. Do you understand the difference?

>>of what? that you're so scared of life that you need a gun to go to the coffee shop?
Don't ask me, I don't do that. I would assume it has something to do with acting upon one's rights to ensure that they will still exist in the future, sort of like a personal version of freedom-of-navigation naval missions. But that's just a guess. Like I said, I don't carry a rifle in public and have never met anyone who did.

>>but cars break down all the time. you might need it someday.
Your'e right. I might. but I don't *expect* it.

>>you'll never need empty coffee cans either, but you may as well be prepared for when you need exactly 66.6 empty coffee cans
That's kind of my point when I say that "nobody expects to be murdered". Sure, it could happen, but the chance is so incredibly small that it's silly to "expect" to need it, just like 66.6 coffee.

Are you honestly trying to tell me that walking into a building and being randomly murdered has anywhere near the same expectation as walking into a bar and expecting smoke?

>>10558059
>fund all of your pie in the sky inefficient leftist social schemes
>drumpf and the rightwing congress run a 1.4 trillion deficit funding pie in the sky inefficient rightwing military police state corporate fascist schemes
At least they let you keep your popgun, lol!

Smokers are little more than enslaved beasts who can't stop until they make every enclosed place as filthy and unhealthy as they are.

>>10555613
>Surely we must understand that throughout all our efforts to ban things troughout history it never actually works
Overall, it reduces consumption of the product. Both sides of the issue are fraught with issues related to freedoms and nanny state policies, but I think with regards for smoking in restaurants, the nanny state is looking out most for the employees who have a lifetime of smoke in their faces. It makes the barkeep and waiter jobs the lowest desired jobs, which is nearly is now, but on the same level as factory work in the Victorian age.

I think the laws are state laws, so not sure how they vary that much. I think Florida was a pretty early adopter of the "designated" area standards. But, the laws were pretty strict about even outside banning it, if the area was covered by an overhang. This helped people who lived in condos next to the dude puffing on a balcony blowing it all in their open windows, or the storefront areas where people congregate in places that blow inside or that others have to walk in and through to enter the business. Technically, it made a bus stop an illegal place by virtue of a roof. Asthma people rejoiced. The smoking world had to get some damn manners fast!! I sleep easier at night knowing it's illegal for drunken someones to be smoking in their hotel rooms falling asleep being stupid all around me.

>>10558221
>silly logic that leads to misguided laws
yeah it's an entirely different chain of thought. knives arent a public safety issue, they're an anti abbo and chav measure

>Are you honestly trying to tell me that walking into a building and being randomly murdered has anywhere near the same expectation as walking into a bar and expecting smoke?
in america it appears to, hence why everyone feels the need to go around with an Armalite The Fifteenth Rifle

>>10555613
this is why most sane countries just tax the shit out of stuff they don't like, and have actually feasible and functional import bans on the things they dont want in the country at all

>>10558231
Yes, anon. You seem to have realized that both the far right and the far left are fucking retards.

you get a gold star for today.

>>10558136
>REEE YOU HAVE 2ND AMENDMENT RIGHTS WHY ARENT YOU DYING IN THE MIDDLE EAST FOR ISRAEL REE
i hate libertarians too but occupy dems is full fucking retard 80% of the time

>>10555729
>It's private property. Access is completely up to the decision of the property's owner.
Your understanding of laws is so basic. You are arguing with some semblance of logic but the intent of law is as important to the laws themselves. Some laws have to do with liquor licensing stipulations regardless of property too, and those vary by county. People can refuse service or refuse access to establishments on certain criteria only, and usually any restrictions they place carries things they don't want to do but would be forced to do, like membership fees. It's very complicated.
If you want to know what businesses face day after day, you should google restaurant menus in Atlanta and notice dress code appears on menus. Do you see that in your neck of the woods? It's there because it's a problem they deal with there, needing to refuse service to unclassy attempted patrons who might wear see through clothing shorts around their ankles, then cause an uproar or defy police when asked to leave. If it's not posted, they're in trouble. Go to any beach town and see some "no shoes no entry" signs in places where you think people would be smart enough to wear them, like grocery stores 5mi from the beach itself, with glass on the floor, durr" and then try to get insurance rates that are decent when your patrons are of a certain type.

In this day and age, anyone who smokes under the age of 40 can be considered lacking in either IQ, intelligence or proper average self-esteem. They got hooked despite all the press to not look stupid, and they did it anyway. They're the equivalent of broken people. Okay, the octogenarians were lied to by Big Tobacco, and that's where it ends. If you look at any young smoker, you can see their big chip on the shoulder as a teenager or whenever it was they thought it was good idea to trade health for stupidity. Judgement.

>>10558187
Aww this is cute

>>10558251
>REEE YOU HAVE 2ND AMENDMENT RIGHTS
i see you have missed the point
honestly, even without 2a, i would expect amerimutts to go everywhere armed, because there is indeed the constant expectation to be murdered any where at any time

>occupy dems is full fucking retard 80% of the time
true but it's good fodder for photoshop

btw i will never fix Americᵃ it's perfect as it is

>>10558195
>it's legislation over what goes on in private businesses that are open to the public, not general weapons law
Its the government logic of, "we think some lives can be saved by passing this restriction, therefore, your rights are void"

Its exactly the same logic. The only difference with guns is that the stated logic is a feint because the government prefers a disarmed, toothless populace.

>>10558282
>"we think some lives can be saved by passing this restriction, therefore, your rights are void"
no it's not

smoking bans actually improve bar patronage because smokers can just step outside, but non-smokers are squeamish enough to just never go at all

knife and other weapon bans are a way of answering the question of how to limit abbo violence without just genociding them once and for all (because genocide looks bad in 2018)

>>10554452
The same way they tell you what to do with your cigarettes, like telling you not to smoke in specific places and fine you if you do.
Do you think the government really cares for your health? They're just looking for money by tax and fines.

>>10558261
fuck off

>>10558272
People still pass around this bullshit image? I hate OcDem so much.
Our PM fucking flew to the US and held an hour-long speech about how Denmark is not a socialist utopia.
20% min wage does sound good as long as you don't know that's before taxes and we're one of the most heavily taxed nations on Earth.
A workweek is typically 37 hours, and for many it's more. 33 hours is not considered full time.
NOTHING is free. That's where the taxes come in. And having worked in Danish hospitals I can tell you that the old rule of "you get what you pay for" still applies. That's why more and more Danes are choosing to go to private hospitals, either paying for it themselves or drawing up expensive insurance.

Our gun laws actually aren't as oppressive as the 'shopper probably thinks, though. They're still a long way away from what the US has.

>>10558246
>in america it appears to, hence why everyone feels the need to go around with an Armalite The Fifteenth Rifle

I'm curious how people get that idea in their heads. I'm a gun owner. I know many other gun owners. None of us go around carrying or preaching "muh defense". We just like to shoot guns because it's fun. Some of us collect historical ones. Nothing more.

And yeah, it gets old pretty quick when some fucktard goes on a rampage and then triggers the sheeple into wanting to ban them outright. It's especially frustrating when it won't do any good anyway as history has shown us time and time again.

I wonder how most people would feel if a bunch of angry idiots wanted to take their cell phones away because of the actions of child pornographers? Or if people wanted to take away their video games and computers because they supposedly "incite violence".

>>10558272
That image always cracks me up. I was born in Denmark and lived there for many years before moving to the US. If you had any clue what Danish taxes were like you'd never utter the word "free" for anything. I am extremely glad to have moved (though I miss the god-tier dairy and pork)

>>10554514
Male strip club... haha, yeah. Lol I wander into them by accident all the time. Takes like three hours for me to find the exit again lmao. So many dicks... it's just the worst rofl.

>>10554514
>but I don't see why you being offended by someone smoking

It goes further than that - smoking costs national health services and it has a direct negative correlation to the health of people around smokers. You trivialise the issue by reducing the act to something 'that one merely finds offensive' so setting up a strawman where you can then attack the offended party as being prissy. This is wrong.

>>10558321
>I'm curious how people get that idea in their heads
/k/, arfcom, sheepdawg people, 3%ers, "gray man" autists, etc

> Or if people wanted to take away their video games and computers because they supposedly "incite violence".
uhhh that actually happened though, there was Jack Thompson and his ilk, and more recently gamergate fucking with vidya for "creating sexists"

>>10558214
I'm pretty sure that's equivocating "why can't consenting people do whatever in my bar" with "why can't consenting people do whatever in my bar".

It's really not hard. Having to do any activity around people smoking, especially in an enclosed space, makes it suck more.
>No smoking in bars -> Going to bars sucks less
>No smoking in restaurants -> Eating out sucks less
>No smoking in airplanes -> Flying sucks less
They're making our country suck less, which is literally their fucking job.

Whatif I don't want smoke impregnating the walls everywhere and decreasing oxygen in the room?

>>10558331
>uhhh that actually happened though,
Whether it happened or not is completely irrelevant to the thought experiment.

>>10558326
>It goes further than that - smoking costs national health services
This is equivalent to not allowing people to order large sodas, or dessert if they're fat. This goes too far into personal rights. There are plenty of things destructive to the public health and bottom dollar to government paid socialized medicine, from banning motorcycles to forcing exercise or sterilizations with DNA defects. There is no line to stop upon from sugar tax to not paying for hip replacements after usefulness of age <65 is over, so you shouldn't go there and infringe on rights.

What my point was the health of people who can and will find that bar workplace the only option for them, and be faced not with the occasional smoke of being a personal smoker doing half a pack a day, but the amount of exposure of one pack every couple of hours. This kind of occupational exposure shouldn't exist for anyone. ever. But, because it would be a last resort kind of low education job for all you can get, like a factory, people will shrug off the long term effects just to make ends meet. Then, it becomes like an OSHA situation where the workplace simply isn't deemed safe enough. Having waiters wear ugly respirators isn't ideal, and no system truly cleans up the air with the right kind of ventilation other than fume hoods.
Flight attendants were really affected before smoking bans in 1990. In a recent survey, 91% of them, even newer flight attendants, would desire the airports become nonsmoking entirely.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4483707/

My grandfather was a Delta pilot, nonsmoker. Retired at 60. Died of complications from lung cancer radiation, blastic leukemia.

>>10558390
I don't understand. They sign it off as contract. You can even go as dishwasher and have less exposure to smoke.
They're forcing themselves, it's their situation, not the owner fault nor responsibility.
This is like having hayfever, forcing yourself to work at farm, and blame the owner for storing hay. That doesn't make sense.

>>10558477
>This is like having hayfever, forcing yourself to work at farm, and blame the owner for storing hay.
thats not how hay fever works

>>10558482
You do realize that's an analogy and hayfever is a blanket term?

>>10554452
Because by allowing people to make their own shitty decisions you imply that they have a right to free will and aren't just a cog in your government's machine.

>>10558326
Shits like you make me wanna smoke an entire pack because I know it's personally hurting you!

>>10557316
If you are banning nicotine then ban alcohol too, dont be a fucking pussy about it just because you cant be social without it. Theres no NEED for it. And it costs people just as much.

Why have motorcycles then? Or older cars at all? Why doesnt everyone drive the safest and most fuel efficient vehicle?
Theres no NEED to drive anything else right? I mean it costs ME money right? When someone dies on the highway and it brakes the road, who gets charged to fix it? So people should have to drive better cars.

Hey speaking of being reasonable, why is it that people are allowed to eat foods that are bad for them? Doesnt it cost us MONEY? When they choke our medical system with there filth? So why is that legal? We should outlaw fried foods. We dont NEED them right? So wheres the benefit in them? Oh they taste good they say...well who cares about that? Sound like a bunch of smoker apologists to me. We should actually just fucking kill people like that right? It would be cheaper, and looking at the numbers, we dont NEED those people right? They cost us MONEY after all. They do us about as good as a pack of smokes, replaceable and ultimately unnecessary, would you agree anon?

>>10554452
The government shouldn't have to enforce common sense.

Smoke outside you unsanitary and ill will faggots.

>>10558695
>if you are banning nicotine
There's a difference between nicotine and a cigarette. People don't smoke for the nicotine otherwise they'd buy nicotine gum and not ruin their breath, teeth and smell like shit. Or they'd buy a vape.

I don't even drink alcohol and think alcohol is stupid. The fact that people need drugs in their lives and will take drugs even if it kills them let's me realize how I live in a world of fucking idiots.

>>10554452
Same reason you can't use asbestos and lead everywhere anymore.

>>10558717
Why are they idiots? Drugs are addictive you know, its why they need them.

>>10558717
Do you have any friends?
Just curious.

>>10557316
There's no use of consuming alcohol.
Using alcohol to make food product perhaps as a secondary ingestion, but straight up drinking it? Not much.
It is just a subject on tax for getting money.
>Also, if you allow some bars to violate this ban and allow smoking inside, it would give said bars an unfair competetive edge, which in turn would defeat the purpose of the ban.
This is already implemented and yes while it gives more edge it's completely fair and not nullifies the ban. Why so?

>>10558717
>People don't smoke for the nicotine otherwise they'd buy nicotine gum and not ruin their breath, teeth and smell like shit. Or they'd buy a vape.
Literally the reason why they don't vape is because they smoke. Vape is different, it's for faggots.
You don't buy nicotine gums because it tires out your jaw, pretty innefective, and price wise costs a lot.
>The fact that people need drugs in their lives and will take drugs even if it kills them let's me realize how I live in a world of fucking idiots.
Sounds like a naive underage.

Same reason government won't let you smoke a plant legally inside your own home, I'm guessing

>>10558717
>People don't smoke for the nicotine

>>10558734
They don't need something they didn't take in the first place. It's called being NA idiot.

>>10558763
>naive and underage to not want to poison myself
>not taking the healthy alternative because of how I think it looks
How about soon-to-die nasty smelling, looking rotting mouth retard lmao

>straight edge spergos having opinions on psychoactives

Government should just force the owner to make smoker or non smoker decision.

>>10558792
Well I dont want to assume things about you anon but since you can read and write in english, and have a connection to the internet of some kind ill assume that you live in an industrial society.
Assuming this, I can also assume you live off of machines, food, medicine, and the labor of others that you not only do not need to live, but where not born with.
Now taking that into account I cannot line up what youre saying with how you are more then likely living. You seem just as dependent on things that poison and kill as they are. Or are you just saying that youre an idiot as well?

>>10555577
I fucking loved that. Shit was clutch for my layover when I was flying international.

>>10558792
You talk like a fag, not even knowing what you're talking about.
You think vape looks the same as cigarettes?
You think people don't smoke for nicotine?
You think people don't put up with poisons?
The fact that you blame smokers and alcohol consumers straight as idiots proves your naive fag talk.

>>10554452
The bar is on their land

>>10558804
Theoritically as bar owner can I just employs smokers, and ban any non-smokers customers?
Because seems practically you can employ non-smokers and ban smokers, why not the other way around?

>>10558840
>their
Unless you have a floating bar on international waters, in arctic and antartic circle, or in your own independent country, it'll be always "their" land.

>>10558841
people could probably sue your ass off for specificly not hiring non smokers.

>>10558850
exactly

>B-buh I paid for it

You paid for the privilege to operate it on their land under their rules. If you don't like it, don't be a bar owner in that location. End of story.

/thread

>>10558305
>smoking bans actually improve bar patronage because smokers can just step outside
Do you realize what a complete retard and liar you sound like for using THAT as a justification for passing a law?

Why is it the government's business that bars are successful? If you can't even understand how the market would shift bars to non-smoking IF THAT'S WHAT PEOPLE WANTED, then why do you think you're smart enough to even comment on public policy?

>>10558797
>ancap fucktards calling anyone else a sperg
Lol. Fuck off with your public safety hazard
>b-but muh big gubmint

>live in texas
>you can still smoke in bars

fuck yeah

>>10559194

>>10557316
>its damages outweigh its necessity
please explain to me the necessity of sugar and alcohol
>if you allow some bars to violate this ban and allow smoking inside, it would give said bars an unfair competitive advantage
or, OR, we lift the ban. if people truly didn't want smoking in bars, then the bars that allowed smoking would lose money. the only way you could come to a conclusion like this is if you recognized that people actually do like smoking in bars, and the government won't let them because the government knows what's good for you better than you do.
>>10557639
fuck you

Look at these babbies upset that they're addicted to smoking cancer sticks and they literally couldn't stop if they wanted to and nobody ever wants them around because they have rotting yellow teeth and smell like truck exhaust

>>10558272
>Why is Norway happy
because you're oilniggers hopped up on meds

If you owned a coal mine, why should the government tell you that you can't let kids work inside? The government doesn't have a stake in the coal mine. You paid for everything within the mine. Shouldn't you set the rules? Everyone inside, from the low-level kids to the kids supervising the other kids, consent to being in that room. No one is forcing anybody to stay inside a second longer than he wishes. Nothing is preventing these kids from leaving to find other work. Nothing is stopping anyone from opening an adults-only coal mine to cater to those who find this offensive.

>>10559371
I don't smoke but I want smokers to be able to enjoy their poison if they so desire because I'm not some childish puritan fag who wants everything he doesn't like to be prohibited

>>10559330
>if you aren't an ancap you're from reddit
Sure showed me.

>>10559403
Yes. 4chan is libertarian, you'd know if you weren't a newfag.

>>10559391
>>>10559371
>I don't smoke but I want smokers to be able to enjoy their poison if they so desire because I'm not some childish puritan fag who wants everything he doesn't like to be prohibited
I used to pity the addicted older people struggling to maintain their habits peacefully when the laws first passed...1990. I pitied the fixed income retired people when the taxes of $10/pack were added in places.

But, that was a nearly three decades ago. Anyone who smokes now is a tool or nearly dead. The new generations don't get the same privileges.

>>10559357
>fuck you
>no argument
Seriously? You realise that's just government messing up with private 'so-called-rights'?
You think the government gives a fuck about your health nor rights? It's just so they can tax and get money from fines, that's the matter of smoking regulations.
>>10559371
>I'm a coward because I was btfo'd and I'm SEETHING because m-muh non drinker non smoker attitude, I'm better than everyone
Kys

>>10559386
>turns around and complains about the lack of socio-economic mobility in another argument
it's mainy because you throw up all these regulatory barriers that restrict people from working up out of it. pretty sure kids working in a modern coal mine in this country isn't economically viable in any way shape or form

>>10559386
>retarded strawman
There are limits. Yes you can but doesn't mean you should.
Smoking isn't equal to child labor.
Also your mine would probably sued and protested by libtards if you do so.

>>10559423
desu it's probably both
sorry i didn't give an argument though. i thought you were celebrating the stuff you were saying, but i assume you're just stating the way our government operates as of now.

>>10559371
>babbies
Are you the fucking fag from the other thread?
>>10540553
>>10550460

>>10559411
4chan is mostly natsoc. Libertarian ideas dont work for humans, maybe if we where mathematical logic run machines.

The law is to protect employees who don't necessarily have a choice in where they work.

>>10559500
>4chan is mostly natsoc
Let me guess, you came here first around 2016

>>10559460
Yeah, it's just how the government works: take an opinion, exploit it for 'mass' benefits', and getting money 'regulating' it.

>>10559508
They have a choice not to work there. If they do, they do it voluntarily when they sign the contract.

>>10559500
>4chan is whatever I say it is
I bet you cant even define Natsoc in a coherent manner.

>>10555623
>The other will never be banned as long as there's enough lobbyist money
Wow two bootlickers arguing

>>10558136
I think you're misunderstanding the point of these open carry protests.

>>10559585
>Dave, I'm a gonna go protest in the Twinkie aisle
>Ok Jake, I'm a gonna go protest at the slushie machine then

>>10559519
You're a couple years off m8. 4chan has been natsoc for almost a decade now

>>10559636
4chan was never anything

>>10559636
Making hitler jokes and spouting racial slurs about jews and blacks for the sake of being edgelords and being natsoc are two different things

>>10555530
Who is that on the right I'm falling in love

>>10554452
Because I don't want smoking in my bar and that would put me at a competitive disadvantage with bars that did allow smoking.

>>10559709
I don’t want meat served in my restaurant and that would put me at a competitive disadvantage with restaurants that serve meat. Your point?

>>10560639

I think that was supposed to be satirical

>>10555693
>You might as well argue that restaurants should have the right to ban black people because the owner is a racist.
They should. "The right to refuse service to ANYONE, for ANY REASON". What happened to that?

>>10558050
Shit, I wonder what you think of the intergenerational-relationship issue, then.

Christ almighty, D.A.R.E. fucked you niggers up but good, didn't it?

>>10555693
Now you're getting it.

>>10554452
That's right. While we're at it we should also have a choice as to who our clientele should be and opt to cater to a certain demographic if we choose by barring those we find undesirable.

I'd start with homosexuals first, personally, as they are a diseased, backwards people who tend to make average bar-goers uncomfortable. They have enough gay bars anyway.

>>10558010
Holy shit leave

>>10560702
DARE made me curious about drugs to where I eventually tried them

>>10558717
Bro you are so right. I can't believe all these people in the world are literally committing suicide everyday. Oh well guess that means you and me get to reap the benefits of living in a less populated world where all the idiots killed themselves while we live on in perfect eternal health.

>>10560945
>DARE class in elementary school
>they have a glass case with like 50 examples of real illegal drugs inside, a lot are just empty wire-ties though
>ask what those look like
>'Those got stolen from the case.'

>>10554514
This. I'm a bartender and smoking in our bar is fine. Staff are also allowed to drink while working too. Sometimes it's about coming home with your clothes stinking like shit but a shower, throw that shit in the laundry and eye drops and I'm good.

>>10560708
>t.. falls in the homo 20th percentile of the Kinseyian bell curve
Well, you have to let out your homophobia at being a closeted gay somewhere, and 4chan is as good any other place to do that.

>>10554452
But you are allowed to do that OP. It just has to be closed to the general public. In which case might as well just start a smoking club.

>>10561548
Not really, many states have bans of smoking indoors specifically. Although it would be getting into the weeds, legally, with "private clubs."

>>10558390
the hell?
Motherfucker, I make a breathing, conscious decision to order shit bad for me. I know it's bad, but I chose my shitty decision.
Walking inside a room filled with fucking carcinogens that eat my sensitive lung tissue? That is also my choice.
But I justed wanted a goddamn drink, not cancer. So fuck off with your shitty smoke policies, and send those fuckers 7 metres from every window and door

>>10560668
The left happened.
If a vegan comes to your steakhouse and protest because they can't eat anything, apparently it's your fault for not having vegan foods now.

>>10554452
then don't open a business that serves the general public. if you open a private club you can smoke indoors all you like, or discriminate against anyone for any reason, etc.

>>10561593
You're free to walk into a non-smoking bar then for your sake of your wimpy "sensitive lung tissue", or just not being a faggot and buy alcohol to enjoy at your absolutely smoke-free house.
Retard.

>>10554452
Should be able to. I don't smoke, but I miss that old bar feel. It's your business, tell people if they can smoke or not. It's not that big of a deal, don't need 'ol papa government stepping in.

If you owned a building, why should the government tell you that you have to obey building code standards? The government doesn't have a stake in the building. You paid for everything within the walls. Shouldn't you set the rules? Everyone inside, from the children to the adults, consent to being in that room. No one is forcing anybody to stay inside a second longer than he wishes. Nothing is preventing your visitors from leaving to find other buildings to congregate in. Nothing is stopping anyone from opening a code compliant building to cater to those who find building code violations offensive.

>>10561656
Perky

>>10561656
>those little itty bitty titties and pepperoni nippiles

>>10561656
Yes that's correct. The architect and the engineer would need to adhere to it as standards but I can modify it as I please. Bar falls off to business-that makes it a commercial code-and commercial means it has semi open/public space. Which, has different laws than a fully private space.

>>10558390
>Flight attendants were really affected before smoking bans in 1990. In a recent survey, 91% of them, even newer flight attendants, would desire the airports become nonsmoking entirely.
>https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4483707/
What a surprise. Women forcing everybody else to change to suit them.

>>10561656
Yeah except building codes are meant to protect people from injury/death while smoking bans are just a dumb boogaloo regulating adults from making a conscientious decision that they should be free to make.