If you owned a bar, why should the government tell you that you can't let people smoke inside...

Bit of a difference between a private residence and public business

ITT: a bar is NOT a pub
ok

he obviously regards his bar to be a private establishment

didn't you know that anti-discrimination statutes violate the first amendment's guarantee to 'freedom of assembly'?

A private business has a lot more in common with a private residence than a public building, ie. courthouse, public school

It's a choice for a person to patronize a business like it's a choice for the barkeep to refuse service like it's a choice to not let you into my house if I don't feel like it.

>private business
no such thing

A private business is still patronized by the public, even with the right of refusal of service that the owner possess. Full restriction on who could enter patronize the business would change it from a public business to a private club, if you wanted to go that far

Just come here to tell you that you are very very very very very very stupid turd
just in case you were thinking that your are clever troll, no you are stupid turd

Smoking was banned around the 1950's when the tobacco companies told Jewish bankers to fuck off away from their investments and that their companies were making a lot of money from a product that has existed since ancient times from primarily white middle-class families.

In retaliation, Dr Shekelstein and Phd. Yiddgold published articles and created a false health campaign stating that smoking caused cancer in every cell of your body and successfully destroyed the tobacco empire for not being extorted by the Jews.

>Did you miss the point, or are you one of those people who think the inside of your bedroom is also a public concern?

Public vs private property. You have opened a premise to be used explicitly by the members of the public and so you must adhere to laws concerning such establishments.

Wheeze louder through your breathing mask cancer breath.

Explain.

Someone in this thread said the opposite view is "typical leftist", and I consider myself left as fuck, but completely agree with OP.

It's one with to restrict things that affect everyone like plastic bags, guns, fossil fuels, refined sugars... but if people are going to choose to smoke, go into a smoke filled bar, drink alcohol, etc., all of which require you to be a certain age, only affect you, and are clearly labeled as bad for you, you should be able to make that choice, and shouldn't be penalized or taxed more for making a life decision that doesn't even affect other people.

not Food & Cooking related
>mod is retarded anyway, pic related

Because democrats approve of the government deciding instead of the private holder.

Smoking sections are not served by waiters. Problem solved, dipshit.

>not Food & Cooking related

Good idea OP's thread is not Food & Cooking related at all
and is stupid on top of it

Mods what you say

I fucking hate Veeky Forums mods so much

tobacco threads are cooking related, this thread is just an extension of that.

also the no fun allowed mentality is horseshit and you should fuck off

I am a man of the principle that smoking indoors is gross

you should be shot
you just went full retard. this thread is for /pol/, not Veeky Forums

>actual discussion about policies related to eating and drinking establishments
>verging on being off topic because mostly about tobacco and treading on /pol/ territory
vs.
>most blatant off topic shitposting possible that deserved to have been banned on sight

Yeah, the two are totally analogous.

Because anti smoking lobby is big and powerful and can get away with it
Truth is second hand smoke doesn't exist, people don't smoke more at bars and little beta males don't like the smell but don't have the balls to ask you to stop
Same reason you see cancer patients in the box. It won't stop you from smoking but it sure will make your life a little worse

oh ok, well maybe reԁԁit is more your taste then.

both are food related and yet both get banned. die in a ditch.

>The insides of a bedroom
Anything goes as long as you get enthusiastic signed consent notarized with at least two witnesses from an adult of at least 21 years unless you are muslim

OP take you stupid thread and slide violently up your faggot ass

Hey there karl

This thread makes me hope there is government regulation regarding tipping in the near future. Then tipping threads will become political just like this thread and will become off topic, and hopefully we'll no longer have to deal with that bane of this board.

Complaining of second hand smoke in a bar is like complaining you got fat because you ate too many burgers. Just fucking leave the bar. Just fucking put down that third burger. Don't get smoking banned in bars and don't ban eating more than two burgers just to save peoples' fat asses from themselves.

Statist fucks.

OP sucks dicks and licks anuses for FREE.

Because govt wants control of EVERYTHING and they will convince you to let them because "safer"

>there are people who actually think like this

>Public vs private property. You have opened a premise to be used explicitly by the members of the public and so you must adhere to laws concerning such establishments.

This. By opening a bar, I.E: A business that derives its income by serving members of the public, you are bound contractually to promise not to harm them directly or indirectly. You could let people smoke inside if your business was not open to the public - there are gentleman's clubs that do this for example.

If you disagree with this, consider that I could literally drop arsenic in food otherwise, and it would be legal by your logic since "why should the state tell me what to do?" or "I paid for everything, shouldn't I set the rules?" or "Nothing is preventing people from choosing not to die of fatal poisoning."

Furthermore consider that we live in a democracy. The government acts as an interest group for the residents, and enforces what they believe to be in their best interests. Ergo, a significant number of people believe that restricting public smoking and smoking inside privately owned business is beneficial to them, so the government chooses to enforce that. You can argue that this is a tragedy of the commons or that democracy is bullshit, but then again...

>No one forces you to live in a democratic country, asswipe. :^)

Why are you comparing a numale such as yourself walking into a bar and being displeased by the smoke and sneaking poison into food?

>go to a concert and have your ears subjected to music far louder than a healthy sound level
>go to a beer garden and subject your body to alcohol that the surgeon general has told to is terrible for your body
>go to a fast food restaurant and everything on the menu far exceeds healthy levels of saturated fats and sugars recommended by the fda

Yeah, in all of those cases you can just as easily chose to abstain, just like you can chose not to go to a smoking friendly bar. Cigarettes are clearly being unfairly targeted and taxed.

Calling wanting businesses to be able to choose whether people can smoke inside is not hardcore ancap and calling it such a thing is hilariously stupid

This isn't ancap dumbass and it certainly isn't hardcore

>promise not to harm customers
>serve alcohol

I'm going to ask MODS if this thread is Veeky Forums related

because I'm a big bad authoritarian statist

No, because we know that smoking is bad for peoples health.
And idiots who smoke cigarets should not be provided medical help in publicly financed hospitals.

surely an identical argument could be made against drinking though?

Exactly, if drinking alcohol in excess contributed to your health problems you should not be provided medical help on taxpayers dime.

When you drink you aren't automatically endangering others by the mere act

Why are you even mad about this anyway, I don't smoke but being able to step out to chill with a friend and take a few drags seems very nice and intimate . Not worth cancer but still

I agree. And we should do the same for people who eat red meat more than three times a week. And people who drive sports cars. And people who do not exercise at least three times a week. And overweight people. And the unemployed.

Government is good; praise taxes!

t. Hillary campaign volunteer

>When you drink you aren't automatically endangering others by the mere act
VERY GOOG POINT
Smoking cigarettes around others is a crime.

And the same could be made about fast food, so lets ban all fucking fast food threads already.

>tfw this just might turn out to be the most productive Veeky Forums thread of all time

don't be stupid now

see this >When you drink you aren't automatically endangering others by the mere act

>smoking cigarettes around others is a crime

And yet people (including children - think of the children!) need to walk down the sidewalks in front of bars and restaurants where people go outside to smoke. Nobody needs to go into smoking approved establishments, and all you need to do is put up a sign out front to let people know it's a smoking bar, just like certain bars are 21+.

If you feel "endangered" by standing next to a smoker, why don't you just fuck off and leave? No one is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to breathe in all that terrible secondhand smoke.

Because the tobacco smoke actually contains arsenic. :^)

"Fairness" does not, in any way, shape, form, or fashion take part in the lawmaking process. The argument that "it is possible to do self-harm, therefore we should legalize all forms of self-harm" is a rather terrible one. It is essentially a perfect world fallacy.

#1: Harmful substances should be controlled, which justifies banning smoking in pubs.
#2: But not all harmful substances are controlled.

Notice how #2 does not in any way attack the justification given by #1?

and people having anal sex
because it's known fact that those receiving in the anus later in life have problems with holding their stool,
they have anus leakage issues and have to wear diapers and have lot's of anus cancers

#1 doesn't really hold up as an axiom though

If you want people to back it up, they can just cite utilitarianism and maximizing public health as the utility being maximized, and as usual in ethics debate, good luck attacking utilitarianism. At that point we are also beyond the line where the conversation is anywhere near understandable for 90% of Veeky Forums.

Tell that to all the people killed by drunk drivers.

Tell that to all the people who died of heart disease from unhealthy food leaving loved ones destitute and clogging up half the beds in the ICU.
>bbut I can't be held accountable...they made those burgers too cheap and tasty for my lard ass to resist!

Welp, time to make more laws.

I'm not particularly mad desu, I don't mind going outside for a smoke when I'm somewhere crowded like a busy pub, but when I'm in a cocktail bar in the middle of winter, it's nice to be able to smoke at the bar itself.
I didn't really used to care until I went to prague on holiday and could do this

>At that point we are also beyond the line where the conversation is anywhere near understandable for 90% of Veeky Forums.

on that I think we can agree

>it is possible to do self-harm, therefore we should legalize all forms of self-harm

That's backwards, though. The unfairness comes from the fact that tobacco has been seeing an insane amount of increased legislation over the past couple of decades compared to comparably harmful things that have seen seemingly zero legislation/taxation simply due to the fact that they're more widespread and it's easier to pick on a smaller group, plus there's a ton of propaganda causing millennials to think cigarettes are the devil while middle school kids are pounding multiple energy drinks before noon like it's nothing.

>but when I'm in a cocktail bar in the middle of winter,
but you don't give a shit that others have to breathe your fucking poisonous smoke

I hope you die from lung cancer ASAP so you don't expose others to your activity you selfish asshole

It does not matter whether or not it's "fair", or if "tobacco is being picked on" for the argument here. Let me demonstrate by quoting wikipedia.

>Posit (fallacious)
Seat belts are a bad idea. People are still going to die in car crashes.
>Rebuttal
While seat belts cannot make driving 100% safe, they do reduce one's likelihood of dying in a car crash.

Likewise:

>Posit (fallacious)
Controlling tobacco is a bad idea. People are still going to find harmful substances to indulge on.
>Rebuttal
While controlling tobacco doesn't make indulging on harmful substances impossible, it reduces the amount and risk of doing so.

In order to even have an argument, you need to find a way to attack the claim that harmful substances should be controlled to begin with, or to demonstrate some significant benefit to *not* controlling tobacco in particular.

sadly for you I'm 21 and smoke like a pack every two months so doesn't look like it's gonna happen anytime soon friend.

I already have made an argument.

See, My other arguments weren't that smoking wasn't bad and shouldn't be regulated, but simply that it wasn't somehow worse (that's obviously arguable) than any number of other things that haven't been seeing anything close to the kinds of regulations, restrictions, and taxations that tobacco has been in the past 15-20 years.

I knew couple of people who had lungs cancer (they smoked cigarets for many years) and they died from that cancer and dying from it is very painful apparently,
,but I had no sorry feelings for their suffering and their death because many times they smoked right in my face and
I hated that but was not able to go away from it for various reasons and I was actually glad when they died,
because I was not exposed to that shit anymore.

Fuck you smokers I hope all of you die very soon very painful deaths

reasonable

Okay. I'll keep smoking. Sucks for you about your legs.

you are so very mistaken thinking that smoking from time to time will not get you lungs cancer,
how come then second hand smokers get tobacco related lung cancers

you are 21 years old and naive, do some reading on it
some people can smoke for 40 years 2 packs /day and get nothing for 40 years others will
get lung cancer smoking very little for just few years,
depends on your lungs idiot

>but simply that it wasn't somehow worse (that's obviously arguable) than any number of other things that haven't been seeing anything close to the kinds of regulations, restrictions, and taxations that tobacco has been in the past 15-20 years.

Which, as already covered, and explained thoroughly, is not an argument against the control against tobacco. Even if you are right there it does not matter. We can still say that

A: Tobacco is harmful (true)
B: Harmful substances should be controlled (undisputed)
Therefore C: Tobacco should be controlled. (follows from claims that are either true or undisputed)

I mean, seriously. I know that arguing on the internet is dumb, but still.

What if I told you that it was illegal to serve intoxicated people alcohol?

And if your religion caused you to not have an abortion you shouldn't get any welfare.

Only OK if you advertise it on the outside.
Also: what if I want to go out with non-smoking friends?

all cancer is just a game of probability user. the risk is very low at the amount I smoke, and I am ok with it. I'm not at risk of other disease such as emphysema or w/e so I indulge occasionally when I'm drinking.

Do you really believe this? It's not even the right time frame. Everything else is just silly stuff without source.

>therefore tobacco should be controlled

A point I explicitly conceded in the post you replied to. My main argument was actually in agreement with the OP (I was the user who lived in NYC and walked past clouds of smoke every day after smoking was banned in bars because the sidewalks where literally crowded with smokers).

My tangential point was just that it seems like tobacco has been picked on much more than other things (like corn syrup/refined sugars). I'm also visiting family in California right now, where they just had a vote to add a $2 tax on each pack of cigarettes, which honestly seems like straight up discrimination against a particular group who made a lifestyle choice to me (yeah, that might sound like a stretch to some people), and I'm constantly seeing these "Truth" commercials on TV against smoking which are so completely ass backwards ("smoking has created a wage gap! lets start a revolution!") that I have to change the channel every time they come on.

With this logic I can safely kill children and serve human meat for food cause shit, it's my restaurant, I can do whatever I want.

This is what I'm seeing here.

>and the retards get in their two cents

please print my post and your brave arrogant response and keep it in a safe place or frame it and hang it on the wall,
and when day in the future comes when you get diagnosed with lung cancer read it and think of what I told you and what your response was.

In mean time don't be an asshole, be a decent person and go out of your way not to expose others to your poisonous smoke.

I like to add something to my story here ,I did many times wished that those smokers die ASAP so I don't have to be exposed to their habits, so maybe I did curse them to die.

So you user don't provoke others you in their minds and in their hearths to curse you to die in pain for being an asshole
and a bully by smoking in their faces in their space so they have to breath that poison.

Rock, flag and eagle.

...

>allowing businesses to allow the possibility of customers raising other customers risk of lung cancer while stinking up the place is akin to allowing businesses to serve human child meat in food

really makes you think

If we're gonna let people do stupid shit then why stop at lung cancer?

He has fucked up arms too

Except I don't need to ask your permission to go into your business if there's an OPEN sign on the door.
This is what's called a public place. It may be private property, and you can kick people out, but it's still regarded as public.

You're a fucking retard. If I mow lawns for people for money, you can't force me to mow your lawn for money. Stay the fuck out of my life your narcissistic twat

>doesn't even understand what is being said
There's a retard here, and it's you.

Having smoking banned from bars is basically a liberal rabbit fence-me-in mentality so they can feel safe without giving any consideration to personal freedoms. So when a handful of latte sipping fuckfaces don't like smoke they bitch and moan and then make up some safety protocol that eventually passes through congress because pushover faggots make up about 90% of the population and it ruins literally everything since the dawn of civilization.

It's purely a matter of legal control over the safety and well-being of a population that increases in regulation more over time until you're not allowed to curse or fart in public out of fear of making a child cry somewhere in a 10 block radius.

It should be that if a bar wants to allow smoking, or even have a smoking lounge, they should and not have treehugging ctrl-left trying to control everything they find unappealing to their limited tastes because their own miserable meek lives are beyond their own responsibility, the pussyfaggots.

Soon beer is gonna be banned from bars oh wait that already happened 100 years ago and it didn't work because these cockspankers think they know so much about what's good for everyone else but themselves. Yet more frustrating failed policies that serve to make everyone's life fucking miserable because liberal faggots have no agency and get offended at the very concept of enjoyment.

that being said, something something less fire hazards something cleaner air something public health but still fuck you

I never used to go to bars but since they banned smoking I've been going about once a week for a beer and a meal.

All the lowlife smokers are all out the back in a designated smoking area so I don't have to put up with their shit either.

WARNING

VERY STUPID POST AND POSTER
DON'T WASTE YOUR TIME READING

Just vape dude.

>this public space is of no concern to the public

you are a turd

Are you literally retarded?

>smoking outside is the same as smoking inside

kys

Grow up, kid.

Agreed, he is turd.
he is stupid troll that all

If you pay taxes you are owed the services that money goes toward.

Now (this may not apply in the jewnited states) but alcohol and cigarettes prices in soviet canada are at least 50% tax; half as a deterrant and half as a measure to pay for their negative health and social effects.