na

I'm going to watch The Big Chill and drink a lot of tonic water.

am I going to die

I'm getting a glass of water.

I am going to do a gram of coke and drink 18 beers.
But I was already going to do that anyway so idk..

rude

i'm in the process of printing out a picture of each of 99chan's admins
i plan on uploading a series of cum tributes
stay tuned

>>74616
god bless you my son

>>74616
Hey that's the girl I've been dating the past few weeks!! Goddamit Amanda you fucking whore..

>>74599
This picture hellza turns me on. God I am rock hard.

>>74691
What the hell is wrong with you? He is smoking indoors right by that child!

>>74692
Secondhand Smoke: Worse than Crying Child Rape

>>74693
That's no child. You can clearly see she's having her period.

>>74694
;)

hellza cool

If she's gtting her perod that means she's not pregnant so he can smoeke next to her all he wants. Peirod.

We need to blow more secondhand smoke at rich people.

If enough of them get cancer then they'll spend their money on cancer research and help it happen faster.

I don't know why everybody make such a big deal about secondhand smoke like it's soooo much worse for a person than firsthand smoke. I'm to understand that the only thing different about secondhand smoke is that it contains carbon dioxide. I'm inclined to point out that that's what people breathe out anyway, smoker or no, and the CO2 has no actual relation to the tobacco smoke.
If I had some serious loot, I'd start my own campaign for smokers rights in opposition to all that "TRUTH" campaign bullshit. "FACT" we'd call it.

I fucking hate that commercial where someone smokes on their balcony and the camera follows the smoke upstairs through the vents into an apartment on the next floor and into the baby's room. Like it's fucking sentient and hunts babies. Like it doesn't blow away in the wind. Like the vent doesn't dissipate it at all.
FFFFFFFFFFFF

>>74710
No one says secondhand smoke is worse than firsthand smoke. It's more of a consent issue: you can consent to inhale a cigarette, but the people around you don't necessarily consent to breathing in the (still very unhealthy) smoke you exhale.

They're basically reminding people that not only is it bad for you, the smoker, it is also bad for people around you and inconsiderate to boot.

Everyone has the right to make self-destructive life choices, but be conscientious of its possible ill effects on those around you.

IT'S COOL TO SAY NO TO SMOKING *turns hat backwards and crosses arms while leaning slightly to the left*

What's even cooler is for you to not act like you can even smell my cigarette from over in the non-smoking section, because that shit's a fucking lie, and if it ain't then it's not my fault for smoking, but the fault of the restaurant for not providing adequate ventilation as they were required to under code (before you started legislating all the smokers out onto the street without an ashtray so that you can outlaw them for being litterbugs next).

And, actually, yes they do say that about secondhand smoke. It's one of the half-truths that the "truth" campaign spread around.

>>74717

That's not how pollution works. Just because you can't smell it doesn't mean it's not in the air. Is it hellza that much of an inconvenience to go outside so you don't force people to be exposed to health risks they don't want to be exposed to?

>>74718
Addiction fucks with the mind. I've seen completely rational and intelligent people reduced to Trump-level emotion and lack of logic when they perceive an affront to their ability to smoke anywhere and everywhere.

>http://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/tobacco/second-hand-smoke-fact-sheet

>>74720
>>74719

I'm not a smoker myself, and those citations in that report don't lead offsite to the actual studies themselves. Personally, with highly active smokers expiring from cancer in their 60s or 70s from inhaling dozens of combustible stubes of the stuff directly into their lungs, I find it dubious that people wind up with cancer like wildfire from just smelling it in a room.

At an aesthetic level, I find the anti-smoking movement distasteful, and just kind of a symptom of what I see as the feminization and castration of the modern Western world. If you don't want to smell that stuff in Applebees with your kids around, okay fine. But taking it out of the working class pubs that my Dad and Grandfather have smoked and drank in their whole lives, because you want to venture in there as a whiny, effete, hipster, bundle of sticks onlooker strikes me as profoundly sad and wrong.

>>74730
>feminization and castration
>Dad and Grandfather
>effete
>bundle of sticks
Why does femininity = "sad and wrong?"

And how does being unhappy with casual exposure to hazardous chemical smoke against one's will in public places = feminine? Calling something feminine and unmanly as a way of criticizing it just reeks of insecurity to me.

If you're a man, you can be a man. You don't need the right to inhale smoke next to a stranger in a bar to make you a man.

I can think of a bunch of female smokers - my girlfriend, her two female roommates, a friend of mine, my mother, my grandmother, this punk girl I was talking to at a show the other night - just off the top, but I can only think of one male smoker, a friend of mine, offhand. Anecdotal, yes, but I don't understand why you equate anti-smoking activism with feminization or femaleness and old-fashioned masculinity and maleness with ballza and smoking

>>74732

You're perfectly well aware of the cultural context of my comments, even if you disagree with them. Please don't disingenuously frame a retort as a question.

>>74732
The humorous thing is that most ardent smokers I know are women, whether they admit it or not smoking is an appetite depressant and they're terrified of gaining a lot of weight if they quit. Some guys have the same fear whether they'd admit or not, and last time I checked putting vanity about practicality and health is a pretty traditionally "womanly" thing to do.

>>74718
You miss the point, which is that people like you SEE a cigarette and it mindfucks them so bad that they imagine they can smell it, so they start of complain. Regardless, I actually DO have a pretty ballza knowledge of how air pollutants work and the methods of dissipating them from an occupied space, because I'm a TAB-certified air-balancer of commercial HVAC systems, beotch.
>>74719
Self-entitlement fucks with the mind too, like in those who think The People have a valid right to dictate the smoking policy for all customers in a privately owned business. In this age of self-entitlement, people have it in their heads that they have a RIGHT to frequent whatever businesses they choose, but that's actually not the case. You can be refused service ANYWHERE in the US - and rightly so - for no ballza reason except those based in bigotry. The incorrect idea that The People have a right to frequent those business is the root of the idea that they have the right to dictate the policies in those places. In truth, the way it works in an ACTUAL free society is that the smoking policy in the customer-area (I'm leaving stuff like the food-prep areas out of this, because that's a different issue) is left up to the business, and whoever doesn't like it is free to not be a patron of that establishment.

>>74737
People think private businesses exist in some kind of vacuum, it's hilarious. There's a little thing called competition. If you allow people to ban the negroes, it means that every business had to ban negroes in order to compete, regardless of the owner's views on negroes. If you allow smoking in restaurants, it means every restaurant and bar needs to allow smoking in order to compete. Which means it's impossible to work in a restaurant or bar without having to inhale cancerous smoke 8 hours a day.

>>74739
That's a bullshit argument. It's the equivalent of girls who work in strip clubs complaining of being in a sexually hostile workplace.

>>74740
Sexually hostile environments are still a whole lot less lethal than tobacco smoke. There are some jobs which can be lethal, but we regulate the fuck out of them to make sure that they are as safe as possible. There are 14 million people who work in restaurants, and they shouldn't be exposed to carcinogens needlessly just as they shouldn't be exposed to high amounts of radiation needlessly. Just because customers are causing it instead of equipment or the environment doesn't make it any more okay.

>>74741
>Sexually hostile environments are still a whole lot less lethal than tobacco smoke

You've never been in a sexually hostile environment with me then, baby >:3

>>74740

The difference is that you can't be a stripper without people looking at you dancing in your underwear by definition. On the other hand, being a waiter or bartender without inhaling smoke is not only possible under the definition of those words, but is in fact commonly done in every city where smoking is banned in hospitality.

>>74739 On your argument about how poor old businesses can't grow a sack and make a decision about what kind of demographic they want to serve and need to join in with everyone else. It doesn't make sense. Different places cater to different kinds of people. And so by serving different demographics which have different wants and needs they make different business choices. Using the law to tie their hands one way or the other is not what should be done. Isn't marketing these days all about "finding" your demographic and shit? I am getting at what >>74730 was saying, there's no reason why certain establishments should be forced out of allowing something, like smoking, that their base customers want.

And so if it was was up to businesses to not be little bitches and decide what kind of customers they want to serve, and it doesn't make sense for all businesses to try to cater to everyone rather than finding their consumer base then your waiter argument also loses merit. It does so, because like the businesses should be able to decide whether or not to allow smoking, people can decide whether or not they wish to work in a smoke filled environment.

But hey, maybe cigarettes are a dying fad, and everyone will start using vapes until there's laws made against those.

>>74741
Yes, and smoking in bars was once iniversal, and therefore being exposed to smoke was universal in those jobs as well. That's a pretty meaningless argument based on semantics. You could make strippers wear some level of clothing and legislate that no one should make direct or intimidating eye contact with them and make the same argument after it's been that way for 10 years.

dbutt

>>74744
That is how it should work but people are dumb. Basically the laws of supply and demand should push people where they ought to be in the economy. People who dislike second hand smoke will either quite from places that allow smoking, or demand a higher wage to compensate them for it. Instead of this though, people feel like they're entitled to work where they want the way they want so they bitch and moan and politicians compromise so they'll shut up and work like ballza robots.

>>74744
Keep in mind that you're working off modern information and assumptions. At one time more than half the adult population smoked to some capacity and most people didn't see smoking or second-hand smoke as being terribly dangerous (because of a concerted disinfo campaign by the cig companies, yadda yadda).

If there some new oven that cooked a chicken in a minute but exposed everyone around it to radiation that could kill someone over a period of years, two things would happen: restaurants would want to use these ovens because the efficiency, and those that don't will be priced out of the market because they're still doing things the old way. It's only reasonable to ask the government to step in and ban those ovens, because working food service in the restaurant should not needlessly expose people to lethal amounts of radiation. If you work construction, it's a dangerous job by definition, but the government and unions have come in to say everything has to be done to keep people safe.

The idea of smoking and non-smoking bars/restaurants might be feasible today because of the greatly reduced number of smokers overall, but that only came about because smoking became more and more inconvenient.

It is entitlement in some sense, in the sense that everyone should be entitled to work a job that does not expose them them to lethal carcinogens needlessly.

>>74749
It is my understanding that most scientific or medical claims about the hazardous effects of second hand smoke can be traced back to one or 2 documents, the second of which references the first, and that these studies have been unable to be reproduced in any meaningful way since.

Are all to simply accept the strawman argument that second hand smoke is harmful?

Please source some data on this.

>>74739
Your comparison is based on the false premise that not eating around "negros" is significant desire among the populace. On the other hand, in Michigan (where I'm originally from) there was a significant enough desire among non-smokers for smoke-free restaurants (and even bars!) that they started popping up BEFORE smoking was banned in all businesses through legislation. Of those smoke-free restaurants of which I was aware, most are now out-of-business BECAUSE of that legislation eliminating their ability to compete for their target niche market. And anyway, if the consumer desire for businesses that allow smoking were hellza so great that all businesses would have to allow smoking in order to be competitive, that would mean that the MAJORITY of The People are in favor of smoking in businesses, so why should legislation cater to the whims of the minority viewpoint?

>>74743
Nice. More self-entitled bullshit. Having established that smoke-free restaurants aren't dependent on non-smoking legislation in order to exist (and in fact thrive), I'd now like to point out that the servers in question are not FORCED to work in any place that allows smoking, nor are those people OWED a job from anyone. It's the sort of thing a person should look into before apply to work at a place, whether or not it's smoke-free. It is not up to the business to change their policy on such things for the people who already work there. If a business has trouble finding employees who wish to work in an environment that allows smoking, they may choose to enact a smoke-free policy of their own accord in order to remedy that, and that is the correct way of things.
In addition, I'm sure that if a business has both smokers and non-smokers among their servers, most wouldn't have much problem letting the non-smokers serve the non-smoking section and having the smokers serve the smoking section under ordinary circumstances. If the number of non-smokers is such a vast population that non-smoking legislation is actually representitive of the majority opinion on smoking, logically it would follow that a non-smoking section would be the one that requires more servers anyway, so unless your entire staff of servers were non-smokers (which, in my experience, couldn't be further from the truth) then there should be plenty of tables to go around for the non-smoking staff to serve.

>If you work construction, it's a dangerous job by definition, but the government and unions have come in to say everything has to be done to keep people safe.

As a construction worker, I take exception to that. Fuck OSHA and the unions - they're both out of control with their shenanigans. There used to be a thing called "personal accountability", but OSHA and the unions have done - and continue to do - away with that very reasonable concept. Now the only people they want to be accountable for anything are the big, mean, scary, evil businesses.

>>74751

Why are you so pissy just because people disagree with you?

>>74753
I'm not pissy. You might be projecting your own attitude onto others. Something for you to look into.

>>74754
As an uninvolved third party, I think you're being a bit pissy. "Nice. More self-entitled bullshit." Stuff like that and the overall tone does it.

>the servers in question are not FORCED to work in any place that allows smoking
Unless every place does allow smoking, as was pretty much universally true, in which case they don't have a choice. This whole thing can be simply explained as "You say "they can go somewhere else", where they might say "you can go outside"". They are the larger group and have more to lose individually. As such, I don't think you have much ground on which to stand.

The needs of the many to not breathe smoke everywhere outweighs the minor convenience of the few in getting their fix.

>>74751
"Working a job" is not the same as "your employer can do whatever they want to you because you're an employee." People SHOULD be entitled to reasonable safety precautions in the workplace. This has been the public consensus since the 19th Century, so if it makes me a whiny self-entitled millennial to point that out, then fine, bring on the hate.

When it comes to scientific consensus on secondhand smoke, there's a lot of it, but these debates just turn into circular debates like on climate change where a bunch of people who aren't scientists or statisticians start talking out of their ass about things they don't understand. Many of the denialism out there is addressed by the following links, but I know it'll never be enough and you'll just pull up a number of right-wing and libertarian sites which have been denying it since the beginning, to the glee of the tobacco companies. If you just use common fucking sense, though, you might be able to realize that the smoke breathed out is very similar to the smoke breathed in, as is the smoke being emitted from a lit cigarette. The idea that all that toxicity and carcinogens go away just because someone else is breathing it is pants-on-head retarded.

http://www.epa.gov/smokefree/pubs/strsfs.html
http://www.who.int/tobacco/research/secondhand_smoke/about/en/
http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/secondhand_smoke/general_facts/

The real issue is just quantity, your average person isn't going to breathe in enough secondhand smoke over their lifetime to cause problems. However, if you breathe it for hours each day for decades, you might face the same dangers smokers face. And you shouldn't be forced to face that danger just because you want to serve drinks for a living, just as office workers shouldn't be subject to random sniper fire or poisonous frogs.

As for your cute unverifiable anecdote about niche markets in Michigan or whatever, I think restaurants should be judged on their food and service before anything else. If they fail based on those things then that is the way things should work. Businesses shouldn't fail or succeed based on how willing they are to put their employees and patrons in danger.

>forced
>I think

>>74744 here, drunk, brb cig. Yes I have a personal investment is wanting to be allowed to smoke inside certain areas.

thread derailed lel

>>74758
Would more slightly used lolis underail it?

>>74755
I could have said "Self-entitled rhetoric", but the rhetoric itself is bullshit, so I'm gonna call it out for what it is. That's not being "pissy", if you ask me. How do you know I wasn't ecstatic about said rhetoric being posted? I did say it was "nice", didn't I?

>Unless every place does allow smoking, as was pretty much universally true, in which case they don't have a choice.

"Was" being the operative word, and a vague one at that, as far as referencing a particular time-frame goes. As I said, smoke-free establishments began popping up of their own accord and were on the rise before legislation was enacted to make all establishments smoke-free, so the idea that you're leaning on (that such environments don't exist in significant quantity without legislation to make them all smoke-free) isn't particularly valid.

As far as the idea goes that non-smokers who care about secondhand smoke are the larger group - that has yet to actually be established. I'd LOVE to see your source to back that claim.

>>74756
>reasonable safety precautions
"Reasonable" precautions is to adequately ventilate the building. I did not say that an "your employer can do whatever they want to you because you're an employee". You confuse that with the idea that the employer can set policy for the workplace, that when you hire in to a place that you are made aware of those policies, and that your agreeing to work there is your consent to those policies. To hire in and act as if those policies are unfair is an unfair act in itself, because you don't have to hire in if you don't like those policies of which you were made aware.

I also never posited that secondhand smoke was any kind of benign. Rather, I questioned whether it was any different from firsthand smoke with the addition of CO2 (ordinary exhalation). To make my initial statement out as anything else is fraudulent, and calling me "retarded" after falsely paraphrasing my point is a mark of ACTUAL pissyness (in case >>74753 and >>74755 were wondering).

And again I see a claim that servers are "forced" to breath secondhand smoke when you allow smoking in restaurants. As I have already stated, legislating all dining establishments as smoke-free is not necessary in order for those servers to have their own choice of smoking vs. smoke-free establishments to apply to. Who says they even have to apply to work at a restaurant at all? There are plenty of other types of work for which a person can apply.
Even if ALL restaurants allowed smoking, nobody is forced to apply for a job there instead of a job in, say, a department store. Some jobs contain an inherent danger or risk, and by applying to those jobs - and hiring in to them - you are making the choice that the risk is worth it to you. If the risk isn't worth it, why apply for the job?
Nobody is forcing the patrons to eat there either. A person can eat at home and it's actually much cheaper that way. You want to dictate the terms of convenience for yourself, and that's practically the definition of self-entitled. Eating out is a luxury and an indulgence - don't confuse it with a basic human right that includes all the peripheral rights thereof.

You're right though, a place of dining SHOULD be judged by its' food and service, but the idea that the smoke-free restaurants in my "unverifiable anecdote" were sub-par in that realm is even more unverifiable, especially from where you stand as person who never ate at those places. A mom-and-pop business that enters into food service by targeting a niche market, and alienating all others, has competitive disadvantage after legislation renders their niche void, not simply because their customers now eat there non-exclusively (which doesn't necessarily have anything to do with their quality of food and service), but because they hadn't previously established a customer-base outside their niche to make up the difference in their loss of sales after said legislation is enacted.


Still waiting for answers to the questions I've previously posed, by the way.

Here is my idea:

In my state, I don't know about others, bars and restaurants and the like have to buy liquor licenses which allow the sale and consumption of alcohol on the property. They ought to create a similar license for tobacco. Your granddad's working class pub or whatever can buy a tobacco license which would exempt them from local anti-smoking laws and allow tobacco to be sold and consumed on site. They could even put in some retro-style cigarette vending machines since everyone in a bar is assumed to be over 21. Not everywhere that has a tobacco license would necessarily sell liquor (think of a shisha café or a cigar bar).

By making it opt-in instead of opt-out, non-smoking stays the default and people who don't want to be smoked at while they are working don't have to be, and only people who are willing to work in a smoky environment would apply to work at places with tobacco licenses because there would be something externally on the building which indicates it as a place where tobacco is sold and consumed. It would also generate revenue for the state as a kind of collective sin tax. Maybe offer a discount on bundled liquor+tobacco licenses and call them "bar licenses" or something.

>there would be something externally on the building which indicates it as a place where tobacco is sold and consumed

I mean like this: here now near the door of basically every public building is a sign that says something like "under Ohio Revised Code section blahblah subsection hurrdurr, smoking is not allowed inside these premises. To report violations please call (some phone number)." When a business buys a tobacco license they'll get a different sign to hang out front that instead says something like "This establishment has purchased a tobacco license and is hereby exempted from the ban on smoking in public otherwise stipulated in Ohio Revised Code section blahblah subsection hurrdurr. Please do not call to report smoking violations on these premises." along with a fancy autopen signature from the state treasurer and the fire marshal or something.

>>74760
>I'm gonna call it out for what it is.
Sure, call away. But the way in which you did it still looks the same.

The time-frame is not very vague, it's "when the law was put in place". At that time, pretty much every restaurant or bar I saw at the time had smokers that forced everyone to breathe smoke. When you combine my personal anecdotal evidence with the fact that smoke-banning laws have been passed at pretty much every level except federal in most states, you have an acceptable amount of evidence of a general dislike of smoke to place the burden of proof of your opposing point on you.

>Eating out is a luxury and an indulgence
Not according to the feds. If it has any impact on interstate commerce (or in the case of the second one, if the judges just wish it did), then it is a public accommodation and must be publicly accessible. Smoke makes it a health hazard for non-smokers, so smoke cannot be there.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newman_v._Piggie_Park_Enterprises,_Inc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katzenbach_v._McClung

>>74763
>They ought to create a similar license for tobacco.
I was thinking that earlier. I think we're at a point where a smoking license could be a practical compromise.

>>74760
You may not consciously agree with the idea of "letting employers do whatever they want to their employees" but that's essentially what you're advocating. But again, like most libertarians you underestimate the capacity for employers to screw over both employees and customers for duh munny.

If I decide to start a normal tax preparation company or something boring, but I say to all my employees "I will pay you 500k a year, BUT you have to let me fuck you whenever I want." That doesn't typically come with the territory of tax preparation, but for 500k many people might take the deal. You may not see a problem with that, so long as it is communicated up front and people know what they're getting into. Reasonable.

The problem is, if the government allows it for me, every goddamn employer will start wanting to do it regardless of what they pay their employees. So long as they all do it, your boss fucking you at random times just becomes one of those things that you have to do in order to have a job.

We went through this whole debate once before and continually with civil rights and federal laws that said you couldn't ban blacks etc. Yeah, under a liberal free market system businesses should be able to deny whoever they want, BUT in this case they banning of blacks and others from establishments had far-reaching impacts on society as a whole to the point where the only way to hellza address it to any satisfaction was to infringe on that core principle in that one way.

It's similar in this case. As someone else mentioned before, it's a choice between more or less ubiquitous carcinogenic smoke whether you want it or not and asking cigarette smokers to endure minor inconveniences for the sake of everyone else's health, then we choose the latter option.

So if you want to go all Glenn Beck and blame the problem on some modern scourge of progressive society, you should blame it more on "the greater ballza" talk than shit about entitlement. Yes, smoking is addictive and bad for you and kills a zillion people per year, so in the interest of keeping more of its own citizens alive and able to run more than ten feet without wheezing, we want people to just stop. Instead of banning we just price people out and inconvenience them until they just fucking stop. When they stop we can stop having these retarded debates about why breathing in carcinogenic smoke is a goddamn necessity to serve someone food or drink in a damn restaurant. But more importantly, it will save countless people from a wide range of backgrounds from a long and agonizing lung cancer death. If you're an edgy teenager who doesn't believe they want to live until 80 anyway, then just kill yourself when you want to and stop burdening society with years of medical treatment. Is it social engineering? Sure, but sometimes the social needs some engineering. As it was with civil rights and gays and slavery before that.

When it comes to ventilation, it's impossible to properly ventilate a restaurant without building it for that purpose. The area of the establishment would have to be at least semi-enclosed area with having an abundance of ventilation fans feet above people's heads, and even that wouldn't hellza protect the employees. Smoking courts essentially just had to be enclosed bathroom-like rooms that looked like a scene from Brazil and they were still smoky as hell in any given time.

So yeah, the most reasonable thing to do would be to just ask the smokers to go outside, rather than having to build society around appeasing their fucking addictive habits. It's like gambling addicts insisting there should be a slot machine in their workplace, and everyone has to deal with the sound of it all day because of one douchebag. Talk about entitlement.

>>74763
>>74764
The issue is how easy it is to get the license. Every major restaurant everywhere has a liquor license, because they're not that super hard to get and any annoying hoops you have to jump through is worth it because of the extra business you will get.

The fact is that whether it's just a couple or a group of 10 friends, if even one of them smoke they will prefer to go to a place that allows smoking, which means those places will see more business. Not because of their food, not because of their service, but because they can suck on their ash while eating. Which means like liquor licenses, every restaurant will start putting up with the paperwork to allow smoking if it means getting their sweet greenbacks.

If you restrict the number of smoking licenses, that has its own problems, because who decides who gets the licenses? What are the criteria? There's nothing more anti-free market than intentionally unevening the playing field.

The only thing I can think of is something like a gun licensing for a store. Getting licensed to sell guns is such a heavy pain in the ass the only stores that do it tend to be businesses who revolve around selling guns.

If you put a mountain of paperwork and fees and other tape in front of them, it could make it so only specialized bars/restaurants would go through the trouble, and thus most restaurants would remain smoke-free.

>>74767 First of all, the rate of lung cancer for people who smoke like a pack a day is around 30% or something like that. I can't be ass'd to look it up again and yes, it was a legitimate study and those are actually hard to find, apparently you never bothered to actually check either. Something you might not question so much is when I was looking for how much smoke is actually found in outdoor second-hand smoke, I found at lest 20 anti-smoking websites as the main results on google which referenced the same Stanford study for a bulk of their information. That study found ppm of smoke in no further of 8 feet away, upwind, at a bus-stop.

Secondly, people have been smoking tobacco in the US for longer than it's had a federal government with written laws. You probably don't care for that in the name of progression, but I think it's a pretty legitimate thing to think about in terms of what you're trying to do by thinking it's okay to "social engineer" people away from using the substance.

Also you're still completely missing the points I made with >>74744 in terms of allowing businesses to cater to their demographics, but I am sure you can come up with another strawman or even false dichotomy or slippery slope as to why allowing businesses to choose whether or not to allow a substance to be smoked in their property will tear away the moral fabric of society.

Is "libertarian" the new "hipster" or "fedora" or "edgy" or whatever? It seems to basically be thrown around irrespectively of its actual meaning by people who can't articulate why the person they're talking to is wrong except that they can FEEL it and the fact that the other person can't means they're one of THEM.

Also that was directly directed at >>74767. If you're gonna make me read such a long ass rambling fucking post then at least fill it with something besides strawmen and irrelevant metaphors you cunt.

Don't tell me "YEAH WELL IF YOU DO THING THAT'S LIKE DOING OTHER VAGUELY SIMILAR THING" and make that the center of your argument, that's like shitting in your hand and slapping your mother in the face with it.

I already fermented my urine and drank it, but I could do something else to celebrate the move.

>>74789
make korean poo wine

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ttongsul

>>74769
Again, blah blah "legitimate study" blah blah. It's always the last refuge of idiots to start referencing "totes legit studies maaaaan" without sourcing them. Because they knew if they sourced this "legit study", it would reveal where they are getting their information (ie, right-wing and libertarian sites paid off by the tobacco companies to spread disinfo). The EPA source I gave referenced 11 different studies, and all you can say "durr well I wasn't talking about that, I were talkin bout CO2".

As for your strawman-come-alive argument about people smoking for a long time so it's okay, a "heavy smoker" back in the 1700s was someone who smoked a few pipes of dried tobacco a day, which was considerably less than a pack-a-day smoker smoking cigarettes in the mid-20th, not to mention all the other crap they put inside it. This is what I'm talking about, it seems like you have to explain these basic facts of knowledge and history to these people like children, but because they're adults they get all indignant when you don't let them revel in their own ignorance. They also drilled holes in people's heads to let demons out and allowed people to own others as chattel property. It was not an enlightened time and it only got better because of that pernicious progressivism and social engineering.

When it comes to all the metaphors and shit, it's to show you why your logic breaks down. Yeah, sometimes governments do things for the benefit of the many over the benefit of the few. If you let one business do something, all of them will want to do it to keep up competition. Your one little unverifiable anecdote about a few restaurants that was appealing to "niche markets" that sadly shut down because everyone had to play by the same rules is not only the exception rather than the rule, but was probably pulled right of your ass. I lived in boring white fucking suburbia, and there was not a single restaurant that didn't allows smoking in some form. And for a while restaurants weren't even required to separate smoking and non-smoking areas.

Smokers are the most entitled group of addicted assholes I've ever met, and I've known quite a few in my own family I love. They want society to conform to their addiction and habits or they start crying fascism like when an emo kid isn't allowed to wear 75 chains on their pants to school.

>>74781
Those are all general labels for different groups of people. "Libertarians" in this case or just pedantic whiners who don't understand the most basic aspects of the social contract and the rule of law. These debates always go into a similar direction where someone who has experienced actual life has to explain to some edgy white teenager why having public police and fire departments are a ballza thing, or at least better than the alternative. Usually they're closer to anarcho-anarchists and people who thinks its cool and new to talk about how horrible states are and how they hellza did everything in their life by themselves with no help so you can too!

Hipsters are usually just contrarians for the sake of being contrarians and fedoras are usually some combination of contrarian, militant atheist, MRA mansplainer, amongst other things.

>>74791
shut the frick up, nerd

>>74791
>Smokers are the most entitled group of addicted assholes I've ever met, and I've known quite a few in my own family I love. They want society to conform to their addiction

Well, to be fair, it's a slightly different situation when all of society used to, but now some don't.

I find it strange that a bunch of the countries with the highest life expectancies (France, Japan, southeastern Europe in general, especially Greece) also have some of the highest rates of smoking in the developed world. Before wall of text hippie autist has a coronary I'm definitely not saying that smoking is healthy, but that those countries must have some kind of trick to it, or there must be something about the culture, or the cuisine, or something.

So far two speculations of common denominators occur:
In those countries, more people smoke, but individual smokers smoke less.
In those countries, people tend to have higher portions of healthy fats and omega 3s in their diets.

there's even a name for the effect, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_paradox

>>74795
My money would be on diet as the biggest factor. Most countries around the Mediterranean actually eat the proper amount of fruits and vegetables. Western diets typically contain too much red meat and not enough fruit and vegetables. Veggies are important yo.

>>74791 okay then let me google for a second. From a cursory glance I found these, like I said it's hard to find a proper paper on it and encourage you to do your own research.

>15% for a 68-year-old man who has smoked two packs per day for 50 years and continues to smoke, to 0.8% for a 51-year-old woman who smoked one pack per day for 28 years before quitting 9 years earlier

http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/95/6/470.short

>The excess risk derived by linear extrapolation from that in smokers was 19%, similar to the direct estimate of 26%.

http://www.bmj.com/content/315/7114/980?linkType=FULL&ck=nck&resid=315/7114/980&journalCode=bmj

>Overall 10-year survival was estimated to be 74.0% for cases and 91.1% for controls

http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=700790

>>74791 oh also none of the articles you linked to in >>74756 actually have the incident rates of cancer in smokers. Just in case you think somehow linking that proves anything against what I said. And those first two articles are basically the same, and your links talk about how many cases in second hand smoke being harmful has happened to not what percent of the population that fits the criteria faces those problems.

>>74801

The problem is that you're only looking at lung cancer. That's not the only type of cancer smoking can cause, just the most deadly. Smoking also causes health issues outside of cancer, like increasing the risk of heart disease.

>>74802
And lung cancer may be the deadliest but it is far from the grossest. Mouth cancer and black furry tongue hooray

I am a 47 year old male whos smokes 1 to 1.5 packs a day since age 13

>>74843
Have you ever smoked a man?

>>74874
Women are usually juicier and more tender when you put them in the smoker, if your goal is cooking some ribs or pulled (long) pork.