@ AC 12:05
"if someone wants to allow cocaine taking on their private property, and it's somewhere where you don't have to go, then what the hell has that got to do with you anyway? Find somewhere else, if you don't like it"
Fine by me. Cocaine taking doesn't directly affect anybody else but the taker. (Certain regrettable practices necessitated by prohibition can create problems for those involved in the supply chain, but judging by the existence of other supply chains for legal products, those problems simply would not exist in the absence of prohibition. Let us assume for the sake of a fair comparison that any cocaine being consumed in those premises was produced without the exploitation of vulnerable people and that the customers were paying for it with their own money earned by legal means.) I prefer a pocket full of coins over a nose full of powder, and I can talk bollocks to complete strangers all night without chemical assistance.
"if someone wants to allow bear baiting on their private property and it's somewhere where you don't have to go, then what the hell has that got to do with you anyway? Find somewhere else, if you don't like it."
Indeed -- let them. They probably won't get many customers going along wanting to watch bear-baiting anyway. (Well, maybe once for morbid curiosity.) Beside which, the bears will get their own back sooner or later, and once that gets in the news they'll have a problem getting staff.
(Incidentally, smoking vs. bear-baiting isn't really a fair comparison either. Last I checked, cigarettes weren't sentient beings capable of objecting to being smoked the way bears are sentient beings capable of objecting to being baited. Or maybe you were drawing an analogy between people being smoked near to and bears being baited; but again, last I checked, bears didn't have a choice whether or not to be baited to the same extent that non-smokers had a choice whether or not to go into a place knowing full well that smoking was permitted there.)
"if someone wants to completely ignore health and safety law and it's somewhere where you don't have to go, then what the hell has that got to do with you anyway? Find somewhere else, if you don't like it."
Precisely. What other consenting adults do if it's not affecting me is none of my business. Their staff are grown-ups. They CHOSE to work there -- I can CHOOSE to stay away.
"AND get a job somewhere else, why should the law protect the workers from the bosses. If the bosses want to cut costs and let the workers get hurt, more power to them."
If I chose a job where I knew in advance that I would be putting my life on the line just by turning up for work, whatever happened next would be *my* fault. If I wasn't getting some sort of benefit out of it -- an adrenalin rush unavailable anywhere else, or just a seriously huge pay packet, for instance -- then you wouldn't see me for dust.
Let me remind you again: Before the government unnecessarily banned smoking in all pubs, there was NOTHING to stop you from choosing a non-smoking pub to patronise. If you nonetheless CHOSE to drink in a pub knowing full well that other people there were allowed to smoke, then that was nobody's fault but YOURS. Now, kindly stop blaming other people for your own shortcomings.
In the meantime, I will leave you with this thought: There's almost certainly something that you enjoy doing, and yet the very thought of which horrifies someone somewhere to the point that they would like to prevent anyone from ever doing it if they ever attained a position of power.