Smoking ban in Philadelphia approved

[Wingspan]

Canadian bartenders needlessly die every day.

[SunMo]

derr, i's dun't know what unmitigated means...someone explain it to me?


i'll let this condescending douche tell some guy standing  on 6" wide piece of steel 50 feet in the air that bartenders face more "unmitigated" danger than he does... hahahahha, man that makes me laugh

[ice grillin you]

i believe his point was that before these smoking laws they had to work in a hazardous enviroment that wasnt regulated in anyway...mining (and many other occupations) are far more dangerous but they are also regulated and have numerous laws that govern the safety of the job

[Sgt PSN]

i believe his point was that before these smoking laws they had to work in a hazardous enviroment that wasnt regulated in anyway...mining (and many other occupations) are far more dangerous but they are also regulated and have numerous laws that govern the safety of the job

Lotta good that did the miners in Utah. 

[Cerevant]

i believe his point was that before these smoking laws they had to work in a hazardous enviroment that wasnt regulated in anyway...mining (and many other occupations) are far more dangerous but they are also regulated and have numerous laws that govern the safety of the job

Ding!

Ever hear of a hard hat?  Safety glasses? Safety lines? Hearing protection? These things are not optional.  They are designed to keep employees from getting injured.

Hazardous waste cleanup?  Tyvek suits and respirators.  We won't allow employees to breathe anything that could give them cancer.  Sound familiar?

Did you know the design of mining equipment is subject to design requirements similar to those for equipment used in nuclear power plants?

Think maybe the office building you work in has no asbestos, or that it has been contained?

OSHA and other federal and local laws protect people from their employers and the environments they work in.  Bars are no different.

[rjs246]

None of that is what you said. But good job letting IGY make your point for you.

Anyway, the obvious point that I'm making is that all of those jobs are still dangerous (OSHA measures or not) and people still choose to do them. Just like being a bartender.

[Cerevant]

None of that is what you said. But good job letting IGY make your point for you.

That is exactly what I said, but I guess SunMo is not the only one who doesn't know what "unmitigated" means.

The smoking ban is no more a personal rights issue than mandatory hard hats or asbestos removal in offices is.  The law says that you can smoke in a private club - just as long as no one is being paid to be there.  End of story.

[rjs246]

I'm actually starting to realize that you don't know what unmitigated means. You seem to think that it is synonymous with 'unregulated' but it isn't. So, really, you're just clowning yourself more and more the more you hammer at it.

dictionary.com is a good resource, in case you want to learn something tonight.

[SunMo]

lol...i realized he was a naive douche about 4 posts ago and gave up

[Sgt PSN]

No you idiots......unmitigated is Canadian for unregulated.  English isn't the only language out there, ya know.  Stupid Americans. 

[Cerevant]

farging morons...have to spoon feed every farging detail to you.

Hard hats mitigate the risk of skull damage and brain injury due to impact from a falling object.
Removing asbestos from a building mitigates the risk of getting cancer from inhaling asbestos fibers.
Banning smoking in the workplace mitigates the risk of getting cancer or emphysema from inhaling second-hand smoke.

It is well established that industries, unions, local and federal government entities take an active role in mitigating the risks inherent in given jobs and/or workplace environments.  The requirements that come from these activities serve to protect the workers from external factors.  This is done through corporate policy, union contracts, local and federal law. 

This is not a violation of your personal freedom.  Banning smoking in the home?  Maybe so, but what about the kids who have no choice but to live there?  Banning smoking in apartment buildings?  Maybe so, but what's the difference between a smoking policy and a "no pets" or "no barbecue grills" policy?

If the damn smokers would just stop exhaling, these problems would be much simpler to solve.  Why don't you all just go drink yourselves stupid?  Oh, wait...then you'd be whining about your right to piss on the floor in restaurants.

[SunMo]

yeah, and those bars...they don't do anything to MITIGATE cigarette smoke.  it leaves the smoker's mouth and goes right into the bartender's lungs.  it's a shame they haven't invented things like vents, windows, smoke eaters or anything like that to MITIGATE the hazard of cigarette smoke

farging douche.

[PoopyfaceMcGee]

Your main argument is that it's part of the government's job to protect bartenders, waitstaff, and customers from inhaling second-hand smoke.  All the rest of it is unrelated fluff.  The counter-argument that the workers choose the job and the customers choose where they eat and drink is extremely valid, whether you personally agree or not.

[Cerevant]

yeah, and those bars...they don't do anything to MITIGATE cigarette smoke.  it leaves the smoker's mouth and goes right into the bartender's lungs.  it's a shame they haven't invented things like vents, windows, smoke eaters or anything like that to MITIGATE the hazard of cigarette smoke

Of course there are levels of risk mitigation.  The level of mitigation required is a function of the level of tolerable risk.  Tolerable risk is a function of the likelihood of consequences, and the potential cost of the consequences (in dollars, negative publicity, etc), and the cost of the mitigation. (Guess what I do for a living)  Think Fight Club - does it cost more to do a recall or to settle the inevitable lawsuits? 

workers choose the job and the customers choose where they eat and drink is extremely valid, whether you personally agree or not.

You are just claiming that the worker/consumer has a different level of tolerable risk than the employer / lawmaker.  Unfortunately for the worker, they don't get to make that call.  I don't care if you don't want to wear a helmet when you ride your motorcycle to work, but your are going to put a hard hat on when you get here.

And what is the consequence that employers / lawmakers are so worried about?  Yep...you guessed it.

[PoopyfaceMcGee]

Yeah, those poor bartenders and waitresses are subject to second-hand smoke against their will, while miners and high-voltage electricians have all the safety precautions in the world.

C'mon, hippie.  Even you should be able to recognize that your argument is overreaching.