Smoking ban in Philadelphia approved

[SunMo]

Of course there are levels of risk mitigation. 

There is no other industry where a person has to accept unmitigated health risk or find another job.

[Cerevant]

Of course there are levels of risk mitigation. 

There is no other industry where a person has to accept unmitigated health risk or find another job.

You need to stop making an ass out of yourself.  Unmitigated means no mitigation.  Levels of mitigation indicate that there is still some mitigation.

[SunMo]

you can't quote...but i'm making an ass of myself?

and i'm merely pointing out your inconsistency...

when i first brought up the point of bartenders...you said it was an unmitigated health risk, unmitigated means no mitigation as you awesomely defined a word by using the word in the definition.  then i pointed out levels of mitigation for a bartender and you agreed that there are some levels of mitigation...if that is true, it is obviously not an unmitigated profession

[rjs246]

There are no unmitigated dangers in the world of bartending. None. Cerevant here keeps trying to make the same inaccurate point and every time he does it gets sadder and sadder.

Anti-smoking advocates/activists make my brain hurt. The world is full of injustices. Find something else to harp on.

[Cerevant]

Risk to the employee: second hand smoke exposure increases risk of cancer two-fold
Consequences to the employer: $500,000 lawsuit award

[PoopyfaceMcGee]

The employer made a decision to allow smoking in the establishment, a court of law found a link to the damaging of someone's health, and they awarded money for it.

What are you trying to prove, except that the system was working before the government decided to "help out" and enact bans all over the place?

[reese125]

that if your a bartender...you can sue too

[Phanatic]

I work in bars from time to time and I'd love a smoking ban personally. It gets in your clothes and everything you bring in the place. farg people and their damn rights. It's all about me! 

[Cerevant]

What are you trying to prove,

That it is a occupational health and safety issue, not a civil liberties issue.  That there is precedent for restricting the behavior of employees while at work, and controlling the environment where they work to reduce risk.  That there is precedent for the enacting of laws to enforce OH&S standards to level the playing field between employers.

[PoopyfaceMcGee]

There are a lot of precedents the U.S. government has set.  Many of them are more wrong than right.

[ice grillin you]

and many of them are more right than wrong....i like the abolishment of slavery...one of my personal favorites

[PoopyfaceMcGee]

Right, and for many years before that, the government's precedent was to look the other way while humans were tortured and abused for profit and convenience.

An argument based on government precedent is not only tenuous, but non-existent.

[Cerevant]

Related question:  Do you believe that smoking should be allowed by employees in office buildings or other establishments where there's no risk of contamination (food, manufacturing, etc)?

[ice grillin you]

Right, and for many years before that, the government's precedent was to look the other way while humans were tortured and abused for profit and convenience.

An argument based on government precedent is not only tenuous, but non-existent.

so because slavery was once legal lessens the actions of the govt to abolish it?

your anti govt rants are getting more and more mcveighish and honestly are starting to scare me

[Cerevant]

What boggles my mind is that I've given sound economic reasons to support the ban and he's still against it.  Nicotine must be a cruel mistress.