Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : My House -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (6653)	4/9/2003 12:21:02 PM
From: Original Mad Dog	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 7689

I've never understood why the party endangering the health of themselves and others (smokers) are allowed to stay while the parties seeking to protect their own health and that of others are forced to miss the show. Never seemed fair to me. BTW, smoking has always been banned at My House, even in the gardens and outdoor areas. That figure huddled at the bus shelter down the road taking a few deep puffs has promised to quit soon. <g>

To: Lane3 who wrote (6653)	4/9/2003 4:02:56 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7689

I didn't mean it cavalierly but I did mean it. I am also annoyed by smoke, although not as much as some and apparently not as much as you. I would prefer people go outside to smoke, and even that bars or clubs or whatever usually forbid smoking (or allow it in a small walled off area that gets vented to the outside), but I don't think its right for the state to force them to do so any more then it would be right for the state to force me not to smoke (if I did want to smoke which I don't) because my tenant has a problem tolerating smoke. I know the law makes a strong distinction between a private home and a privately owned facility that is generally open to the public but as far as I am concerned they are both private property. Also I believe some of these laws effect private clubs as well. Tim