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.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: epicure who wrote (9492)	1/23/2006 11:38:03 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 541687

I'm very lax on visual intrusions, because they are avoidable- you can look the other way. Following your logic, if there are two bars and one has a smoking sign and the other a non-smoking sign, you can go into the non-smoking bar. That's even cleaner than looking the other way. When there's a visual intrusion, you have to look it long enough to judge it and look away so you are not further exposed to the view. If there's a sign on the smoking establishment, you are not exposed to the smoke at all.

To: epicure who wrote (9492)	1/23/2006 6:40:34 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 541687

Why should someone who is doing nothing affirmative to hurt others, be effectively banned from going in to establishments? Having conditions that you don't like prevail in a place does not very closely resemble you being banned from that place. If it is known that smoking is allowed in an establishment than you are not being assaulted if you decide to go to the establishment. Similarly you are not "effectively banned" from rock concerts if you don't like loud noises. If bars were allowed to have premises where you were punched for stepping in the door, I'm not sure that would be justifiable. You can't tell the victim of an assault "You shouldn't have gone in there"- and I feel the same way about smoking. The severity of the assault is significantly different. You are much more likely to sustain severe injury, possibly even death, from one punch than you are to sustain a severe injury from walking in to an area where people smoke and then walking right out again after you discover there is smoke on the premises. And there are places where punching people in the face is legal. For example if you are in a boxing ring. Should the losing boxer complain about his rights being violated? If he didn't want to be punched he should have staid out of the ring. I don't believe in protecting people from their drugs of choice- but I do think where the user begins to make ME take the drug with them (goes for pot smoke too)- it's gone too far. Allowing people to smoke (and allow others to smoke) on their own property is not making you take the drug with them. You can refuse to go on the property where the drug use is allowed. Personally I would probably benefit from heavy control of smoking, I don't like cigarette smoke, but its generally not my right to control what other people do. Some people might be offended by smoke, others by pornography, or prostitution, or injected drugs, or loud noise. As long as I don't have to be exposed to it I think its non of my business, and it happening at a nice bar or club that I might otherwise want to go to is not forcing me to be exposed to it. I only am exposed to it if I take the voluntary step of entering the premises where it occurs. Tim