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 (9497)	1/23/2006 12:10:25 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 541667

I'd like the government out of the business of protecting us from hazards that we do consent to. I agree with you, but if you enter a bar with a smoking sign, then you are consenting to the hazard.

To: epicure who wrote (9497)	1/23/2006 12:15:29 PM
From: Rambi	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 541667

I have only been troubled once or twice by smoke in restaurants in the US and never to the extent I thought my lungs were being compromised by a brief exposure to secondhand smoke (unlike Europe where I thought I would die a couple of times) so I don't see it as much of a health issue as an annoyance issue. I would rather have the choice to avoid someplace and keep the government out of it than allow government to take over the decision-making. I guess that's the difference for me. Maybe communities could put it to a local vote. Here in Dallas, the mayor made the decision FOR Dallas, as I remember it. If a locale allowed the people to decide, then it wouldn't feel so patronizing to me.