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 (9516)	1/23/2006 1:50:08 PM
From: Rambi	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 541649

I am still seeing a difference between health and nuisance. When the health risks started being publicized in the 70s, warnings were added to the packs, and advertising was no longer allowed, and people began being far more sensitive to the issue. Many people began quitting and demanding safer environments. In my department (mid-70s), a lot of people voluntarily stopped smoking in their offices and went to the lounge, and people started being far more considerate about smoking at the table- there was a growing sensitivity to others. It wasn't until the 90s that congress began inserting itself more vigorously and responding to the growing demand by the public for cleaner air. (maybe this a chicken or egg question, but it seems to me to have worked pretty well). While there had been a lot of change before the 90s without much intervention, the public demanded faster, more efficient control for health reasons- and I don't disagree with that. However, there is a point where, once the health risk is alleviated, I would prefer the government to back off, even though I may not have exactly what I want. Obviously you accept more control to get the result you want. I think we understand each other's positions, but we just disagree on how much the government should do.