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 : Ask Michael Burke -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Freedom Fighter who wrote (114024)	6/16/2008 1:20:08 PM
From: Broken_Clock	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 132070

Before non smoking in restaurants I used to hate it when I would be a restaurant and right about the time the food arrives some clown lights up a table away.

To: Freedom Fighter who wrote (114024)	6/16/2008 4:30:58 PM
From: Horgad	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 132070

"I don't smoke, but if I did, I should not be allowed to smoke where smoking is prohibited. However, that should not give non-smokers the right to dictate where smokers can smoke. That should be up to the owner of the establishment etc.... The customers in turn should then have the right to either go to a smoking establishment because they are smokers or avoid it because they don't like smoke and vice versa. The market would then take care of the distribution of smoking vs. non-smoking establishments and everyone would be happy. But that's not what the left wants. It's wants to dictate..." Sorry individual freedom has to stop when it infringes on the freedoms of others. Before the anti-smoking movement and laws, it was very difficult (or even impossible) to lead a normal free life and avoid second hand smoke. Those laws have given far more freedoms to people than they have taken away. However now that they have broken the restaurants and bars out of the "smoking" section mindset. I wouldn't mind if they lifted those specific laws and let capitalism run its course. Before there were basically zero no smoking restaurants and bars to choose from (there was no balance). Now that the mindset has been broken things MIGHT work out OK and we MIGHT get some reasonable balance of smoking and non-smoking establishments.

To: Freedom Fighter who wrote (114024)	6/16/2008 6:50:18 PM
From: Knighty Tin	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 132070

More rightist puffery, Wayne. I don't think a proprietor should be able to provide an unsafe environment if he serves the public. Under your silliness, he could serve tainted beef in a restaurant and if you didn't like being poisoned, you should go elsewhere. In a private club, sure. In a public establishment, there has to be some assurance of safety.

To: Freedom Fighter who wrote (114024)	6/16/2008 6:53:08 PM
From: Knighty Tin	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 132070

BTW, who is paying the extra health care costs for employees and customers and the extra fire risk in their insurance premiums. Capitalism doesn't do well with allocating these kinds of resources.

To: Freedom Fighter who wrote (114024)	6/18/2008 1:34:51 AM
From: Skeeter Bug	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 132070

Wayne, this is how most of the country has been run for most of the time restaurants have existed. quick, name three restaurants that have had a no smoking rule enforced solely by the owner... i can't think of one. i have no problem with smokers... it is when they exhale. hold it in for 4 days, i don't care. pollute public air and people will usually care. i used to hate going places and inhaling that crap. not because i wanted to, but because everyone allowed smoking. if you want to pollute, at least go outside and do it. btw, restaurants do just fine with no smoking in restaurant laws... and the customers do even better.