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: Skeeter Bug who wrote (114124)	6/22/2008 6:43:57 PM
From: longnshort	Respond to of 132070

everything causes cancer. Miners know the risks, but they still work the mines. Stress kills and a lot of jobs have stress

To: Skeeter Bug who wrote (114124)	6/24/2008 9:28:15 PM
From: Freedom Fighter	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 132070

skeeter, >it is extremely relevant to showing your theory as false. the free market didn't take care of this problem.< As I said before, this is irrelevant because second hand smoke only became an issue to people in the last few years. The market can't solve a problem before enough people actually perceive it to be a problem. LMAO That's the way markets work. Markets react to consumer demands and will fill many desires "when it makes sense". Fortunately, we don't have a situation where business is always forced to react to the desires of the losers in government or to democratic gang rule. Many businesses banned smoking long before the second hand smoke issue reached any kind of prominence in people's thinking because their employees complained or the owner wanted it that way. They made a choice they were "free" to make because they believed the downside of not banning smoking was greater than banning it. Of course they were smart enough to try to accommodate their smokers also by giving them smoking breaks, heaters outside during winter etc... >do you support the freedoms of business owners to expose their workers to known cancer causing agents across the board if the owners, rightly or wrongly, think they can earn an extra buck doing so?< I think if there were smoking and non-smoking restaurants, each would tend to employ only people that were comfortable with the environment. If one or the other had trouble finding employees, they would have to raise the salary structure to a point that attracted non-smokers to a smoking room and vice versa. I am a non-smoker. If I was looking for a job as a cook, waiter, etc... I would prefer working in a non-smoking environment. However, at a certain price, I would work in a smoking environment because I think a lot of the health risks of second hand smoke are over hyped and the smoke itself doesn't really bother me much. Some people would not make that choice and that's great. They would have to find work elsewhere. I would never be a NYC cop because of the risks, but some people are fine with it. I prefer shooting pool in a non-smoking environment, but the smoke was never enough of a negative to prevent me from playing at any poolroom. All the pool rooms in NYC are non-smoking now, but if the best players played at a smoking place, that's where I'd go. That's a subjective value judgment I would make that others might not. I'd rather play with and watch great players and deal with smoke than not. I have no desire to take away the pleasure of smokers because I think it's a dumb and unhealthy habit and would rather play smoke free. If I couldn't take the smoke, I'd go elsewhere or buy my own table.