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.

Pastimes : Don't Ask Rambi -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: barb loucks who wrote (5700)	1/5/1998 12:36:00 AM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71178

The point is alcohol is regulated. Sobriety checkpoints have been upheld by the courts. And when one drinks at a restaurant one's neighbor's are not also obliged to imbibe. To be a true analogy, the drinker at the table should force everyone present to also imbibe small amounts of whatever he/she is drinking. Would you think that was the American way? As for colds, one does not pick them up and put them down at will. Therefore it is not a very apt analogy. And one does not require smokers to stay home. One merely desires them not to smoke in public buildings with non-smokers. There is no very good analogy for this I am afraid, as Michael's efforts illustrate. I think very few things are as clear cut as this debate. But I do happen to agree with you that the sick should stay at home. However, because illness is not volitional, and one can not shed oneself of one's virus when leaving the house, I find the legal remedy in this case rather extreme. Making public buildings smoke free, on the other hand, I consider only just. For justice should protect the innocent and what is more innocent thatn breathing?