Quote:
|
Originally Posted by RangerDick
The smokestack next to my hellhole studio apartment on the Upper East Side affects more than the power company itself. Noise and emissions from that bloody place definitely aren't making me healthier. Everything affects everything. Legislating our way to living in a "sterile bubble environment" is not the answer. Agreed, there has to be a middle ground. That is the core of the issue I guess.
|
And that smokestack is heavily regulated.
They should pay for the air they contaminate, and that cost should be passed on to the consumers of that power. The payments should be distributed to those that breathe air.
Allowing people to generate profit by trashing the commons is wrong.
Negative (and Positive!) externalities exist, and unless unaccounted for distort and harm a market economy.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Lebell
But I also think that if a business wants to allow smoking, that's their business and it's mine if I want to patronize them or not.
|
Should there be employment safety laws that restrict what risk a buisiness can expose it's employees to?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Bill O'Rights
To be fair, although second hand smoke may be unpleasant and irritate existing conditions (asthma, etc), there is still much debate as to the actual long term health effects of exposure to second hand smoke.
|
Take a smoke filled bar. If a city had that sort of air quality, what sort of death rates would be expected?
If second hand smoke turns out to be basically completely harmless, my the moral arguement I've pushed for these laws would have it's foundation removed. I should look into this further.