Try 1 month for 99¢

I have noticed the pro-smoking letters seem to be in the majority. Curious if they are in the minority? Also why are there mostly pro-smoking establishments in town?

The argument against the ban seems to be that it would discriminate against smokers. It seems to me that it is non-smokers who have been discriminated against. The smokers have all the choices while the non-smoker has little to none.

Non-smokers can really only go to non-smoking establishments. Smokers can refrain from smoking for an hour and go to a non-smoking restaurant.

This is a case of a clash of two rights: The rights of the smoker to smoke vs. the rights of the non-smoker to go out and enjoy a meal in a relatively healthy environment. The difference is that when the smoker refrains from smoking there is no threat to their health, but when the smoker lights up in an enclosed space they release fumes the EPA has declared a class "A" carcinogen.

Exposure to secondhand smoke has been shown through numerous studies to be harmful. This is a fact ignored or denied by the pro-smoking lobby. They want to pass it off as a mere inconvenience, like an unruly child in a restaurant, but exposure to the child does not cause cancer, emphysema, stroke or heart attack.

I do thank the writer for pointing out that smoking in a public place is - like the screaming child - rude and inconsiderate.

Finally, the owner's rights do have limitations. They are a public institution and serve the general public. They are subject to regulation to protect the public health and safety. If you disagree, you should also enjoy eating off of plates wiped off with a damp sponge, served by cooks who do not wash their hands.

Ed Stewart

Normal

0
0
0
0
0

Load comments