I am not a smoker, and I do not enjoy being surrounded by secondhand smoke. But I also do not appreciate the state Senate’s bipartisan majority vote to ban smoking in public places (May 25 article), nor this newspaper’s May 23 editorial encouraging such a ban.
Secondhand smoke may be harmful, but there’s an easier way to avoid it without giving up our freedoms one by one — it’s called going somewhere else, leaving the room, or working at a voluntarily smoke-free establishment.
This ban amounts to big government telling citizens how to manage their business, and patronizes the rest of us who want to go and do as we please. Further evidence that this ban is unnecessary is the recent decision by several local hospitals to make this change on their own, going smoke-free on their campuses.
If the ban becomes law, many of us nonsmokers will happily visit establishments once effectively off-limits. However, we should do so knowing that we have given away the fundamental right to make these choices for ourselves. We’re embracing “smoke-free” at the expense of freedom in general.
Mick Wright
Cordova
I like this guy! Freedom of choice is a beautiful thing. If I do something you don’t like, you advocate for me to be unable to do it. You might want to remember, I can do the same. I might advocate for you to not be allowed to have a cocktail before dinner, or after, because I don’t like being around drunks. I don’t want my meal ruined by a group of business men with too many martinis under their belt. You must stop, because I am offended! I don’t like the smell of alcohol. And you might kill me driving home from said place, not to mention the fact you are ruining your health.
Yep, makes about as much sense, doesn’t it.
