Mary Smith – 1/11/07

This page was last updated on January 11, 2007.

Smoking bans are fair; Mary Smith; Beaver County Times; January 11, 2007.

Below is a detailed critique of the letter.

“Letter writer Sherry Massa (‘Smokers’ rights violated, too,’ Monday) should write for David Letterman. She wrote that since Catholics didn’t eat meat on Fridays in the past, she thought that a law could have been passed for all non-Catholics to be included in that.

“She said that equated with smokers’ rights and that non-smokers are now forcing their will upon her.

“In her mind, she can’t light up at the restaurant now when someone objects.

“In my mind and a lot of other people’s minds who value their health, lighting up in the restaurant is boorish behavior and shouldn’t be done, period.

“Yes, it is fair that restaurants, although they have incurred the expenses of opening and running, still need to abide by the non-smoking law.”

[RWC] Why is it fair to tell a private property owner that he must prohibit smoking on his private property?

“People can stand not smoking for a short time while eating, if only to protect the workers in that place from lethal second-hand smoke, and, may I add, the nauseating smell that clings to clothing from the smoke.”

[RWC] I don’t know Ms. Smith, but I don’t believe for one second she and the other smoking ban crusaders care one whit about employees. If employees don’t want to work at a place that permits smoking, they can choose to work elsewhere.

“Other towns and states have found no problem with that. And if someone is so addicted to cigarettes, then she/he has the right not to patronize that particular establishment.”

[RWC] What a display of illogic and hypocrisy!

First, when governments ban smoking in restaurants, the “she/he has the right not to patronize that particular establishment” makes no sense because the smoker has no choice.

Second, isn’t it also true Ms. Smith “has the right not to patronize” a business that permits smoking?

“I also loved the parting shot in her letter not to look at smokers as though they have some disease. As someone who has lost both parents and both of my husband’s parents and numerous close relatives directly to smoking, I know that eventually you will probably have, if you don’t already, a disease.”

[RWC] You’ll note that nowhere did Ms. Smith mention the rights of the property owner to decide whether or not smoking would be allowed on his own private property. As most other people – whether for or against smoking bans, Ms. Smith is consumed only by what she wants.