2
SEP

Protect rights of smokers

Share this article: Share this article del.icio.us Share this article digg Share this article google Share this article netscape Share this article reddit Share this article myweb Share this article fark Share this article furl
I just wanted to post this letter to the editor of the Santa Maria Times ... I think it says it all:

"I am not an advocate of smoking. I quit over 30 years ago, and regularly advise others to do the same.

My argument is that there is already too much government in our everyday lives.

You must agree that people you are proposing to regulate are taxpaying citizens, with every right to enjoy the parks as anyone else. The second-hand-smoke theory is very loosely based on junk science, as so many things are these days.

Common sense tells us that for a smoker to affect another person in a open space, such as the parks, he/she would have to be directly in that person's face. It is far more likely that dust and/or any number of other contaminants will be inhaled.

If city fathers wish to be so Draconian, they should set aside areas for smokers, as smoking, per se, is not an illegal activity.

K. Weber
Santa Maria"


null

Sep 02, 2008 5:54 am   Email to a Friend

Comments

SMOKERS-UNITE on Apr 30, 2009 11:38 pm

Here is all I am saying Smokers have bent over backwards to the non smoker so far. The non smoker asked for smoking sections..we agreed, then they slowly took those away forcing us outside..we complied, now they flat out attack us by raising the cost of our tobacco trying to FORCE us to quit. WHO DO THEY THINK THEY ARE! They blame tobacco for deaths, and hide behind secondhand smoke..yell CANCER all the time. Guess what, I am not buying it. First off there are people who have never smoked, never been around anyone who smoked..a day in their life..and guess what..got lung cancer. Now I am not going to say that smoking is good for you, cause we all know different, but to boldly attack us and say that we don't have a constitutional right to smoke is taking it too far. No the constitution does not specifically give us a right to smoke, it may fall under pursuit of happiness, maybe not. Samatha K. Graff claims we don't have a constitutional right to smoke. What I don't see in the constitution however, applies to her as well. She does not have a constitutional right to NOT Smoke either. So I say to you smokers, stop bending over backwards..if they start a fight..stand up..every time they raise your costs of tobacco..buy it..and THEN blow the smoke right in their faces..so that way they understand that if they impose their views on us...we can impose right back. It is our choice to smoke, not theirs to try to make us stop. WE KNOW you want us to stop, TOO BAD, we chose to smoke anyway. GET OVER IT or prepare for a fight.

F>G?Kidd on Feb 08, 2009 7:36 am

Iam sick and tired of the NON smoker making comment.It is my choice to smoke. don't they realize just walking down a main street in any town I would think in the World with all the muck in the air from cars and lorries or trucks (for U.S.A. friends) is the same as smoking 200 cigarettes per day. Iam 77years old I want to visit my sister in U.S.A who is 83 years. What is stopping me No 1 the flight No 2 You can not go out for a drink be coffee
.whisky or a meal .Thank God I live in Spain where the are not so DICTATOREAL

John Bancroft on Jan 07, 2009 1:18 pm

If you want to smoke ... smoke.
If you want to quit ... quit.
if you're not ready ... don't!
It your choice and don't be pushed to something you are not ready to do.

Write a comment

* = required field

:

:

:


1 + 2 =