Letter to editor on smoking

[birdnutz]

Want to know what you think of the letter,please not on smoking. I already know the effects,I have a really good Doctor that tells me every time I go in.I borrowed the last line from someone on the forum.

To the editor;
I won't argue the fact that smoking is a choice and not a right. But then neither is driving.But it's my choice. Not the best one but probably not the last bad one I'll make in my lifetime.
This one I will argue. What about the rights of the business owner? Shouldn't they be given the right to choose what will be allowed in their establishment? Or should that right be taken away? For the safety of the people that have the choice to of whether or not they enter that establishment? Gun laws were made for the same reasons. For the protection of the public.
New York just passed a trans fat law.Why? Because people can't seem to make the right choices. So now they've decided to make Big Brother watch out for us. They're not taking our rights,we're giving them away.
In 2006 tobacco taxes raised 21,027,845.00 Douglas recieved 54,431.50 of that.
In 2007 tabacco taxes raised 22,873,384.00 Douglas recieved 61,679.46
Do you think maybe this might of helped to get rid of the sales tax on food? I really don't know,but I don't see where it could of hurt.
Just remember"For every law that is passed is a little less freedom you have."
Any goverment that is large enough to give you everything you want,is also large enough to take everything away.

 

[Henrietta23]

Quote:
Just a couple of corrections, although I'm not sure that's what you're looking for:
"For the safety of the people that have the choice to of whether or not they enter that establishment?" This is an incomplete sentence. You may have intended it that way though as a way of stressing your point.
"Do you think maybe this might of helped to get rid of the sales tax on food? I really don't know,but I don't see where it could of hurt."
The "of"s that I have changed to bold italics should be "have".
"For the protection of the public." Also a fragment. Perhaps you could attach it to the previous thought since they are connected. "Gun laws were made for the same reasons, for the protection of the public." I believe using a comma between the two parts is the correct way to attach them but I could be wrong, in which case some one here is sure to know better!
I know you are probably looking for more than grammar corrections but I'm late for a meeting!

 

[birdnutz]

Actually I really appreciate the grammar correction. I will use spell check also!LOL

 

[Henrietta23]

Always a good idea. It will have more impact if correctly written.

 

[birdnutz]

Henrietta I really appreciate the input behind the replies. I really do!! Now what are your thoughts on the subject? I am pretty thick skinned on most subjects. I just need somebody to challenge me on it. Maybe I should put in my bio that I'm really not politically correct. I really think that most people are leary of posting because they don't want to offend anyone. But please feel free.

 

[The Chicken Lady]

Not really an opposition argument... I'm just going to share a few observations with you to help you frame your perspective more clearly.

I think the problem with "right to smoke" lies in the fact that smoking in a public establishment doesn't just affect the smoker. By smoking in a public establishment, the smoker infringes on the non-smokers' rights not to smoke.

Scientific evidence has absolutely proven, beyond all doubts, that secondhand smoke is even worse than the smoke the smoker inhales. Unless one smokes in a special, individualized booth, the smoker IS going to pass on secondhand smoke for others to inhale. This secondhand smoke has been proven to cause cancer and all other sorts of terrible health problems.

In supporting businesses that ban smokers, the government is saying, I will stand with you to protect the health of your employees and the citizens who want to make healthy choices while frequenting your place of business.

Eating fattening foods is a completely different situation than smoking. By choosing to eat unhealthily, a person is not in any way affecting anyone else other than themselves. No one else will stay skinny or get fat based on someone else's food choices. There really is no reason for the government to intervene here.

Because of the facts I've pointed out here, I'm not really sure you can link banning smoking and banning fatty foods together under the descriptor of "Big Brother is stealing our rights." I think the bigger picture needs to be examined.

 

[Lobzi]

I dont think too many folks mind others doing whatever as long as it doesnt negatively impact them. That is the problem with smoking....unless you where a bubble helmet (which by the way I advocate as a solution to public smoking), others are forced to "smoke" too. I wonder if someone who did not eat unhealthy food or chose not to take drugs would like it if they were forced to do so just because the people around them were....

I have always wondered why smokers cannot see this.

 

[freshegg]

a little food for thought 1 are goverment legalized smoking then sued the companies for selling it

. 2 the money that the government gets from smokers is way beyond the healthcare cost, if they would do us smokers the favor of outlawing them we would have to quit. the government knows without the smoke money they would crash and burn. I have said this for years and sure enough 1 state (cant remember which) last year was crying for more money since something like 80% of there smokers quit and they couldnt run the state without that money. Its messed up they really rely on our addiction as a smoker I wish I could quit.

 

[joebryant]

Personally, I no longer smoke and haven't for years, but if others do, I don't care. What really bothers me is that since the campaign against smoking took off about twenty years ago, a LOT of people saw that as an excuse to be blatantly RUDE to smokers, even total strangers in public. I think that it's far worse to be rude than it is to be a smoker. I would never even consider asking a guest to go outside my home if he/she wanted to smoke; I'm sure there are many other pollutants in my home that I should be more concerned about than the smoke from a few cigarettes. I keep ash trays handy for them, but if I had a long-term guest, I would prefer their not smoking in the house all day 24/7, and I'd try to find someplace/something convenient for them such as a well ventilated area.

What really throws me into a tailspin is for a FAT, RUDE jerk to insult a smoker. Being overweight is as bad if not worse for a person's health.

*******
EDIT: Another kind of blatant rudeness that bothers me is unrequested correction of another person's grammar and/or punctuation, especially when the one doing the correcting makes his/her own mistakes, e.g., "I know you are probably looking for more than grammar corrections but I'm late for a meeting!". That's a compound sentence and needs a comma. That's almost as bad as presuming/suggesting ignorance when giving a guest or host or hostess a lecture about the evils of smoking.

 

[lurky]

As a former smoker, I understand your frustrations. I appreciate the restrictions you oppose because i married a man who is allergic to the smoke. I wish they will also ban womens perfume. Whenever we go anywhere, there is an understanding that if my husband should say "i will be in the truck", i tell him GO.
Because i know the sooner he goes out there, the better off he will be. He also has asthma and they go hand in hand. The first attack seems to trigger the other. So he gets very sick (throat closes up) from those 2 things. I wish there was a way to get women to stop plastering strong smelling scents on them. So remember that there are people out there like him, and just try to imagine it from his side. I honestly would have never thought of something like that had i not met him. But you said you wanted to hear this, so thats why i shared this with you. I hope it helps you to feel that there are some good reasons