Cigar Forums banner

1 - 3 of 3 Posts

·
DymOnamic
Joined
·
966 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
From Letter to the Editors, NYTimes,

To the Editor:

Rosemary Ellis ("The Secondhand Smoking Gun," Op-Ed, Oct. 15) argues that smoking bans, like the ones in New York and Boston, reduce heart attacks and generally improve public health. While this may be true, it misses the real point.

Lots of things would improve public health. New York could enact a ban on eating cheesecake. The federal government could mandate that all people traveling in cars wear crash helmets. Certainly, public health would be improved by these measures.

The real issue, of course, is who should make these decisions, people or government?

When a city allows private citizens to smoke in privately owned bars and restaurants, those of us who do not smoke are free to choose which bars and restaurants to patronize. To borrow a term from another debate, opposing a ban on smoking is really a matter of being "pro choice."

MICHAEL ARMINI

Boston, Oct. 16, 2003

or..............................................................................,

To the Editor:

Rosemary Ellis's argument that smoking bans save lives (Op-Ed, Oct. 15) circumscribes the very point that these bans impinge upon one's individual freedom.

If we restricted the driving freedoms of people, say, not between the ages of 25 and 50, no doubt many lives of drivers and bystanders would be saved.

But we do not have such restrictions. The only difference is that more people drive than smoke.

ADHITYA S. CHITTUR

Providence, R.I., Oct. 15, 2003


:sb
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
623 Posts
:w Thanks for sharing Dave.

This is a country based on fundamental freedoms, this is what makes us so great. But if we continue stripping away those freedoms, we are no better that the rest.:u
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
438 Posts
great letters... thanks for sharing... you know... smoking laws, although close to home for all of us, are not new in their scope.

look at the seatbelt laws... i'm guessing all 50 states have them now... and i'm sure a vast majority of states have the helmet laws for motorcycles.

like the smoking laws, these too infringe upon our rights... indeed, there's even a stronger argument when it comes to these laws with respect to infringement of rights since logic would conclude that forcing people to buckle up or put on a helmet does nothing to improve the safety of the public and only helps in reducing deaths from accidents.

i wonder why no one has ever challeneged the seatbelt laws... if it could make it to the SC, it would be quite interesting to see what they thought about it.
 
1 - 3 of 3 Posts
Top