The ignorance displayed by smokers who were quoted in your Jan. 4 article is almost more disgusting than smoke itself.
"Smokers are losing more and more rights," an angry smoker said. What about the rights of nonsmokers whose lungs are damaged by secondhand smoke? Strike one, smokers.
"I don't think my cigarette smoke is any more offensive than a lady who's wearing offensive perfume." Actually, I have smelled perfume more offensive than cigarette smoke, but "offense" is not the issue--health is. To date, I have seen few people die from the scent of perfume. Strike two.
"Why not regulate places that sell greasy red meat because we all know that can damage your arteries?" I can't believe someone asked that! How often has the person next to you developed arteriosclerosis because of the greasy meat you were eating? Strike three, smokers out.
The new law isn't there because the government wants to have an even tighter grip on society, or because it's out to get smokers. The law is there to protect nonsmokers from getting diseases simply because someone else decided to light up.
See, the fact of the matter is, and this should be no news bulletin, secondhand smoke kills. It's as simple as that.
No one has any qualms with a person's right to destroy his/her own lungs. If you're in your own home or someplace else away from nonsmokers, go nuts! Smoke 10 packs! But when people light up in a public place where nonsmokers like myself are affected, call it what it is--assault with a deadly weapon.
* Recently, we enjoyed a meal at a nice Beverly Hills restaurant. There was no smoking allowed due to the new state laws.
But everyone else at our table, and other tables, drank themselves silly, and the management encourages this by offering free drinks after dinner.
But nothing is ever said about "secondhand alcohol!" These people drank, and drank, then got in their cars and drove home.
I'd much rather have had a little secondhand smoke than be driving next to the risks these drinkers posed.