Smokers do not trump nonsmokers’ rights

Re “Smoking enlightenment,” editorial, Feb. 12

Your editorial mischaracterizes Calabasas’ new ordinance -- which protects nonsmokers from exposure to a “known human carcinogen” and “toxic air contaminant” by largely limiting outdoor smoking to small designated areas -- by focusing on the narrow issue of enforcement, something that has not proved to be a significant problem with other laws limiting smoking indoors or out.

You also ignore evidence showing that an asthmatic attack can be triggered by even a tiny amount of smoke, and the long-standing policy of protecting citizens from any unnecessary involuntary exposure to cancer-causing substances. Let’s give the ordinance a fair chance and see how it works.

JOHN F. BANZHAF III

Executive Director, Chief Counsel

Action on Smoking and Health

Washington

*

You call for “fair play.” Until now, where has that concept entered in for the generations of children, for those with heart and respiratory diseases, and for nonsmokers who would like to enjoy a communal activity outdoors without facing a toxic substance that can be eliminated?

The fact is, even with the great strides California has made legislatively to free nonsmokers from the threat of smokers’ previously unfettered choice to light up anywhere, anytime, there are still too many places, e.g., apartment building common areas, where the smoker alone decides what everyone else has to put up with. The unwilling nonsmoker’s sole choice has been to leave. That is in no way “fair.”

Fair play recognizes that only one of the opposed groups involved has a “right,” and that is nonsmokers. That right is the right not to be discriminated against in enjoying activities open to all. Conversely, other than in tobacco industry media campaigns, where is the textual source for the right to smoke? Without such a basis, smokers’ whines are nothing more than hot -- and toxic -- air.

JOHN BIRKE

Woodland Hills