To the editor:
I regard to your Our Point on the smoking ordinance, regarding “not strictly for health” anti-smoking ban.
I’m surprised that you printed my voice from the opposition camp, the smokers. Now, I’ll try for the rest of it, regarding the smoking ban in bars and parks.
I have not been in a bar in many years but want to express sympathy for the smoker who wants to keep this last refuge where he can enjoy the company of other smokers.
The nonsmoker has smoke-free restaurants for jobs, (and where) food and drink (is) available. He should not seek out bars on a crusade for converting the established customers there.
For everybody’s health and safety, it is more important to convert this vigilance against the smoker into assurance that the intoxicated customer has a designated driver.
The smoker who likes the outdoors and takes himself to a park is thought of, too — the ban took to the open air. If he sneaks in a pipe or cigarette smoke through this charcoal fumes, he’ll have burnt weenie scared out of him if he gets caught by the vice squad.
Less than a century ago, during the alcohol prohibition, a sordid holy war was conducted by certain elements, mainly in small towns, against the cigarette smoker. Without the pretense for health reasons, chewing tobaccos were fine, as they enjoyed it themselves — this historical tidbit from behind the smokescreen.