Stay away, smokers
So the U.S. surgeon general says secondhand smoke is a health hazard? Duh! (“Public enemy No. 1,” June 28 cover story.) Hopefully this new report will help enforce smoking bans throughout the country.
Permitting smoking in bars [in Chicago] until 2008 is such a cop-out; there are obviously more than a few smokers on the Chicago City Council. As far as the “alcohol is just as bad as smoking” argument goes: Yes, alcohol can kill and is often to blame in car accidents, but I can sit next to someone at a bar drinking a beer and leave without any permanent damage to my own health and without my clothes smelling horrible.
There’s no such thing as secondhand intoxication. You can’t say the same about sitting next to a smoker. We non-smokers aren’t bitter, just concerned for our own health! I don’t care if smokers smoke outside–let them inhale the toxic fumes–as long as I can walk far, far away.
Whitney Fruin, 25, Lakeview
Menace to society?
After reading this article, I must say that I fully understand why people want to ban smoking. But is it just me, or have we been hyping up smoking?
I mean, we have cars and nuclear plants and other things that pollute our lungs. You don’t see someone say, “Stop driving your car because you’re killing me with exhaust!”
I don’t disagree that we should do something about secondhand smoke, but let’s take on bigger problems first. I mean, we just might find out once we get rid of the pollution that secondhand smoke might not be as bad. Or the right to clean air might be better supported.
Katarina Messenger, Chicago
Treated like pariahs
In my opinion, smokers are treated very unfairly. They get taxed up the wazoo and then can’t smoke anywhere. Governments that put all the restrictions on smokers simply don’t deserve tobacco revenue.
Steve Laude, Chicago
Ban it all
I had to write to respond to a couple of quotes from your story on smoking and secondhand smoke. Smokers feel they “have a right” to smoke if they want to and the rest of us are just “bitter non-smokers that don’t want to smell smoke.” Why are we bitter, because we don’t want their “right” to infringe on our “right” to breathe clean air? I’m not bitter, I’m angry. I’m angry that their “right” affects my health.
The argument that “We should be able to smoke outside” is not as simple as that. Even outside, you can smell smoke from people walking down the sidewalk. It doesn’t just evaporate as soon as it comes out of their mouths. I’m often caught behind people on the sidewalk smoking, and the smoke gets blown back into my face. I assure you I can smell it and feel it irritating my throat.
I’m also annoyed by the argument that “They haven’t stopped alcohol, and it’s killed a lot of people.” People consuming alcohol are not hurting anyone but themselves. If they have a drink, it is not lingering in the air and traveling to everyone else’s liver to cause cirrhosis. Secondhand smoke does travel to other people’s lungs and does cause lung cancer and other diseases.
Until they create a little bubble suit for smokers to walk around in, so their so-called right doesn’t affect people who don’t want to share in their disgusting habit, I hope they ban smoking in every possible nook and cranny of public space.
Jeremy Phillips, 34, Lincoln Park
Evil boss
I had a psychotic boss who was obsessed with her weight (thought she was fat but resembled Skeletor) and the biggest control freak (“Hate your boss?” June 29 cover story).
She would come in my office and go through my shopping bags to see what size I wore. Then she would puke in the bathroom. She drank Diet Swiss Miss and rationed out one package per week, for about five cups.
Melanie Nimrodi, 28, Rogers Park
It’s a free country
I know this may be a tad past due, but giving [White Sox manager] Ozzie [Guillen] mandatory sensitivity training classes is simply ridiculous.
I know using the word [he used] is not PC in this day and age; however, the last time I checked, this was still the United States of America, correct? You know, the country with that little law in the books entitled the 1st Amendment? I believe it has something to do with freedom of speech or something along those lines.
The point being: People in this country are so quick to be offended by what people say that they feel they should get some retribution by forcing the offending party into “shock treatment” sensitivity classes.
They seem to forget that people are legally allowed to say what they feel, whether it offends you or not! Sure, people say stupid things and it annoys you, but you know what, it’s a freedom that this country should not have to relinquish because certain people get their panties in a bunch about words being directed at somebody else!
So to the groups out there who are so quick to point the finger at the “bad mouths,” a little advice: Deal with it. Quit trying to turn this country into Care Bear Land.
John Parr, 28, Ravenswood
The right choice
You folks–usually so sharp–missed on this one (” ‘The View’ … with some room,” June 28). There is only one woman to replace [Star Jones Reynolds] and you didn’t even include her: Wanda Sykes.
Judy Raddue, Ravenswood Manor
Jay-Z is his own man
I can’t believe how many people are trying to tell Jay-Z what to do with his money. He earned it; shouldn’t he decide what to do with it? (Reader Powerpoints, June 27.)
If he donated $1 million to cancer research, someone would say, “Why didn’t he donate it to AIDS research?” If he donated $1 million, someone would say: “He’s rich, why not $2 million. He must be cheap!”
That’s one thing I’d like to think we still have in this country: freedom of choice. If you were in a position to donate a large sum of money to your favorite charity, what would it be? Would you criticize me for donating money to an animal rights group, unless I donated another sum to human rights? Would you criticize someone for sending money to the tsunami victims overseas instead of our own people in Louisiana?
If everyone agreed on one charitable organization, we’d all suffer. That’s the value of diversity in America.
I’d also like to think that if the owner of one of my favorite beverage companies said something that offended me, I’d also have the right to boycott them and make my boycott known, whether I was rich or not. Also, I wouldn’t expect people to tell me to find something better to boycott or how to spend my free time.
Mandi Mills, 31, Loop
