Public may breathe smoke

Dear Editor,

As of Jan. 1, I quit smoking. I realize smoking is not healthy for individuals or those around them. I have no problem with people who do not wish to be exposed to secondhand smoke, as I am now one of them.

---

LETTERS

---

Unfortunately, due to the passage of California's smoking law, I now have a much greater concern than smoking and the damage it could do to me and others around me.

The California smoking law is draconian in nature.

Let us get something straight, no one can claim they are forced to breathe secondhand smoke in a bar; that decision is made upon entering the bar, whether it be for enjoyment or employment. With the exception of small children under parental supervision, no one is forced to breathe secondhand smoke.

The ban infringes on individual rights under the guise of the public good.

The public good in this case is the publics health. The passage of this law by the state legislature tells us, the public, that the state has the right to dictate what is good for you because the public good is the standard for individual rights.

The public good is an arbitrary assertion and as such, an improper standard by which to measure individual rights.

Now, we can say that we are truly living in a time where the government takes away rights from all individuals in order to save us from ourselves. Is this Orwell's "1984?"

The public is a group of individuals - and each of those individuals have inalienable constitutional rights which are supposed to be protected by the government.

There should be choice. Bar owners, employees and patrons should be able to choose where they wish to work, drink and be exposed or not exposed to first and secondhand smoke.

The bars that want to be smoking facilities could pay an extra license fee to the state and prominently display a sign outside the premise identifying it as a smoking bar.

In this way, employees and patrons are informed of the free choice being made by the business owner regarding working conditions on private property. They can then decide whether to enter the premises.

This law is an example of political correctness and ruling by force for the sake of the public good, which is the way of life in most dictatorships and totalitarian societies.

The threat this law poses against individual rights is real.

It sets a dangerous precedent, under the guise of the public good, the government could pass subsequent laws regulating or eliminating whichever behavior they deem in the public good.