Smoke in their eyes
How many noticed the irony of two choices that the N.C. House made? Smoking in state prisons was banned. Smoking in restaurants was not.
Does the House find the health of prisoners to be more important than the health of people with respiratory problems, children and adults who do not wish to breathe others' smoke?
Possibly the House did not see it this way. Innovative and forward-thinking communities have made the choice to eliminate known health risks such as smoking. Should we not be afforded the same privilege that our own prisoners are going to enjoy?
Gary Rhymer
Greensboro
Comments (6)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
People in prison are a "captive" (pardon the pun) group and have nowhere to go if someone smokes in their presence. On the other hand, people in the private sector have many, many choices:1)Do not patrionize resturants that allow smoking.2)Do not patrionize resturants that allow smoking. 3) Do not pat.... Get it???
Posted on June 12, 2005 7:54 AM
Thank you John.
Also, people in prison are supposed to be there to be punished. If they smoke and can't, I'd say that would be punishment.
*wonders if Gary finished the 6th grade?*
Posted on June 12, 2005 8:50 AM
The N.C. House had no concern for the health of prisoners. This is about punishment.
Posted on June 12, 2005 8:51 AM
A prison is also a government building, which even I agree is subject to a smoking ban, whereas private property is never subject to one.
Posted on June 12, 2005 1:06 PM
Uhm....I believe around 99% of the places you would go with your kids have a non-smoking section. Why is it a problem for a someone to fire one up on the other side of the restaraunt? Does it really linger all the way over there to your sensitive nostrils and cause you trauma?
The only place I can think of that is constantly filled with smoke is a bar and I doubt you'd take your kids there. If you do that's your own dag gum fault.
P.S. Prisoners don't really have a choice about where they can go in prison either. I reckon you could say they are a captive audience....
Posted on June 13, 2005 8:55 AM
I have intentionally waited almost a year to post a response to your responses to my letter to the editor.
The letter was about basic rights. As recent legislation has shown, many cities are passing complete smoking bans for indoor AND outdoor public accessible areas, be it restaurants, retail, government, public/private, etc.
To say that someone can just move to the other side of a restaurant and be exposed to deadly second hand smoke is obviously from someone who has not taken the time to read and understand the dangers of second hand smoke and /or possible deadly allergic reactions it can have not only in healthy people but especially those with chronic breathing problems/etc.
As cities continually recognize the importance of protecting those that can not protect themselves that deserve the same basic rights to dine where they want to dine, or frequent where they want to frequent without exposure, the responses that I have read above will be nothing more than antiquated 'sayings' from those who have not accepted the reality that something that kills people can not and will not be legal in society.
Posted on April 13, 2006 7:07 PM