Two letters to the editor. One that’s terribly depressing. And one that made me laugh.

The sad one is a letter to the Columbia Daily Tribune, in defense of public smoking bans:

Inspired by Kevin Welch’s diatribe against the proposed limitation of smoking in businesses within the city, I must argue the relationship of the ban to the intentional order of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” Smoking is a proven threat to life, limits the liberties of non-smokers (for example, the right to safe air) and can simply be denoted as a “pursuit of (instant gratification? sadistic pleasure?) happiness” for those who choose it.

Has Welch’s outrage never been tempered by personally affecting circumstances of life and death? Were he to have a child with severe asthma, for example, he might more readily appreciate the existence and order of constitutional protections and not denigrate the champions of an international public health issue or trivialize this issue with irrelevant economic comparisons. His arguments also don’t take into account existing government health standards - food handling and preparation, sanitation and safety - designed to safeguard customer well-being.

A basic framework for protecting life (health), liberty (freedoms and choices) and the pursuit of happiness (personal preferences) is not only necessary for social order but for the very well-being of every member. That constitutional logic is threatened daily by the ranting ignorance of domineering individualists is a testament to their lack of respect for the ideal of the greater good - a value our constitutional democracy was designed to uphold foremost.

The smoking ban is an essential social discipline required to protect the greater good, and as a grateful American citizen, I heartily, healthfully support it.

And the funny one, a letter to the editor of the Economist:

SIR:

I have one minor quibble about your commendable article on medical marijuana (”Reefer madness”, April 29th). You mentioned a nebuliser that “releases its cannabinoids without any of the smoke of a spliff, and with fewer carcinogens”. A “spliff” normally refers to a cigarette mixture of tobacco and marijuana. Though not as hip, I believe the word you needed was “joint”. Or as we call them here, “a big fatty”.

Iain Duncan
Vancouver, Canada

Glad we cleared that up.

This entry was posted on Thursday, May 11th, 2006 at 7:56 pm by Radley Balko and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.