Upon finishing Blain Moyle’s letter of August 31, I felt so good. Of course smokers shouldn’t be allowed to pollute bars and restaurants anywhere. But why should we stop at tobacco? Why shouldn’t we move on to bigger issues, like alcohol? I haven’t done much research on this, but I believe there are more people dying every year from drunk-driving offenses than from second-hand smoke. Why should we put up with people consuming a substance which will directly affect the health of those around them? We should ban meat products and butter from being served in public. It directly affects everyone around them when a 40-year-old man has a heart attack and drives health insurance costs up. Don’t even get me started on those substances that produce gas when consumed. Why should anyone be inconvenienced, hurt or killed by others? With a few simple lifestyle changes, we could be living in a utopia. If that means banning all things we enjoy, so be it. Everyone has a choice. The restaurant and bar owners have the choice to ban smoking if they want. If a restaurant or bar owner wishes to have smokers in their establishment, they should have that right. I’m not saying smoking is a right or that second hand smoke doesn’t hurt bystanders. I am arguing the lack of innocence in those bystanders who chose to expose themselves to second-hand smoke and that the loss of a business’s right to choose what their customers do in their store/bar/restaurant/coffee shop is worse than losing customers because it’s a smoking establishment. Instead of legislating a ban, why not try talking to those business owners? I’d respect this movement more if you didn’t use the government as the only way to change things. Seth Minnihan

Management information systems and history