Happiness: deep vs. cheap

Daniel Gilbert, in Juliet Waters’ recent book review [“If you’re happy and you know it,” June 15], claimed to have a “happy-o-meter” with which he could scientifically record our happiness.

But surely there are qualitative differences in the vast realm of happy experiences. So it isn’t a question of equal units. An accountant pretending to be a psychologist can’t really measure happiness if he never distinguishes between the deep and the superficial—as if the refreshment of lemonade and the appreciation of wine were equal in felicity. Those of us who simply happen to have more experiences may well be deceived.

» L.S. Cattarini

Anti-smokers fight back

Joel Demers’ letter defending his colleague, political scientist Dr. David Romano, makes no sense [Letters, “Pro-smokers still fuming,” June 15].

I cannot understand how anyone could defend Dr. Romano’s opinions about anything. Dr. Romano writes: “My favourite pastimes in Ontario: cycling to a park with a picnic lunch, a bottle of wine and a friend. This is illegal, since I don’t cycle with a bike helmet, and having some wine with your picnic is also forbidden there.” [Letters, “Quebec libertarianism up in smoke,” May 25].

I’ve been riding a bicycle to commute and to generally get around for over 15 years. I ride in traffic almost year-round. Any person who lacks even the basic common sense to understand how inherently dangerous drinking and riding a bicycle is cannot have any opinions worth taking seriously. Really. The way I see it, if a drunken Dr. Romano, riding without a helmet, should get knocked off his bike by a speeding, inattentive motorist, that’s just Darwinism at its best. (I hope it never happens.)

Meanwhile, Mr. Demers’ opinions are no less confused. He writes: “The truth is, second-hand smoke is not any more harmful [...] than chlorinated water [...] or whole milk,” but goes on to say in the very next paragraph: “...a smoky environment is an annoyance that can easily be ventilated to a comfortable level. And should it even be a risk, we [...] should be allowed to choose it.”

What is being argued here? Is it a risk or not? Is second-hand smoke harmful, or isn’t it? If second-hand smoke isn’t harmful, then how can it be any risk?

In fact, second-hand smoke is harmful. I know this, because for most of my life I—like countless others—have been driven from bars, clubs and restaurants by the puffy, red, teary eyes and raw sinuses that I inevitably suffer from 10 minutes after sitting down in a smoke-filled room.

But Mr. Demers is correct that the issue is a political one. The issue is about choice. Smoking in public, from a socio-political stance, is analogous to walking into a quiet coffee store with a cranked boombox pounding away. That sort of questionable behaviour would annoy people and disturb the quality of their lives. It would create a public nuisance. It would not be tolerated. Why, then, should any smoker be allowed to disturb the quality of my life, blowing smoke in my face and making me feel ill?

With the smoking ban in place, everyone gets to choose. I, a non-smoker, can choose where I want to go to eat, drink and party comfortably. Smokers can choose to smoke outside or smoke at home, but they can no longer choose to create a public nuisance.

Unfortunately, many smokers still do anyway, with their selfish habit of callously dumping millions of soiled butts daily on every sidewalk, street, park, courtyard, highway and parking lot.

» Alan Yates

In your report “End of a Smokey Era,” [April 13] you say, “The government says 359 people died in 1998 as a result of ETS [environmental tobacco /second-hand smoke] exposure.”

In fact, the government currently alleges 300 deaths from lung cancer and 700 from heart disease for a total of 1,000 as a conservative estimate (see www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hl-vs/tobac-tabac/second/fact-fait/tox/index_e.html).

So logically, the smoking advocates are saying one of two things. Either (a) this is a small price to pay for the freedom of smokers to light up where it’s convenient for them, or (b) scientists and governments across North America have conspired to exaggerate the dangers of second-hand smoke (though it’s not clear why). Or, perhaps, (c) non-smokers enjoy getting lung cancer and heart disease, that should be their choice.

Either way, the discussion is absurd. I’m sure someone is having a good laugh about it.

» Jason Mayer

I don’t need anyone to tell me about second-hand smoke because I get physically ill with asthma whenever I’m exposed to it. That’s reality for a lot of people. No amount of cynical spin-doctoring can change the fact that second-hand smoke hurts people.

» Deborah Lewis

WE WELCOME LETTERS TO THE EDITOR!

Send your comments, compliments or criticisms to:

Letters to the Editor,
c/o Montreal Mirror,
465 McGill, 3rd Floor
Montreal, Quebec
H2Y 4B4

You may also fax us at (514) 393-3173, or reach us by e-mail:

Letters to the Editor

All letters should include your name, address and daytime phone number.

If you wish to reach someone in particular, here's a list of people involved with the production of the newspaper and this site.