Smokes, bingo and freedom

In “No more smoking,” [Letters, Sept. 21], Carole expressed frustration towards Mr. Daniel Romano, president of CAGE, suggesting that he called her an “anti” smoker, and against the Mirror’s coverage of Montreal’s opposition to the smoking ban.

We do not understand why she and other opponents fail to understand that we also support their freedom and their choice to live according to their beliefs. For the record: tobacco smoke is not “toxic waste” for non-smokers any more than our water or milk supplies are toxic baths. Poison is in the dose! However, regardless of the overwhelming evidence on this fact, we definitely support freedom of choice for everyone. Carole claims she doesn’t get complaints, I submit that the reason is probably because smokers may not feel very assertive facing the combined anti-smokers’ powers of the state and special-interest groups who convicted them without trial, and now depict them as stinking murderers.

Many simply no longer go out in places where they can’t smoke. For that reason, small businesses are greatly suffering and a few have already closed—charity bingos are struggling and consequently so are the livelihoods of people not as lucky as Carole. Furthermore, smokers are denied their rightful lifestyle freedom of choice, as employees or customers. I have rarely seen such an effort to shut a debate as we are presently witnessing from this coalition against the smoking debate in the Mirror.

Non-smokers are people who simply do not smoke, and they are the vast majority. Anti-smokers, on the other hand, a loud but well-funded minority, want smokers to quit or be punished. I can see why she would qualify the term ‘‘anti-smoker’’ as name calling.

Where does Carole really stand in this issue? I will let her and the readers decide. Instead of trying to close the debate, since the whole law is being challenged by Julius Grey for bar owners, Carole and other freedom of choice opponents should attempt to enlighten us with one good reason for Quebec’s law not to allow for a certain number of smoking venues like most of the civilized world does. Montreal is not about to get “over” personal freedom and we, the vast majority of smokers and non-smokers, are thankful that the Mirror is a fair reflection of this ongoing debate.

» Joël Demers, Communications francophones-Public and media relations, CAGE (Citizens Against Government Encroachment)

While Carole is bashing Mr. Romano and Mr. Hardin, I wonder how she will feel by spring.

We have been non-smoking in Guelph since 2000. I run a business too, and believe me, trade will disappear and so will the staff.

Winter is the first shock—our weather does not make patios attractive. By the spring, people have got used to take-out, and the patios are only half full. The next winter kills trade, with only places with heated patios surviving. Now those have been banned here, so trade will be even more affected.

As for the staff, I used to employ 10, and now run it alone. I can cope, as trade is down so dramatically. Both our bingo halls have closed, and coffee shops have cut staff and hours. One restaurant took out half its tables and spread the others further apart to look busier, but trade continues to decline.

As for the non-smokers who were supposed to flock to the smoke-free bars, what a joke! This might be a good time for Carole to look for another job—hers will probably be gone in the near future.

» Diana Reid, Guelph, Ontario

Defining defence

Ken Frankel has as much difficulty with comprehension as he does with Middle East history [“On attacking Israel,” Letters, Sept. 28]. Contrary to his claim, Patrice Bombardier [“Pride and genocide,” Letters, Sept. 21] did not compare Israelis to apartheid supremacists or Nazis, but only pointed out that those who unquestioningly support Israel (or any state) are as “patriotic” as the Germans or white South Africans who blindly supported their governments.

As for Frankel’s claim that Israel never attacked anyone first, he is obviously unaware of the 1956 British-Israeli invasion of Suez that ended only after Washington intervened. Finally, his parroting of Israel’s claim that it is merely defending itself fools no one. It is akin to someone taking over someone else’s house and then insisting that they are only protecting themselves when the inhabitants resist, which is essentially what is happening in Palestine.

» Shirley Groves

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.