[The Brazil Times nameplate] Fair ~ 67°F  
High: 65°F ~ Low: 41°F
Tuesday, Oct. 13, 2015

Trampling on civil rights?

Sunday, June 3, 2012

To the Editor:

I realize people are tired of the smoking/no smoking controversy.

Our government, local, state and federal, seems to feel it can make laws telling us what we can and cannot do.

So, now Clay County will be non-smoking, and we know it will be put through whether business owners want it or the public wants it. Non-smokers want us to quit, and that is fine.

I have begun using an e-cigarette, but still do like to have a real one, too.

Here is the thing though; does anyone realize that if we did quit smoking, the rest of the population would then have to be responsible for all the taxes we pay on a pack of cigarettes?

And trust me, it is high.

I am sure that people wouldn't like that.

I can see probably in restaurants that the no smoking is politically correct thing. However, when you go into a bar, you know there will be smoking.

That is part of it, being a bar, for Pete's sake.

And I say; if you don't like the smoke, then don't go in. If you are 21 and over, you can make your own decisions, right? That should be one of them.

You know, a non-smoker can stand and complain about a smoker and that is not considered rude at all.

But when I go out to eat, I want to enjoy my food, talk with family and friends, and yet, there is always a family with a child who is having a temper tantrum, screaming and crying.

Now, if I were to go to that parent and ask them to please take the child outside as that child is disrupting my mealtime, I would be tarred and feathered for being rude.

Parents, for some reason, see nothing wrong with this, but would be the first to complain about smoking.

Has anyone given thought to make any laws about "no children admitted" to restaurants? If a business owner had a sign on the door advising children not to be admitted, the public would just go ballistic.

Here is the thing: There are some people who will quit going out to eat because of the rules on smoking and they're not being a smoking section. I still say this will hurt some businesses.

I still think each individual business owner should be able to decide if there is or isn't smoking in their establishment, and for Pete's sake, aren't there more important things to make laws about and take care?

We are always talking about something being against a person's civil rights and yet, with each new rule or law, there is always someone whose civil rights have been taken away from them.

Jaqui Griffith,