Dear Editor,
Jonathan Titchenal's Nov. 21 article about a ban on smoking grossly missed the mark.
What the author claims to be so upset about is "the fact that entire cities want to ban smoking of any kind anywhere in the city." I have never heard of any such city - even Muncie's recent attempt to ban smoking never threatened to ban it completely. Smoking would still be allowed in several areas, including homes and areas outside of places of employment. ... A ban on smoking of any degree is not meant to outcast smokers, but rather smoking.
It is clear in the article that the author feels smokers' rights are being infringed. However, as the law stands, non-smokers' right to breathe clean air is the one being infringed. Second-hand smoke has been repeatedly proven to cause cancer. ...
People have the right to smoke, drink and even watch pornography. Does this mean we should allow drinkers to drive under the influence and put innocent lives in danger? Does this mean we should allow pornography to be shown in public places to corrupt and endanger the minds of young children?
The answer is "no." The same should go for smoking - if you wish to jeopardize your own health, be my guest, but once you choose to jeopardize mine, a bold line has been crossed, and something must be done.
Julie Bugert
Junior
Read More
Three Air Jam teams take home the win
October 12, 2012Nineteen teams shimmied, shook and flipped for a sold out John R. Emens Auditorium on Thursday night during the 25th annual Air Jam.
Bill Clinton Speaks at North Central High School
October 12, 2012Former President's Speech Could Have Effect on State Senate Race
