Progressive action
I'd like to jump on the "no smoking in restaurants" bandwagon ("Pa. Lawmakers, We Need Smoke-Free Dining," Jan. 7 letters). Because this is a very emotional issue, let me say I hate the smoke, not the smoker. Smokers have rights, but not when their smoke has such a strong effect on others.
The tobacco companies are "coughing" up big bucks to the states. Along with the anti-smoking ad campaigns those bucks are financing, we need to actually set a strong, physical example.
California restaurants have been nonsmoking for a number of years. The food and entertainment industry did not curl up and die. New York City is now taking a progressive stance.
It is time for Pennsylvania to look forward and join the leaders in this movement. Pennsylvania keeps struggling with its image as a state, as Pittsburgh struggles as a city. We must immediately begin to shed the "smoky" image. Clearing the air in our eateries is an excellent start.
DON BEST
Butler
Use market power
While I am a nonsmoker who prefers to be in smoke-free environments, I am astounded by demands from some nonsmokers that we create laws to ban smoking in privately owned restaurants ("Pa. Lawmakers, We Need Smoke-Free Dining," Jan. 7 letters).
Many people supporting such laws claim that being "forced" to breathe smoke in places like restaurants violates their right to clean, healthy air.
I have no problem with anti-smoking laws for truly public venues or those funded by nonsmokers' tax dollars. But banning smoking in privately owned restaurants ignores the rights of those owning and operating the property, as well as those of smokers.
Furthermore, nonsmokers are not dragged and forced to dine in smoke-filled rooms. At privately owned venues, you have no one but yourself to blame for sticking around to breathe smoke.
There is a less offensive, libertarian remedy to such busy-body laws: Simply avoid restaurants that are too smoky and tell the management so it knows how much business the smoke clouds are costing the restaurant -- there are many of us who avoid these places. And tell those venues with fresh, clean air why you reward them with your business, as well.
But let's be clear: Nobody is forcing anyone to breathe smoke in restaurants, and overbearing laws to ban smoking (like countless other poorly conceived, self-serving laws) only hasten America's slowly eroding distinction as a land of freedom and liberty.
JOHANNES C. ERNHARTH
Aspinwall
Editor's note: The writer is a board member of the Libertarian Party of Pittsburgh.
Unfair hostility
I wish to respond to Oren Spiegler's Jan. 7 letter about smoke-free dining ("Pa. Lawmakers, We Need Smoke-Free Dining," Jan. 7 letters). I agree with Mr. Spiegler that smoking is indeed a terrible habit and is deadly to others. I understand that it is his right to go somewhere and be able to enjoy a smoke-free environment. However, it is also the smokers' right to be able to "enjoy" their habit in a nonhostile environment.
You, Mr. Spiegler, have the ability to remove your family from the smoking section. There are several fine establishments in Pittsburgh that have made the smoking section rather secluded so as to not bother the nonsmokers.
Smokers have been given a terrible price to pay for the ignorance of how terribly addicting the habit was. In addition, people who smoke are paying a very high tax for their habit.
People choose to smoke, and they have the same freedoms as people who choose not to. It's very unfortunate that we make these people feel like they are a lower-class, disease-infested group; they are being discriminated against just because of their choice. What is next?
LOU ANNE BARNES
East Pittsburgh
Behind the times
Regarding the Jan. 7 letters from Heidi Malloy ("Solve the Problems First") and Oren Spiegler ("Pa. Lawmakers, We Need Smoke-Free Dining"), I agree completely. We as residents of this provincial state are not being heard.
We love Pittsburgh and the state and love to show it off. However, it is getting so hard.
Why should we have to walk through the smoky bar area or the smoking section of a restaurant to get to the nonsmoking section? There are restaurants I refuse to go to because of the smoke problem.
Who in the city and state government cares what we say? I look forward to a reply from these leaders; Ms. Malloy is right -- a poll of 70 people regarding Pittsburgh's image is not the answer.
SUSAN MELLOR
Wilkins
E-mail this story 
