Mail letters to Letters, Santa Fe Reporter, PO Box 2306, Santa Fe NM 87504, deliver them to 132 E. Marcy St., fax them to 988-5348, e-mail them to editor@sfreporter.com or use our online form.
WHY THIS?
We are still trying to figure out why your paper would write an article about one of its own writers [Cover story, April 26:
]…What's next? A feature article about Jonanna Widner?
Kristen Peterson & Bernie Lieving
Santa Fe
PALATE PAL
Recently I decided to enjoy a burger and live music on the patio at Cowgirl. What luck, no one directly near me was smoking [J spot, April 12:
; Letters,
and
]. At first, the smokers appeared to use judgment in their smoking behavior; they did not chain smoke or light up when someone else did. This allowed the air to circulate. Interestingly, four women waiting to be seated were wearing (lots of) bug spray and toilet freshener and this was more offensive to my palate than the cigarette smoke. However, as the evening went on and entertainment began, the smoke became unremitting. I guess the judgment referred to earlier waned after a couple drinks. Perhaps the smoking ban is good idea since moderation is a lost
modus operandi
in this day. Smokers' (and fragrance wearers') lack of moderation, without a doubt, affects my health. I did not stay at the Cowgirl to watch the entertainment. Even though I left early, I still suffered the next day with a sinus headache and sore throat. Yes, chemicals in the air we breathe affect our health and perhaps a less pertinent point is it affects our palates. I would like to mention another dining experience. The Georgia O'Keeffe Café offers a suburb dining experience right down to having restrooms without nasty, stinky air fresheners. When I thanked the manager for this small but significant detail, he said, "Of course. Air fresheners would ruin the palate!" Yes! Air fresheners, cigarette smoke, over-applied perfume and cologne-all chemicals-affect our health, and our palates. If health is unimportant to those people against the smoking ban, perhaps they would be willing to consider the importance of enjoying the taste of food?? The bottom line is smoke-free restaurants make sense, and I certainly hope to see the City of Santa Fe step up to the plate like other cities have and strengthen its current ordinance.
Lana Hamilton, MPH
Santa Fe
SMOKIN'
Whiners get to go everywhere, we can't escape them, they will search us out, then complain about our natural habitat. We indulgers are an endangered species, yet whiners are encouraged to propagate instead of being culled. I am a non-smoker but it is fine by me that there's still a sacred enclave where folks can go to get away from jackasses, the politically correct, the spiritually pompous. There needs to be at least one place, say like Evangelo's, a smoky enclave where only the wicked, the hopeful and hopeless, the lost, the near dead, the improbable, those who run from health, those who don't seek enlightenment, the issue-laden, bikers, skins, cowpunks, vampires, gigolos, gigolettes and dumbfounded tourists can go to get away from an increasingly intolerant world. This town is full of enclaves where we Others are not allowed entry. My God, we are down to our last common-man, working-stiff sacred space. If some of us aren't allowed a smoke at the appropriate time, they will explode/implode and/or kill. People usually avoid our place, they take one whiff and head into the wind. I've seen giddy girls take one step in, hold their nose and then go. Musicians proudly say "No, I won't go into that dive." Cops come in here to smoke and chill. What about Indians who burn tobacco, cedar and sage? What about that god-awful, sickening incense in church? People come to town for the ambience and the history, yet the smoky bawdy houses, backroom politics, poker and pool, cowboy cheroots and Indian pipes are to become but sad memories. For those who insist on a better life for me and mine, recall this sublime quotation, that the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Alex Jacobs
Santa Fe
DESIRES VS. RIGHTS
I write this letter with the sad understanding that it will be futile. Unfortunately, our society no longer properly understands or respects freedom. As the push for a total smoking ban heats up, it is important to step back and examine what principles are really involved. The issue is both a lot simpler and more important than most people believe. The issue is about freedom and property rights on the one hand, and increasing government power and the loss of liberty on the other.
Before the original Santa Fe smoking ban, local businesses and consumers had solved the problem of ETS exposure in an elegant and voluntary manner. The vast majority of restaurants and retail establishments were smoke-free. This happened because business has an interest in accommodating their customers. Those people who wanted to dine in a smoke-free environment had the majority of restaurants to choose from. Those people who wanted to smoke still had choices. Those who cared deeply about the issue, one way or the other, had the ability to check the smoking status of any restaurant or bar. The claim that employees did not have this choice is simply false. Employees, like everyone else, make choices about what they value and act accordingly. This is how a free market works. The solution is voluntary, diverse and does not require the use of force. This is how civilized adults, living in a free society, work together.
The approach of the anti-smoking nannies is the exact opposite. It polarizes people, it undermines personal responsibility and it advocates the use of force to get our way. The consequences of this agenda will continue to be deeply injurious to the freedom of individuals in this country. In short, it empowers government to force others to cater to our desires. I consider this to be immoral. Even if the fantastic health claims made by activists about ETS exposure were true (they are not) it would be immoral for any group to use government force to impose their will on others. How many anti-war protesters correctly understand that it is immoral for the Bush administration to use force to get its way, but still consider it appropriate for government to use force to get their way? In a free society we have the right to influence our environment through peaceful means: argument, persuasion, selective patronization, etc…No one has the right to force their will on others. Sadly, most people disagree.
The nanny activists pervert the meaning of rights and deliver increasingly unaccountable power to government. As they systematically marginalize property rights, they also elevate desires to the status of rights. One may have a desire that every private business ban smoking, but this desire is not a right. The only real rights that exist in this entire debate are property rights. I am concerned about this issue because I believe that it legitimizes forces that will eventually destroy our freedom and quality of life. It is dangerously naïve to assume that we can empower government to violate the rights of others, while keeping our own rights sacred.
Jeremy Parfitt
Santa Fe
The Reporter welcomes original, signed letters to the editor. Letters (no more than 200 words) should refer to specific articles in the Reporter. They may be edited for clarity and space. Please include address and phone number for verification purposes; these will not be published.
