To the Daily:
In reading Jason Runnels's tiresome and self-righteous letter about smoking ("Smokers violate others' rights, safety," 5/21/97), I became somewhat annoyed. As a light smoker, I find it to be generally irritating that a person who smokes cigarettes is instantly derided by some as a disgusting health hazard who should be shunned and reviled by good citizens everywhere. In defense of obviously evil, pernicious and crazed smokers everywhere, may I point out that in general, smokers are polite about smoking and will even - gasp - put out their cigarettes if asked.
Runnels points out that smokers generally infest the outdoors. Look, smokers don't have a choice in the matter. Given that smoking is banned in most public buildings, smokers have to stand outside in order to enjoy a simple vice. This is annoying but generally acceptable, and smokers put up with it. The last thing smokers need is a self-righteous do-gooder complaining about smokers outside of a building, especially when smokers do so that our smoke does not impinge upon those inside of the building. It's not as if smokers are deliberately attempting to fan smoke in the vicinity of non-smokers.
As for the "flick," the cigarette butts are going to the ground. Where else are they supposed to go? In places where there are no receptacles for the spent cancer sticks, what else should smokers do with them? Save them? Pocket the burning stub? I can see it now - if our clothes don't burn, we can turn them in for Marlboro Points in the hope that by the time we get 2,692,592,044 butts collected we'll have enough for that spiffy windbreaker. I would think that smokers would use the large municipal "ashtrays" if they were provided, but in most cases they are not.
In conclusion, smokers have taken non-smokers' rights into account by making quite a few concessions - not smoking in buildings, on airplanes or in the preferred-seating areas of restaurants. Give smokers a concession - minor in comparison - please cease and desist lecturing us about smoking in those self-righteous, arrogant tones as if we were children. We smoke with full knowledge about the health hazards and aesthetic concerns of our vice - now let us be.
Benjamin Kepple
LSA senior
To the Daily:
This letter is concerning the Daily's editorial on the 650-gram sentencing policy the state has for possession of cocaine or heroin ("650 to life," 5/28/97). Although the policy does not look at individual cases and instead passes a blanket sentence for possession greater than 650 grams, anyone who thinks that someone with approximately 1.5 pounds of cocaine is going to put it up just their nose is nuts. Keep in mind that these substances are sold by the gram, and anyone with 650 of them is going to distribute and should be punished accordingly.
The slim, slim potential for "lopsided justice," as you call it, is there but highly unlikely. Your article supports tough punishment for distribution, and this policy provides it. The law maintains its original purpose of throwing the book at distributors and should be kept as is.
Steven Shannon
Rackham
06-04-97
should be sent to: daily.letters@umich.edu | should be sent to: online.daily@umich.edu |