Blowing Smoke at Parsons

Re “Arguments Against Bar Smoking Ban Almost Seduce,” June 12:

I hate smoking. I think it is a dirty, disgusting habit. And I, as a nonsmoker, agree with Dana Parsons’ column that secondhand smoke is harmful.

However, there has been no publicized evidence that has indicated at what level and for what length of exposure time is secondhand smoke significantly harmful.

The anti-smoking propaganda machine would like us, the public, to believe that lung cancer and any other health complications caused by cigarette smoke are contagious--”Secondhand smoke kills.”

Imagine where HIV-infected people would be if the public only knew that there is no cure for AIDS and only knew sketchy details about the conditions under which HIV is transmitted. Paranoia regarding HIV has been avoided by informing the public of the very specific ways it is transmitted. California is approaching paranoia regarding secondhand smoke because we are only fed half-truths by the anti-smoking campaign.

Yes, secondhand smoke may be harmful, but what gives the state the right to regulate all the bars when they may not even know how many nonsmokers patronize these smoky havens, or how often? They may not even know how many nonsmokers work at bars or what nonsmokers’ lengths of employment at bars tend to be.

I don’t support this law. Marilyn Pritchard, a county anti-smoking official quoted by Parsons, should know who the victims are that she’s trying to protect by enforcing this smoking ban. She seems to only be concerned that an employee might feel peer pressure (something everyone begins to deal with in adolescence) and choose to work in a smoky carcinogenic environment.

JEFFREY DEUTSCH

Huntington Beach

*

Regarding Dana Parsons’ June 14 column, I believe the churches have a “moral” responsibility to protect the emotional, physical and mental well-being of their parishioners.

South County has been set upon by the right-wing Lincoln Club and their pious practitioners in Newport Beach. Their tail has been wagging the dog of Orange County for as long as I can remember.

There are 20,000 senior citizens in Leisure World living out the last of their lives under what will be the landing path for flights 24 hours a day if the Newport Beachers get their way. It will destroy the lives of all of them and hundreds of thousands of others, children in school, families in their homes and, yes, people in their houses of worship.

I understand the necessity of the division between church and state, but some issues transcend that and this is truly one of them.

The churches have an obligation to protect their flocks. I think they should have entered the righteous fight long ago--but as they say, “better late than never.”

GLORIA MAGIDSON

Mission Viejo

*

I did not agree with Dana Parsons’ June 14 column, nor do I agree with the church leaders in our community who refuse to get involved in the “politics” of the airport issue.

I do not look at it as a mere political issue, but as tending to the needs of the “flock.” In times of trouble, if we were hungry and cold they would find a way to feed and clothe us.

There is not one individual in any of the congregations on Church Row whose life would not be adversely affected if the airport becomes a reality. So why are these leaders of the flock content to sit back and let those who are pushing for better things for themselves do so at the expense of others? These “others” are their very own parishioners. I do not understand it.

MARTHA HELLMANN

Laguna Hills