To the editor:

I am writing in response to Todd Crenshaw’s letter to the editor on May 6 in which he requested that I address the “health implications” associated with my argument against a smoking ban.

I did not mention any health implications in my previous letter because there are none to consider. Each person is the sole arbiter of his own life and, as such, has both the only say in all decisions that affect that life and sole responsibility for any consequences resulting from those decisions. If someone makes the decision to eat or work at a restaurant that allows smoking, that person cannot then claim to be a victim of the conditions in which he placed himself.

Under no circumstance should anyone coerce another person by initiating force, but this is what the supporters of a smoking ban are attempting. Ignoring the property rights of restaurant owners and patrons, they twist the issue into a battle between themselves and an imaginary force of thugs who live to blow smoke in the faces of nonsmokers. In reality, their goal is to stop everyone from making the “wrong” personal decision, and they plan on using more than persuasion to reach their goal.

Supporters of a ban may be against smoking, but in this debate they are the side that is blowing smoke. The only pertinent issue in this debate is each person’s right to his life and property, and they have picked the wrong side.

Darren Cauthon,

Lawrence