To the editor:

In arguing against a strong anti-smoking ordinance in Lawrence, a number of people recently either interviewed by the Journal-World or writing to it have phrased the issue as one of freedom of choice.

I certainly empathize with the threats to civil liberties we now face in our society, but with the dangers of secondhand smoke now so compelling, regulating smoking is no longer a freedom of choice issue. It is a public health issue. Would these persons object to restaurant inspections that assure us safe food? Seat-belt laws? Felon checks for gun registration? Regulating waste disposal? Fluoridation?

Should we open college classrooms to smoking and suggest that students who didn’t like it exercise their freedom of choice to find some other university to attend or drop out? How about opening up smoking to high schools but only for those 18 and older? Would these same people consider the residents of five states and 72 municipalities in which stringent restaurant and bar anti-smoking ordinances exist, including communities such as Tempe, Ariz., and Albuquerque, N.M., and Republican-governed states such as California and New York, victims of government oppression rather than beneficiaries of enlightened public policy?

Health is the issue here, not freedom of choice. Based on my research, almost a quarter of all Americans now live in communities free from the costs and hazards of secondhand smoking in all public places. Why can’t we in Lawrence?

Mike Fox,

Lawrence