Madam, - This Mr Joe Walsh who expresses such concern for the economic consequences for publicans of a public health measure designed to save thousands of human lives couldn't possibly be the same Mr Walsh who virtually closed the country down when cows were threatened with a non-fatal disease a short while ago.
Or could he? - Yours, etc.,
TERRY GRIFFIN,
Aughrim Street,
Dublin 7.
Madam, - Richard Bannister (July 15th) writes of the right of non-smokers to have a drink in smoke-free pubs. So what about the right of smokers to smoke while drinking?
The point of the proposed ban is to remove freedom of choice: it will not be permitted to have a pub for smokers only. Why not permit diversity? Why not treat adults as capable of making an informed choice?
I'd also like to point out how strangely this debate is framed. Pubs sell a potentially lethal drug called alcohol whose effects are well known. We use phrases such as "second-hand smoking", but no one talks of the effects of "second-hand drinking" - being assaulted by drunks, or killed by drunken drivers.
The logic of the ban on smoking in pubs is inescapable: there must be a ban on consuming alcohol in pubs too. - Yours, etc.,
PAUL POWER,
Shanliss Avenue,
Dublin 9.
Madam, - Philip Donnelly (July 14th) objects to what he describes as the pernicious meddling by the State into people's freedom to live whatever way they want.
He thinks that "the simple enjoyment of a cigarette with a pint at the end of a day's work" is a basic human right.
I couldn't agree more. The problem is that it is not "a" cigarette and a pint that most smokers want, but one damn cigarette after another until the air in the bar is unbreathable to all except themselves. - Yours, etc.,
DECLAN KELLY,
Whitechurch Road,
Rathfarnham,
Dublin 14.