Madam, - Ronnie O'Toole (July 24th) paints a picture of a brutal majority oppressing the noble minority by engaging in what he calls "electoral dictatorship" to ban smoking from pubs.
How would he feel if a minority group decided to organise a rave outside his house at 2 a.m? Would he engage in a fair and inclusive process of democratic debate, or call the gardaí to remove the anti-social noise makers?
Must everything be debated ad-nauseam? This is a circular argument which will never be solved.
At certain times in history society simply decides that certain behaviour is unacceptable.
It used to be considered acceptable to dump one's sewage on the public highway. We evolved, it is now considered unacceptable.
It used to be considered acceptable for parents and teachers to beat children half to death. We evolved, it is now considered unacceptable.
It used to be considered acceptable for a man to beat his wife. We evolved, it is now considered unacceptable.
It used to be considered acceptable to lock up unmarried mothers. We evolved, it is now considered unacceptable.
It used to be considered acceptable to poison innocent bystanders with cigarette smoke. It is no longer acceptable. It's time for Ronnie O'Toole and the rest of us to evolve. - Yours etc.,
BRENDAN WOODS Bergéstraat, Brussels.
Madam, - I am sure that I don't need to remind Mr Ronnie O'Toole (July 24th) of Article 23 subsection 1 and Article 29 subsection 2 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights, but just in case, I will anyway.
Article 23 (1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
Article 29 (2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
In other words, people have a right to work in a healthy environment, wherever they may choose to work. Whatever perceived right that he and other smokers believe they have to be allowed smoke cannot contravene this right of workers. - Yours etc.,
GORDON SYME, College Park Grove, Ballinteer, Dublin.
Madam, - I'm appalled by the arrant nonsense being peddled about the smoking ban in pubs. Mr Ronnie O'Toole's comments on the Irish Council for Civil Liberties are a poor attempt at irony. For years the majority - non-smokers - have been forced to put up with second-hand smoke in pubs and restaurants. Mr O'Toole refers to the trade-off between costs and benefits to society in other areas. I know of no benefits to society of smoking. The risks and costs in human pain and misery of smoking and passive smoking are well documented.
This proposal is an act of political courage and wisdom by the Irish Government and, like the ban on smoky fuel and the penalty points scheme, is to be welcomed. - Yours etc.,
DERMOT CASEY, Rathfarnham Dublin 14.
Madam, - The Irish Hospitality Industry Alliance claims that the Government's ban on smoking in hotels, pubs, restaurants and guest houses will cost jobs (Irish Times, July 22nd). Maybe so, but it is likely to save lives. Which is more important? - Yours, etc.,
FELIX M. LARKIN, Vale View Lawn, Dublin 18.