Andrea Miller column

Smoking should be allowed in public

I disagree with Andrea Miller’s colunn, “Smoking ban foes a dying breed” (Just a Thought, The Enterprise, Feb. 21.) I don’t smoke, and I oppose a ban on public smoking.

It’s like this. People who smoke cigarettes, pipes, or cigars are not second rate citizens. Nor should they be marginalized because they smoke. They do not have a right to smoke in my or anybody else’s face, but I do think we Americans, who trace our heritage in freedom and self-determination, do owe it to all people to allow them to live as they choose so long as they harm no one else. In the case of adult smokers I would allow them to have public places where they might rendevous with other adult smokers, kick back, talk with each other, and, yes, smoke together.

Can we be large enough to allow them this small luxury in life? They already know they are going to die early compared to nonsmokers. If they die of smoking related illnesses it will be first-hand smoke that gets them. Non-smokers like me should allow them the room to be themselves instead of having to publicly comport with my desires for their health.

I accord the owners of restaurants, bars, casinos, and other public places the right to create smoking areas for smokers and non-smoking areas for non-smokers. I would even grant them the right to post signs in front of their businesses advertising they serve smokers. The numbers of those types of businesses would be few and should not bother anyone but people like Andrea who can’t stand others’ smoking practices.

Regardless, my body does not belong to Andrea Miller or Senator Rosemary McAuliffe. It does not belong to the government. It belongs to me. Your body belongs to you. Keep your smoke out of my face – even government regulatory smoke – and I’m happy.

CRAIG SPICER

Lynnwood

Edmonds schools

Levy request was

hardly unreasonable

I realize that one who has an opposing opinion should discuss only the opinion and not the author of the opinion, but sometimes that is difficult to do. In a recent issue of the Enterprise, Mark Williams stated that “The teachers and administrators are apparently ignorant or apathetic about what goes on in the real world.” His reference is to the request for the school levy that failed on Feb. 4. 1 wonder if Williams thinks those teachers and administrators are going to benefit personally if the levy had passed. And I wonder if he realizes that they too pay any tax increase.

Is the education of our children dependent on each slowdown in our economy? Or do we adults try to make sure that our kids are keeping up or even moving ahead with the advances that are taking place in our society? Every corporation requires an educated work force, and where they construct their workplaces most often depends on an available and educated work force. Do we want to fall even farther behind?

The technology levy asked for help in bringing our Edmonds school district up to the standards of most of the surrounding school districts. A visit to our schools’ technology labs should provide a quick wake-up call. The construction levy asked that we bring our schools up to safety standards or to conditions that meet current constr-uction codes. Can any prudent person ask that we keep our young people in buildings that are desperately in need of upgrading or replacing? How many students can we compress into a building already overcrowded?

Did the school district ask for more than our community can afford? Or did they ask for something that will benefit the entire body of our students and the future of our community? I also wonder how much input the teachers had in determining the levy amount?

DON HOLMES

Edmonds

Clintons’ benefits

Other retired officials receive the same

I was surprised and disappointed to read (Enterprise letters, Feb. 7) that both the editor and Mark Doennebrink had fallen for an anti-Clinton Internet hoax and had uncritically passed this fabrication on to readers.

I received the same package of falsehoods and exaggerations in my e-mail that Mr. Doennebrink received in his. Apparently, he typed up his copy as a letter to you and mailed it in without considering whether it was true. I was more fortunate. The acquaintance who had sent the e-mail to me did take the trouble to consider what he had done. The next day, he sent a follow-up in which he apologized for circulating a phony report.

In fact, the Clintons have the same retirement benefits as other presidents and senators – no more. Their Secret Service protection and the associated costs are exactly the same as for other former presidents. Any payments to the Clintons are determined by a standard government formula used for all former presidents.

The Clintons have made mistakes and remain controversial. As public figures, they are legitimate targets for fair criticism. All of us are entitled to our opinions. However, some people remain so eager to smear the former president and current senator that they create false allegations. I have no reason to believe that Mr. Doennebrink did this, but his source did.

The Enterprise editor should have recognized obvious clues and either checked further or declined to print a politically motivated false diatribe.

JAMES E. THYDEN

Edmonds

Lynnwood police

Department is doing a very good job

In December I had the opportunity to do a ride-along with Lynnwood Police Department. I must say it was interesting though not much was going on but making a few traffic stops. And everyone stopped was treated fairly. I must say too that the responses of communications was great in how fast an officer gets to the scene and all. As citizens of Lynnwood we can feel protected. I say Lynnwood has a fine police department and to keep up the good work. Thank you. I think everyone in Lynnwood should do a ride-along.

DAVID DeLAMATER

Lynnwood