Dear Editor:
The ban on smoking the D.C. Council is considering seeks to prohibit smoking in private businesses, namely bars and nightclubs. While the government has a right to ban smoking in its own facilities, imposing restrictions on privately owned buildings is overstepping authority. Business owners are currently free to decide whether to allow smoking or not. Councilwoman Carol Schwartz (R-At Large) told The Washington Post on Sunday that "there are already 200 smoke-free restaurants in the city." If non-smokers would prefer not to be around smokers, they should support businesses that ban smoking rather than trying to impose their will on others through legislation.
Non-smokers have a right to fresh air, but not on someone else's property. If the will of the people is to ban smoking, business will certainly follow. Until then, the government needs to step out. Rather than spending time and money lobbying for bans, the anti-smoking lobby should open up a bar or nightclub that prohibits it. Such an establishment would certainly have a throng of eager patrons.
David Pomeroy Vice President, College Libertarians
Dear Editor:
This letter is in reference to the editorial by Seth Johnson titled "Take action on immigration," published in The Eagle Monday. Mr. Johnson's article is the quintessential example of uninformed xenophobia and tergiversation of the truth. In his editorial, Mr. Johnson lashes out against illegal immigrants - particularly those from Mexico - and those who seek to protect their rights. While Mr. Johnson is correct in condemning illegal immigration for what it is, the breaking of U.S. laws, it is unjustified to equate those who go north of the Rio Grande with those who attacked America on Sept. 11, 2001. There is simply no parallel. Immigrants who crossed the Rio Grande for economic reasons did so at a great personal sacrifice and they, like our Founding Fathers, came here searching for a better future. The 9/11 hijackers sought to undermine the democratic tolerance of a multicultural and pluralistic society that Mr. Johnson seems to reject.
Illegal immigration is a problem that must be addressed, not by calling those who contribute to our economy "bogus individuals" like Mr. Johnson does, but by encouraging an informed debate based on undistorted truth. To this, Mr. Johnson's piece is nothing but a great disservice. Arguing that "illegals can also vote" is not correct. While some counties in Maryland do allow non-citizens and non-residents to vote on local elections, a non-citizen or non-resident is not the same as an illegal immigrant. I suggest that Mr. Johnson research his arguments better before making them public.
In the end, no human is inhuman enough to himself be illegal. The debate on how to address illegal immigration must be carried out in terms that respect the dignity of people who, after all, have come here to realize the American dream.
Raul A. Burgos Senior, SIS
