Letter: Conflict of rights needs to be fixed

Tuesday, Nov. 28, 2006 | 7:19 a.m.

Regarding Question 5, most letters I've read at some point refer to "rights." Smokers' rights, nonsmokers' rights and business owners' rights have all been used to justify different and often opposing points of view. How do we resolve this conflict of rights?

Best definition of an individual's rights I ever heard was this: "Your right to swing a baseball bat stops at my nose." I interpret this to mean that while everybody has the right of enjoyment, when person A's enjoyment impinges upon person B's enjoyment, A must hold back.

I'm a bar "enthusiast," and many smokers, recognizing I'm a nonsmoker, take care to avoid exhaling smoke in my direction, maybe switch their cigarette/cigar to the hand farthest from me, and likewise position the ashtray. Thus we're both able to continue our enjoyment.

Unfortunately, too many smokers, when politely asked to do the same, respond with something like: "It's a bar. If you don't like it go somewhere else." This is flat out unacceptable in "the world's greatest democracy," and I believe that together with the failure of tavern owners to ensure the enjoyment of all their customers, it galvanized nonsmokers to get behind Question 5.

So here's Question 5.5: If millions of smokers go to work each day and step outside to have their smoke, what's the problem with doing the same thing when they're in a bar? (If your response contains the words "right" or "rights," go back to the beginning of this letter).

Graham H. Tye, North Las Vegas