Is it business or health?

I wish to air my views about the stand as laid out in the article "GRTU threatens to ignore anti-smoking rules" (February 19).

The GRTU is arguing that anti-smoking rules are "oppressive". I feel that, as a non-smoker, having to enter smoke-filled establishments is even more so. A typical night out inevitably gives my clothes the smell of an ashtray, even though the source of the odour is not mine.

It is the cigarette smoke that annoys people who do not smoke; not vice-versa. There are many areas where regulations are in place so that people do not annoy others in a social environment, such as noise regulations, and rightfully so. It seems to be a natural extension to this social rule that non-smokers should be accommodated before smokers are.

Leaving to an establishment the option of making that establishment non-smoking or not would be useless; it would just result in maintaining the status quo, leaving non-smokers with no choice but to damage their health with cigarette smoke. In all probability, the only change would be that the vast majority of establishments would put a sticker on their doors indicating that smoking is allowed. I cannot foresee establishments for young people implementing no-smoking policies and, with all the bars and discotheques being a smoker's haven, they are a great source of the peer-pressure which is making the young take up smoking.

The GRTU argues that the rules would damage business. The main issue in this motion is, in my opinion, what is our priority, business or health? Hopefully, our government has set its own priorities straight and is strong enough to implement this brave motion, not to succumb to threats to hijack it.