Why is it that those against a smoking ban resort to negative name labels to describe non-smokers? "Weak," "thought challenged," "do-gooders" are just a few.

And the idea that smokers are the ones being discriminated against is ludicrous. Both the smoker and non-smoker start out on an expected even plane before they enter a business for service, that is, a means to pay for the service or product rendered. That does not empower either smoker or non-smoker to bring in or do something they like to do while enjoying the service provided, especially if it infringes on other patrons.

And there is a difference between an annoyance and a health hazard. An annoyance could be bringing a boom box to blast music, a cell phone constantly ringing and answering with long and loud conversations or maybe just a loud, vulgar conversation with people at your table. How long would it take before a complaint brings management to shut it down or ask you to leave?

As far as I know, other's music, cell phone chatter or vulgarity doesn't leave detectable and harmful chemical compounds in and on others around them. Just as smokers and non-smokers should leave the annoying things just mentioned outside the business, smokers should do the same with smoking. We all want to enjoy the service or product of a business, be it a restaurant or casino, and we only need to bring in that "means" to pay.

Like an old saying that goes something like this, "A man's right to swing his arms ends where the other man's nose begins," we need to stop the swinging — figuratively speaking, of course.

Terry Stricker, Lake Saint Louis