Freedom should not infringe on others’ rights

In response to Edward Lowery’s letter (Herald, Nov. 30), he only appears to be concerned about his mother’s personal freedom. While I commend him for his devotion to his mother, what about the freedom of others’ to not breathe second-hand smoke? I have walked down Main Avenue countless times breathing in someone else’s smoke.

Smoking is an addiction (or vice, habit, pastime – people can justify their behavior with any number of terms). Just because you are addicted to a substance doesn’t mean those of us who aren’t should be subjected to it.

It’s funny how someone can expound about a perceived freedom without thinking about how it affects someone else.

Most cities and towns do not allow drinking in public places unless otherwise posted or permitted. I do not see why smoking should be exempted. People drinking do not generally subject others to second-hand alcohol exposure unless they trip and spill their drink on you.

Finally, I am a bit fed up with people threatening to boycott Durango. When I travel to another state, I expect to have to conform to their policies or laws. In California, I cannot speak on my mobile phone without a hands-free device (which I do not own) while driving. So I do not use my mobile phone when driving in California. Quite simple, really.

Paula Bradford

Durango