In her Sept. 3 letter to The Sun, Shirley Ann Mullis writes to
say she feels her rights were violated at the stadium because an usher asked her to stand behind the alcove to smoke her cigarettes.
She feels that since her admission price was the same as non-smokers and the stadium is open air, she should not be the one to have to move. She also resented the fact that the woman she assumes complained did so without talking directly to her.
It was ironic that just after I read this letter, a nine-year-old friend told me how every game his family attends at the stadium is ruined by a woman who also has a mini-season ticket and sits directly in front of them smoking. He says sometimes it makes him nauseous and burns his eyes, and his clothes stink afterward.
It is a common incorrect assumption by many smokers that if they are outside, their smoke affects no one.
Additionally, the price of admission gives them the right to sit and watch the game. It does not give them the right to do something that forces others to abandon their seats.
Because cigarettes are addictive and the smoker deprived of nicotine becomes irritable, it is no small wonder that a non-smoker makes the prudent decision to let the usher do the enforcing rather than create a scene.
In previous decades, rights of the non-smoker did not exist except in elevators.
Now that our society is becoming enlightened about the myriad dangers of smoking, the numbers of non-smokers are growing and the medical field is daring to be more outspoken. The days of smokers subjecting everyone around them to the exhaust products of their habit are dwindling.
Sorry, but it stinks, it's irritating to the nose and eyes, it fouls hair and clothing and it's carcinogenic to breathe.
If you are so addicted to the substance that two hours without inhaling cigarette smoke is a real problem, the problem is not the lady sitting next to you.
With reference to the recent editorial entitled, "Making Monkey of Sign Controls" (Sept. 10), the sign industry as a whole agrees with your editorial.
Almost as misunderstood as the regulations themselves are the intentions of the sign contractors and sign artists who benefit more from regulations that allow creative works of sign advertising balanced by a permit process that restricts unsafe, junk signs that clutter the environment and often present a visual hazard.
A reputable sign company survives on the word-of-mouth reputation gained from producing quality work and not by proliferation of unsightly signs.
Baltimore County is currently attempting the arduous task of updating its sign laws. In the process, the opinions of all concerned are being considered -- community associations, zoning and planning personnel, business people and sign contractors.
The result could be some of the most progressive regulations in the country that include the welfare of everyone
The office of Anne Arundel County Executive Bob Neall has indicated that it is receptive to new regulations considering the objections of the community as well as the needs of businesses.
It will take time to sort through the specific needs of Anne Arundel County, as the issue is much more complicated than the survival of a mechanical gorilla. However, it is both possible and desirable.
The sign contractors are very interested in regulation and enforcement as well as willing to participate in the creation process.
It is my opinion that if the sign contractors were able to have a permit process with some creative control over the signage production, the result would be more visually pleasing, less cluttered and safe. . . .
Now, how can we go about regulating those unsightly utility poles?
William C. Pearce Jr.
The writer is president of the Maryland Sign Association.
M. R. Decoys
I have only one comment to make concerning thos unmanned State Police cruisers found parked along I-95:
M. Aren't Cops. M. R. Decoys.
William F. Alcarese
Your Sept. 13 editorial, "Confusing the Abortion Issue," state that the coalition opposing the abortion law on Maryland's Nov. 3 ballot is trying to confuse voters. After much discussion, you sum up the meaning of the referendum in the last two paragraphs:
"What's at stake in the referendum is not the right to know about the development of a fetus or the risks of abortion and alternatives to it. What is at risk is the right to have access to a legal and medically safe abortion if a woman is not able to carry a pregnancy to term.
"Voters who do know the issues and who do not want the government to tell a woman she must bear a child should vote yes in November."
In my opinion, you confuse the issue when you speak of the right to have access to a legal and medically safe abortion if a woman is not able to carry a pregnancy to term.