I would like to congratulate Adam Preiwisch on his remarkably feeble attack on the smoking ban. I admire his eloquent prose and usage of words with fancy extra syllables. His pseudo-intellectual approach of writing is evident, as he manages to string these incessantly wordy sentences together, while all at the same time really saying nothing. But this is beside the point. He prefaces right away that heâÄôs a nonsmoker, as if being a smoker would hurt his case any further? His reference to us nonsmokers as âÄúwhiny entitled minorities,âÄù is an amiable one, seeing by which we are actually the majority according to a survey conducted by the University of Minnesota âÄî and sheer common sense. And his most poignant argument is that there is no causal evidence linking secondhand smoke to lung cancer. Here are three concrete reasons why a smoking ban would be beneficial to all parties involved. Number one, your habit smells. ThereâÄôs nothing more amusing than seeing people huddled outside a building, dragging one down. And in the subzero temperatures we experience in Minnesota, having to inhale that stinky smoke is completely unnecessary. Secondly, itâÄôs great economically. Think of all the money smokers will save and could have saved by not fueling their habit. And with the economy in shambles, it makes sense. And lastly, your habit smells. So there you have it. Why should nonsmokers have to put up with the crappy smell of cigarettes just because someone else doesnâÄôt possess the willpower to stop doing something that will eventually kill them? Preiwisch is pretty hell-bent on there being no conclusive evidence between secondhand smoke and lung cancer. IâÄôd be willing to bet that heâÄôd be just lining up if a study were conducted where heâÄôd be subjected to secondhand smoke on a regular basis to see what effects it had on his body. Wait. Smoking bans are not preposterous, why? Simply put: You wonâÄôt smell, and you save money. Nathan Proft University student